The Investigation | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

X

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1

    The Investigation

    "Gilbert West said he would write a book against the resurrection of Jesus Christ. West was a poet and Historian (1703-1756) who knew a lot of history, but of the one most important One, of Christ, he knew
    nothing. Lord Littleton said he would write a book showing that Paul was never converted on the road to Damascus. They considered these two, foundations to Christianity. The resurrection of Christ and conversion."

    "Months went by and they met again. One said to the other, 'How are you getting on with your book?' 'Not so good, I'm afraid I don�t know enough about it to write.' 'I think,' West said to Littleton, 'You�ll have to tell me some of the data,' only to receive the answer, 'I afraid I don�t know it. We'll have to study the evidence from the Bible.'

    "Months later they met again. Littleton asked West, 'How are you coming with your book against the resurrection of Christ?' Gilbert West said, 'After my studying the evidence I have come to the conclusion that Jesus did arise from the dead and I have accepted Him as my Saviour and written my book to prove that He did arise from the dead.' Littleton then acknowledged that after studying the evidence he was persuaded that Paul was really converted, and he accepted the Gospel and wrote for the affirmative."

    Source
    http://www.ecbragg.net/Class%20Notes...ogeticsIII.htm

  2. #2
    Moral of the story: expand your pool of sources if you don't want to be drawn into inadequate conclusions.

    The sources and methods of study have grown since the 1700s. Understandably, West and Littleton had few of these tools at hand.

    Because Littleton and West couldn't find any other source, they settled on one source and based all their research from the limited point of view afforded by a single source.

    Far from being praised, Littleton and West's method would be laughed at in many university departments today.

  3. #3
    I remember that I had a similar discussion with a Christian long ago. His argument was something like, "God exists because Jesus Christ is a real, historical person."

    It was fairly easy to debunk, because all the accounts that we have about Christ's resurrection are all from Christians. We don't have pagan accounts of what actually happened. You know how legends grow-up around charismatic people.

  4. #4
    Its funny how most christians get all excited about something they think finally proves their case, but after a few rebuttals... not a single word

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by decoy47
    You know how legends grow-up around charismatic people.
    Though stated very simply, this a very complicated insight and a good question about the reliability of the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospels.

    In answering this we need to view them into two separate issues.

    1. The standard scholarly dating for the earliest documents of Mark was in the AD 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the 90s AD. Now even with these dates, some contemporary followers of Christ at that time and even unbelievers would have been alived at that time. These were within their lifetimes so we could have heard arguments against them.

    2. Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch 400 years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C. Yet scholars find them as trustworthy and consider only material as legendary after 500 years of Alexander's death.

    Compared to Alexander the Great's biographies, the Gospels were a news flash in ancient times. It's just like getting a report from CNN.


    ---------------------
    Dr. Bloomberg even suggests that the Gospels could have been written much earlier than that considered by scholars above. Here are some of his points:

    1. The Book of Acts was written unfinished because it does not discuss the death of Paul. Paul was a main character in Acts but the story stops with his house arest in Rome. So we can say that Acts was written before the death of Paul in 62 AD.

    2. But since Acts is the second of two parts written by Luke (the first was Luke in the Gospels), we can say that the Gospel of Luke was written earlier 80 AD. And since scholars agree that Luke incorporated parts of Mark in his book ,then mark would be earlier too. Much earlier than 70 AD.

    In fact if there was just a one year gap between, Mark to Luke and to Acts then Mark would be written in the AD 60's or late 50s. Jesus' crucifixion was in AD 30 or 33!

    So we can consider the Gospels as very fresh news indeed by ancient historical standards!

  6. #6
    Now another part of the Gospels where we can say that legend creeps in is about the early teachings of the church. The creeds or system belief of early Christians could be questioned as well. Scholars consider this creed as very important.

    1 Corinthians 15:3-8
    For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."


    Here are some points to consider when reading this creed accordingt to Dr. Bloomberg:


    1. You have the statements here about Jesus's death, resurrection and His appearance to other disciples.

    2. That Paul was saying that this was given to him orally.

    3. That if the crucifixion was early 30 AD, then Paul must have converted in 32 AD. He then met the apostles around 35 AD and was subsequently given this creed.

    We can then see that this creed or statement about the nature of Christ and what happened to Him was considered as a creed less than 5 years from the time of the crucifixion.

    Again in ancient times, 5 years is such a short time to be considered as a legend.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by decoy47
    It was fairly easy to debunk, because all the accounts that we have about Christ's resurrection are all from Christians.
    Actually even unbelievers mentions about Christ and everything that is going on around them because of this phenomena. Again they may not agree (since they are unbelievers) but they take into account the historical upheavals at that time.

