Let's discuss the Resurrection of Jesus

[pinqy]

Or you are just ignoring the detailed sequence of accounts I gave you...

I wasn’t intentionally ignoring you, I just kept forgetting to respond.
But to address that now: your sequence left out all details that are differrnt in different accounts. What were Jesus’ last words, when did the women go to the tomb, and which women, wax the stone in place or already rolled away, who and how many greeted the women to tell them Jesus was gone, what did the women do afterwards, and to whom did Jesus first appear after his death? There are conflicting versions of al of those, and you addressed none of them.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Because, as I said, “ I see differences between the different accounts, so restated by you will help me understand how you see it: with no contradiction.”

among the accounts in the Bible, there are differences of what Jesus’ final words were, times, who was at the tomb, whether the stone was already rolled away or not, and to whom Jesus appeared, and in what order, after the resurrection.

so either you haven’t read the accounts, are just ignoring the differences, or you have a narrative that encompasses and explains the apparent contradictions.

there is is no differences, it may look that but it is a common 'error' claimed for the bible.

 

[pinqy]

there is is no differences, it may look that but it is a common 'error' claimed for the bible.

Then tell the story in your own words showing how there are no differences. Why is that so difficult for you?

 

[TypicalRussian]

Then tell the story in your own words showing how there are no differences. Why is that so difficult for you?

why would there be any difference

 

[pinqy]

why would there be any difference

There are many reasons why different people relating a story could differ in their versions. Difference in memory, difference in emphasis, catering to a specific audience, exaggeration, avoiding touchy subjects, etc
The 4 canonical gospels, the 2 apocryphal gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and 1 Corinthians have differing accounts as to Jesus’ last words, who visited the tomb and at what time, whether the stone was already rolled away or still in place, who spoke to the visitors saying Jesus had risen, and to whom Jesus first appeared.
You say they do not, though.
It’s not clear to me if you are simply ignorant of the differences, or if you believe there is a single narrative that encompasses and consolidates the differences. (If you thought they didn’t matter and/or could be explained, you wouldn’t say there were no differences)
If you have read at least the canonical gospels, Acts, and 1Cor, then Iam extremely interested in hearing the narrative that has no differences

 

[TypicalRussian]

There are many reasons why different people relating a story could differ in their versions. Difference in memory, difference in emphasis, catering to a specific audience, exaggeration, avoiding touchy subjects, etc
The 4 canonical gospels, the 2 apocryphal gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and 1 Corinthians have differing accounts as to Jesus’ last words, who visited the tomb and at what time, whether the stone was already rolled away or still in place, who spoke to the visitors saying Jesus had risen, and to whom Jesus first appeared.
You say they do not, though.
It’s not clear to me if you are simply ignorant of the differences, or if you believe there is a single narrative that encompasses and consolidates the differences. (If you thought they didn’t matter and/or could be explained, you wouldn’t say there were no differences)
If you have read at least the canonical gospels, Acts, and 1Cor, then Iam extremely interested in hearing the narrative that has no differences

there is no difference

 

[pinqy]

there is no difference

You are claiming that all 4 gospels are completely identical when it comes to Jesus’ final words, who went to the tomb, the position of the stone, the number of messengers who relayed the news of the resurrection, and to whom Jesus first appeared? All 4 exactly the same?
Then you haven’t read them.

 

[Daisy]

You are claiming that all 4 gospels are completely identical when it comes to Jesus’ final words, who went to the tomb, the position of the stone, the number of messengers who relayed the news of the resurrection, and to whom Jesus first appeared? All 4 exactly the same?
Then you haven’t read them.

You can have 4 eyewitnesses to one event and no 2 will observe or report the exact same thing, least of all, 4...

 

[pinqy]

You can have 4 eyewitnesses to one event and no 2 will observe or report the exact same thing, least of all, 4...

TypicalRussian seems to be saying all four did report the exact same thing.

 

[Daisy]

TypicalRussian seems to be saying all four did report the exact same thing.

Well, I am sorry but that is just not true and if it were true, one could more effectively claim fiction or fraud...as it is, they are true eyewitness accounts, recorded by 4 different men...

 

[pinqy]

Well, I am sorry but that is just not true and if it were true, one could more effectively claim fiction or fraud...as it is, they are true eyewitness accounts, recorded by 4 different men...

Wait..are you claiming that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all personally witnessed Mary and whichever other women going to the empty tomb and saw what happened? Or are you claiming that all four spoke directly to one or more of the women and wrote down their version?
Neither of those possibilities are supported by..anything.