    I have already posted a more significant list of historical accounts outside of the bible but I can't remember the thread so I am posting some of them again.

    http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

    http://www.apologetics.com/default.j...bermas-nt.html

  8. #8
    the historical accounts in the bible are true, therefore the entire bible is true... interesting thought.
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  9. #9
    I remember that I had a similar discussion with a Christian long ago. His argument was something like, "God exists because Jesus Christ is a real, historical person."

    It was fairly easy to debunk, because all the accounts that we have about Christ's resurrection are all from Christians. We don't have pagan accounts of what actually happened. You know how legends grow-up around charismatic people.
    Studies and investigations about what happened in the past usually end up going in circles, simply because of the basic nature of our (material) existence; that everything is relative.

    History is relative, it is dependent on the point of view of historians and people who describe the current events happening around them during their times. A person's attempt to write into words and sentences what he/she sees, hears, etc. can easily be "aligned" to a certain viewpoint.

    There is also the issue of translation and the loss (and gain) of meaning during this process. Old books such as the Bible, even the ancient Chinese manuscripts of Confucius, are prone to this when they are translated. Unless man invents the time machine there is no "logical" way to prove if something happened the way it was described.

    To expand the topic:

    So what's the point? Basically its one's belief. Christians use the word "faith" for this. What is your belief? Do you fully believe in a certain religion (or not)? Perhaps you are more inclined to the purely scientific? Maybe a mixture? That's what is important. When all the debates and discussions are over, in the end its your own belief that matters. The question is how strong your belief is.

    This strength is not (only) measured in one's discipline in practicing the rituals of their chosen faith. It is how we go through our days, the choices we make, how we live, and how we apply our chosen faith throughout everything we do.

    For me, my belief (faith), is an amalgamation of a lot of things as well as a lot of (mostly known) belief systems (i.e. religions). I can argue about whether Christ existed as he is portrayed or not. My perception of Christ (as a figure) doesn't exactly follow what is on the Bible. I believe that there was someone who had a similar life as described in the New Testament. But the point is, in the end, it doesn't matter whether he existed or not. What matters is the effect on you. Do you completely follow the teachings and apply them to your own journey?

    Discussing and debating is great, it stimulates the mind, just like brainstorming. But in the end it is ourselves and our essence that counts.

  10. #10
    "Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."

    Source:
    http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html

  11. #11
    ah, yes. greenleaf again. is gekokujo still in the house?
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  12. #12
    "Jason Long attended Middle Tennessee State University where he earned a B.S. cum laude in Chemistry with minors in Biology and Psychology. He completed his debut manuscript, Biblical Nonsense, shortly after earning his Doctorate in Pharmacy cum laude from Mercer University. He attended Church weekly for sixteen years."

    http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/frm.html

    his book is in his website
    http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

  13. #13

    Lightbulb

    I should have been more specific, eh? I'm not trying to disprove that Jesus existed in the past. I have doubts about the resurrection though. (Yes, yes just like Thomas.)

    It's good that you mentioned the Gospels and St. Paul, easter. I will dig into that later. But first:

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    Actually even unbelievers mentions about Christ and everything that is going on around them because of this phenomena. Again they may not agree (since they are unbelievers) but they take into account the historical upheavals at that time.

    http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
    http://www.apologetics.com/default....abermas-nt.html
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I briskly read the sites you posted, and it seems that only Flavius Josephus mentioned the resurrection. From the website: "Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66." So, Flavius really wasn't a pagan eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    "Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."
    It''s strange that you would mention Dr. Simon Greenleaf. Dr. Greenleaf believes that it was Matthew who first wrote a Gospel. He even believes that Mark may have used some of Matthew's material. You said in an earlier post that it was Mark. Which one do you think was written first easter?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by decoy47
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I briskly read the sites you posted, and it seems that only Flavius Josephus mentioned the resurrection. From the website: "Flavius Josephus was a Jewish priest at the time of the Jewish Revolt of A.D. 66." So, Flavius really wasn't a pagan eh?
    Flavius may not be a pagan but he was unbeliever.


    Quote Originally Posted by decoy47
    It''s strange that you would mention Dr. Simon Greenleaf. Dr. Greenleaf believes that it was Matthew who first wrote a Gospel. He even believes that Mark may have used some of Matthew's material. You said in an earlier post that it was Mark. Which one do you think was written first easter?
    We'll that is not the point of the post. The post is more concerned about Greenfield's change of heart.

  15. #15
    ^ Unbeliever? By the way he was writing, well, i'd say he believed what he was writing about. There was not even a single shred of doubt or criticism.

    Okay. So we agree that the order in which the Gospels were written is: Mark -> Matthew -> Luke -> John?

  16. #16
    oh easter where are you? I'm still waiting for your reply in the creationism thread.... lalalalalala

  17. #17
    Resident Terrorist ahmed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Quiapo, Manila
    This disproves Christ's resurrection:

    http://www.jamaat.net/crux/crucifixion.html

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by decoy47
    It's good that you mentioned the Gospels and St. Paul, easter. I will dig into that later.
    I think its time to fulfill this promise. It's good to finally have some free time to participate in this thread. gundam I hope you will read this.

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    Now another part of the Gospels where we can say that legend creeps in is about the early teachings of the church. The creeds or system belief of early Christians could be questioned as well. Scholars consider this creed as very important.

    1 Corinthians 15:3-8
    For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."


    Here are some points to consider when reading this creed accordingt to Dr. Bloomberg:


    1. You have the statements here about Jesus's death, resurrection and His appearance to other disciples.

    2. That Paul was saying that this was given to him orally.

    3. That if the crucifixion was early 30 AD, then Paul must have converted in 32 AD. He then met the apostles around 35 AD and was subsequently given this creed.

    We can then see that this creed or statement about the nature of Christ and what happened to Him was considered as a creed less than 5 years from the time of the crucifixion.

    Again in ancient times, 5 years is such a short time to be considered as a legend.
    I do agree that the earliest reports of Jesus having survived his crucifixion are in St. Paul. I do not agree with the dating though, I believe it was written about 20 years after the crucifixion.

    But okay, let's assume Dr. Bloomberg is correct. So how come Paul never mentions the empty tomb? Was it a legend composed latter in the Gospels?

    And are you saying that the authors of the Gospels were wrong in their accounts of the resurrection? Because Paul lists an appearance to "the twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5. However, in Luke 24:33-43 and Mark 16:14 they describe an appearance to the eleven remaining disciples (without Judas) on the evening following the resurrection. In John's account of that evening, another disciple, Thomas, was missing (John 20:19-25).

    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    Though stated very simply, this a very complicated insight and a good question about the reliability of the historical accuracy and reliability of the Gospels. In answering this we need to view them into two separate issues.

    1. The standard scholarly dating for the earliest documents of Mark was in the AD 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the 90s AD. Now even with these dates, some contemporary followers of Christ at that time and even unbelievers would have been alived at that time. These were within their lifetimes so we could have heard arguments against them.

    2. Alexander the Great's two earliest biographies were written by Arrian and Plutarch 400 years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C. Yet scholars find them as trustworthy and consider only material as legendary after 500 years of Alexander's death.

    Compared to Alexander the Great's biographies, the Gospels were a news flash in ancient times. It's just like getting a report from CNN.

    Dr. Bloomberg even suggests that the Gospels could have been written much earlier than that considered by scholars above. Here are some of his points:

    1. The Book of Acts was written unfinished because it does not discuss the death of Paul. Paul was a main character in Acts but the story stops with his house arest in Rome. So we can say that Acts was written before the death of Paul in 62 AD.

    2. But since Acts is the second of two parts written by Luke (the first was Luke in the Gospels), we can say that the Gospel of Luke was written earlier 80 AD. And since scholars agree that Luke incorporated parts of Mark in his book ,then mark would be earlier too. Much earlier than 70 AD.

    In fact if there was just a one year gap between, Mark to Luke and to Acts then Mark would be written in the AD 60's or late 50s. Jesus' crucifixion was in AD 30 or 33!

    So we can consider the Gospels as very fresh news indeed by ancient historical standards!
    There are basic facts that one can verify by going to the Gospels, which will make one doubt what you just stated easter:

    1.) Mark 16:9-19
    This part of Mark contains the actual resurrection appearance of Jesus. However, this part is missing from several of the most ancient of the surviving manuscripts. This part has evidently been added to later manuscripts because the Christian community felt that the Gospel of Mark needed to have its story about Jesus' appearances to his disciples.