 

[Logicman]

I wasn’t intentionally ignoring you, I just kept forgetting to respond.
But to address that now: your sequence left out all details that are differrnt in different accounts. What were Jesus’ last words, when did the women go to the tomb, and which women, wax the stone in place or already rolled away, who and how many greeted the women to tell them Jesus was gone, what did the women do afterwards, and to whom did Jesus first appear after his death? There are conflicting versions of al of those, and you addressed none of them.

You need to put a lot of this on a timeline. How many women were at the tomb? What time was it when the first women arrived, and then what time when others arrived? Then there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him’” – (John 20:2). Are you getting this?? How many of these alleged contradictions are complementary, instead of being contradictory? And by the way, it’s not the resurrection that’s in question in the Gospels, it’s events that have occurred AFTER the resurrection that skeptics question. All four Gospels and various epistles report or confirm the resurrection.

So, when all four Gospels report or confirm the resurrection, you're automatically kicking it to the curb anyway, right? Don't miss the forest for the trees and get caught up in meaningless 'contradictions'. Cold Case Detective Wallace noted, “Eyewitnesses always disagree over details – always. They can agree on the main thing, of course, that a victim was shot, but then they disagree over what the perpetrator was wearing, what he looked like, etc., etc.” If they all agreed on everything you would claim they conspired to share a perfect story. But the main issue is the one that's important - that Jesus was resurrected; that the victim was shot. There's reasons the resurrection has legs. For instance, it best explains the following: Why James - who was an unbeliever - now is head of the church in Jerusalem and a believer. It's why Saul/Paul became a believer instead of a persecutor. It explains why the disciples, who were afraid and had previously been down in the dumps, suddenly were encouraged and started boldly preaching the resurrected Jesus. It explains why the tomb was empty and why the guards at the tomb were terrified (Matthew 28:4). It explains why church services were then held on Sunday - the day of the resurrection, and why the church taught the resurrection. It explains why doubting Thomas suddenly became a believer. In short, it's Occam's Razor.

 

[Logicman]

'William Lane Craig confirms that Scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection.'

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

www3.telus.net

 

[Somerville]

'William Lane Craig confirms that Scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection.'

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

www3.telus.net

There is often a wide gap between belief and reality. The vast majority of scholars who study the period state that the Gospels were written between 70 and 100 CE, Mark first and John last. Paul in those Epistles that are seen as actually written by one author, whether it was a fellow named Paul or not, never says he saw the Christ as anything more than a vision.


Yes, "William Lane Craig confirms that Scholar Dr. Gary Habermas has recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty" Confirmation by one fundamentalist of what another fundie claims does not make the statement of either person true. Also, you are quoting an early comment, Habermas now says more than 2200 not 1400. However, there is a little problem with the claim -- in Habermas' article “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are the Critical Scholars Saying?” in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (June 2005): pgs.135-53, he mentions that it is not 75% “of scholars,” but 75% of writers (regardless of qualifications) who have published articles arguing specifically for or against the empty tomb..

Then, there is the ever so small matter that Habermas has refused to release the data on which he has based his claims. We don't have his list of authors and their academic qualifications - like, PhD in a relevant field of academia, which would entail knowledge of ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew languages combined with access to the actual documents that we have today - hiding away in libraries and museums around the world.

 

[nota bene]

There's reasons the resurrection has legs. For instance, it best explains the following: Why James - who was an unbeliever - now is head of the church in Jerusalem and a believer. It's why Saul/Paul became a believer instead of a persecutor. It explains why the disciples, who were afraid and had previously been down in the dumps, suddenly were encouraged and started boldly preaching the resurrected Jesus. It explains why the tomb was empty and why the guards at the tomb were terrified (Matthew 28:4). It explains why church services were then held on Sunday - the day of the resurrection, and why the church taught the resurrection. It explains why doubting Thomas suddenly became a believer. In short, it's Occam's Razor.

Yes, and why to this day there are those who choose death rather than renunciation of their faith, such as Matthew Ayariga. https://barnabasfund.org/us/news/eg...ns-of-last-of-21-christians-martyred-by-isla/

 

[devildavid]

You need to put a lot of this on a timeline. How many women were at the tomb? What time was it when the first women arrived, and then what time when others arrived? Then there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him’” – (John 20:2). Are you getting this?? How many of these alleged contradictions are complementary, instead of being contradictory? And by the way, it’s not the resurrection that’s in question in the Gospels, it’s events that have occurred AFTER the resurrection that skeptics question. All four Gospels and various epistles report or confirm the resurrection.

So, when all four Gospels report or confirm the resurrection, you're automatically kicking it to the curb anyway, right? Don't miss the forest for the trees and get caught up in meaningless 'contradictions'. Cold Case Detective Wallace noted, “Eyewitnesses always disagree over details – always. They can agree on the main thing, of course, that a victim was shot, but then they disagree over what the perpetrator was wearing, what he looked like, etc., etc.” If they all agreed on everything you would claim they conspired to share a perfect story. But the main issue is the one that's important - that Jesus was resurrected; that the victim was shot. There's reasons the resurrection has legs. For instance, it best explains the following: Why James - who was an unbeliever - now is head of the church in Jerusalem and a believer. It's why Saul/Paul became a believer instead of a persecutor. It explains why the disciples, who were afraid and had previously been down in the dumps, suddenly were encouraged and started boldly preaching the resurrected Jesus. It explains why the tomb was empty and why the guards at the tomb were terrified (Matthew 28:4). It explains why church services were then held on Sunday - the day of the resurrection, and why the church taught the resurrection. It explains why doubting Thomas suddenly became a believer. In short, it's Occam's Razor.

That people behave extremely in response to a extremely held belief, does not logically lead to the conclusion that the belief has any basis in fact. All that can be concluded is that extremely strong beliefs can lead to extreme behavior, even to the point of sacrificing one's life because of that belief.

 

[nota bene]

That people behave extremely in response to a extremely held belief, does not logically lead to the conclusion that the belief has any basis in fact. All that can be concluded is that extremely strong beliefs can lead to extreme behavior, even to the point of sacrificing one's life because of that belief.

For over 2000 years.

 

[Somerville]

That people behave extremely in response to a extremely held belief, does not logically lead to the conclusion that the belief has any basis in fact. All that can be concluded is that extremely strong beliefs can lead to extreme behavior, even to the point of sacrificing one's life because of that belief.

For over 2000 years.

Christianity, as we know it today, is not more than 2000 years old. In fact, it could be argued that it is less than 600 years old.

nota bene do you believe that Islamic suicide bombers are willing to die because of their religious faith?

 

[devildavid]

For over 2000 years.

What does that have to do with the flawed logic?

 

[nota bene]

Christianity, as we know it today, is not more than 2000 years old. In fact, it could be argued that it is less than 600 years old.

nota bene do you believe that Islamic suicide bombers are willing to die because of their religious faith?

Yes, I do. But this discussion is not about Islamic suicide bombers. And the argument that Christianity is not even 600 years old is stupid.

 

[nota bene]

What does that have to do with the flawed logic?

What flawed logic? Seems logical to me that as contrasted with contemporaries and near-contemporaries of Jesus, there would be fewer followers of Christ 2000 years later rather than more.

 

[Somerville]

Yes, I do. But this discussion is not about Islamic suicide bombers. And the argument that Christianity is not even 600 years old is stupid.

Perhaps you should try to read and comprehend ALL of the words in my comment.

Christianity, as we know it today, is not more than 2000 years old. In fact, it could be argued that it is less than 600 years old.

Martin Luther's 95 Theses 31 Oct 1517

Henry VIII was granted Royal Supremacy over the Church 15 May 1532

Council of Trent on 8 April 1546

Christianity has not been a single faith since the Second Century CE

 

[devildavid]

What flawed logic? Seems logical to me that as contrasted with contemporaries and near-contemporaries of Jesus, there would be fewer followers of Christ 2000 years later rather than more.

Trying to logically connect an extremely strong belief in something to it being factual. Human behavior motivated by strong belief does not logically support that the belief must be based on something factual.

 

[Daisy]

Christianity, as we know it today, is not more than 2000 years old. In fact, it could be argued that it is less than 600 years old.

Then you must not be familiar with the way JWs worship...our models are Jesus, the apostles, and the 1st century Christians...

 

[Logicman]

There is often a wide gap between belief and reality. The vast majority of scholars who study the period state that the Gospels were written between 70 and 100 CE, Mark first and John last. Paul in those Epistles that are seen as actually written by one author, whether it was a fellow named Paul or not, never says he saw the Christ as anything more than a vision.

[/QUOTE]

I don't believe your "majority of scholars" drivel. That might be your liberal scholars, but the fact is not one Gospel writer ever mentioned the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Neither did Paul or any New Testament writer. And that's a big, huge chink in your armor.