    2.) The Gospel authors can’t seem to agree with one another
    In another thread, I’ve already mentioned that the Bible cannot be a source of historical or scientific data, simply because the authors of the Bible were interested in reporting religious truths, not anything else. The differences in the stories of the resurrection of Jesus demonstrate this fact. Here are several:

    •Was it one (John 20:1-8), two (Matthew 28:1), three (Mark 16:1) or more (Luke 24:10) women who went to Jesus' tomb?
    •One gospel says that Mary Magdalene found the tomb open (John 20:1) and two other gospels say that the tomb was open when the women arrived there (Luke 24:2, Mark 16:1-4), and then another has the women witnessing the tomb being opened by an angel (Matthew 28:1-6). Matthew contradicts both Luke and John, for in their accounts the woman or women were perplexed at the open and empty tomb. (Luke 24:4, John 20:2).
    •The gospels differ on whether the women (or woman) saw a man (Mark 16:5), the angel of the Lord (Matthew 28:2), two men (Luke 24:4-5), or two angels (John 20:12). Matthew says that the angel was outside the tomb (Matthew 28:2-6), but Mark, Luke and John say that they/he were/was first seen inside the tomb. (Mark 16:5-6, Luke 24:3-5, John 20:11-12).
    •In Matthew, Mark, and John, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:9, John 20:1-17), but while Mark 16:9-11 implies that Mary Magdalene was alone when Jesus saw her, and John has her without a companion (John 20:10-13), Matthew says that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" together (Matthew 28:9). John says that Mary Magdalene told Peter of the empty tomb before she saw Jesus (John 20:1-2), but Matthew says that Jesus met the two “Marys” when they were going back to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:5-10). Also, there is no suggestion in Matthew's account that the women had any trouble in recognizing Jesus (Matthew 28:8-9), but in John's version Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at first. (John 20:14-16). Luke is at variance with them all, for he excludes this appearance. Luke says that she and other women saw two young men at the tomb who told them that Jesus had risen, but neither they, nor some of Jesus' followers, who went to the tomb, saw Jesus then (Luke 24:4-24).
    •In two accounts Jesus orders the disciples to stay in Jerusalem until they received power from on high (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4), but in Matthew and Mark, Jesus directs them to Galilee (Matthew 28:10, Mark 16:7), with Matthew 28:16 specifying that it was to a mountain there. John also records an appearance of Jesus in the Galilee area, but this was on the shore of Lake Tiberas, and it caught the disciples by surprise (John 21:1-8). Funny though, this account shows several of the disciples back at their ordinary work after the supposed resurrection (John 21:1-8). Compare this with Matthew 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-20, and Luke 5:1-11.

    If it was a fresh legen..errrm news, at least they could have made it a liiiittle bit less conflicting, no? That's why I asked if there are accounts of the resurrection story outside the Christian community - the Bible is unreliable. It can really help you establish if, historically, the resurrection did indeed happen.

  19. #19

    Oh wait I can't let this one go...

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    Studies and investigations about what happened in the past usually end up going in circles, simply because of the basic nature of our (material) existence; that everything is relative.
    How can a "study" or an "investigation" about the past "end up going in circles"? In an "investigation", one may end up with an answer and/or one may end up with more questions. If you are unable to find answer, then your "investigation" has failed. Please explain how can it "end up going in circles".

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    History is relative, it is dependent on the point of view of historians and people who describe the current events happening around them during their times. A person's attempt to write into words and sentences what he/she sees, hears, etc. can easily be "aligned" to a certain viewpoint.
    Correct. That's why I asked if there is a resurrection story outside the Judeo-Christian community. The story simply could have been "aligned" to the Judeo-Christian belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    There is also the issue of translation and the loss (and gain) of meaning during this process. Old books such as the Bible, even the ancient Chinese manuscripts of Confucius, are prone to this when they are translated.
    I know. And that is why there are modern, more critical translations of the Bible, which are translated by scholars from Koine Greek and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    Unless man invents the time machine there is no "logical" way to prove if something happened the way it was described.
    There is. Comparing archaeological evidence with the story is one way.

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    When all the debates and discussions are over, in the end its your own belief that matters. The question is how strong your belief is.
    Even if evidence that disproves your belief is found?

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    My perception of Christ (as a figure) doesn't exactly follow what is on the Bible. I believe that there was someone who had a similar life as described in the New Testament. But the point is, in the end, it doesn't matter whether he existed or not. What matters is the effect on you. Do you completely follow the teachings and apply them to your own journey?
    Yes it does matter. Especially to a lot of fundamentalists, who believe that the teachings of their religion is absolute truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by m_phenomena
    Discussing and debating is great, it stimulates the mind, just like brainstorming.
    ...and it is quite entertaining.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by decoy47
    But okay, let's assume Dr. Bloomberg is correct. So how come Paul never mentions the empty tomb? Was it a legend composed latter in the Gospels?
    "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

    Baka sabihin hindi naman sinabi ang tomb. Pero Paul said He was raised on the third day. Eh kung Jesus was raised on the Third day sino pa laman ng tomb? Eh di empty na. He even saw Christ for himself. Nabulag nga yung tao eh.

    Anyway here is a more extensive answer:
    http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/tomb2.html

    And are you saying that the authors of the Gospels were wrong in their accounts of the resurrection? Because Paul lists an appearance to "the twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5. However, in Luke 24:33-43 and Mark 16:14 they describe an appearance to the eleven remaining disciples (without Judas) on the evening following the resurrection. In John's account of that evening, another disciple, Thomas, was missing (John 20:19-25).
    Answer: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/148

    1.) Mark 16:9-19
    This part of Mark contains the actual resurrection appearance of Jesus. However, this part is missing from several of the most ancient of the surviving manuscripts. This part has evidently been added to later manuscripts because the Christian community felt that the Gospel of Mark needed to have its story about Jesus' appearances to his disciples.
    That missing part is still in dispute.
    Answer: http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_9_20.htm

    •Was it one (John 20:1-8), two (Matthew 28:1), three (Mark 16:1) or more (Luke 24:10) women who went to Jesus' tomb?
    Answer: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/num_women_tomb.html


    •One gospel says that Mary Magdalene found the tomb open (John 20:1) and two other gospels say that the tomb was open when the women arrived there (Luke 24:2, Mark 16:1-4), and then another has the women witnessing the tomb being opened by an angel (Matthew 28:1-6). Matthew contradicts both Luke and John, for in their accounts the woman or women were perplexed at the open and empty tomb. (Luke 24:4, John 20:2).
    Answer: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_tomb.html

    •The gospels differ on whether the women (or woman) saw a man (Mark 16:5), the angel of the Lord (Matthew 28:2), two men (Luke 24:4-5), or two angels (John 20:12). Matthew says that the angel was outside the tomb (Matthew 28:2-6), but Mark, Luke and John say that they/he were/was first seen inside the tomb. (Mark 16:5-6, Luke 24:3-5, John 20:11-12).
    Answer: http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_5.htm

    •In Matthew, Mark, and John, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:9, John 20:1-17), but while Mark 16:9-11 implies that Mary Magdalene was alone when Jesus saw her, and John has her without a companion (John 20:10-13), Matthew says that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" together (Matthew 28:9). John says that Mary Magdalene told Peter of the empty tomb before she saw Jesus (John 20:1-2), but Matthew says that Jesus met the two “Marys” when they were going back to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:5-10).
    Answer: http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_9.htm


    Also, there is no suggestion in Matthew's account that the women had any trouble in recognizing Jesus (Matthew 28:8-9), but in John's version Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at first. (John 20:14-16). Luke is at variance with them all, for he excludes this appearance. Luke says that she and other women saw two young men at the tomb who told them that Jesus had risen, but neither they, nor some of Jesus' followers, who went to the tomb, saw Jesus then (Luke 24:4-24).
    Same Answer As to What the Women Saw: http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_5.htm

    In Luke What the Women Saw where Angels. It has nothing to do about recognizing Jesus.

    In Matthew 28:8-9: "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him."

    It doesn't mention that they recognized Him immediately. It only says they came to Him and worshipped. Baka natigilan and di muna talag nila nakilala and this detail was left out by Matthew.

    •In two accounts Jesus orders the disciples to stay in Jerusalem until they received power from on high (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4), but in Matthew and Mark, Jesus directs them to Galilee (Matthew 28:10, Mark 16:7), with Matthew 28:16 specifying that it was to a mountain there. John also records an appearance of Jesus in the Galilee area, but this was on the shore of Lake Tiberas, and it caught the disciples by surprise (John 21:1-8). Funny though, this account shows several of the disciples back at their ordinary work after the supposed resurrection (John 21:1-8). Compare this with Matthew 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-20, and Luke 5:1-11.
    Answer: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra8.html#88

    Other Answers to Other Bible Difficulties
    http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm
    http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra8.html#88

    If it was a fresh legen..errrm news, at least they could have made it a liiiittle bit less conflicting, no? That's why I asked if there are accounts of the resurrection story outside the Christian community
    And I gave you accounts outside of it. Now you say they should have made it a not a little bit conflicting it would be ok? Really? Was it really conflicting or just the refusal to see the harmony in the events?

    Finally... are you really going to risk your eternal future for such nitty picky things in the Bible? Read the Bible for what its worth and what do you get? God's love for His people culminated in that act on the Cross where mercy and justice kissed thereby giving us salvation.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •