Friend of the blog Truth Unites...and Divides has asked me to host a debate between him and another individual. I have to go away from blog for a day or two but I can give a better name to this post when I get back if the two individuals would like to carry on debating in this combox.
No links to pr0n is pretty much all I ask.
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255From Monday, 9/22/14, Gary posted 8 consecutive comments posting an article by Peter Kirby to argue against the truth-claim that Jesus Christ was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb.
Peter Kirby vs. Scripture, hmmm. Peter Kirby vs. The Word of God, hmmm. Easy answer, choose God's Word. Every time. But for those who want a rebuttal to Peter Kirby's argument, here is a conclusion of a lengthy article:
Assessment of the Evidence
In conclusion, Kirby "scores" arguments for and against the empty tomb (online version). Based on our understanding, here is how we would redo the scores (0 is lowest value, 3 the highest):
Arguments Against the Empty Tomb
0 The Silence of Early Christians
0 No Early, Known Interest in the Tomb
0 Testimony of Paul
0 Dependence/Expansion on Mark
0 Parallels to Lion's Den
0 Pre-Christian Empty Tomb Stories
0 Theme of Discipleship
0 The Ending of Mark in 16:8
0 Anointing Possible on Sabbath
0 Decomposition in Eastern Climate
0 Only Men Prepare Bodies of Men
0 Can't Buy Cloth on a Holiday
0 Not Enough Time for Burial
0 The Women and the Stone
0 Anachronism of the Round Stone
1 No Second/Late Anointings
0 Crucifiers Wouldn't Allow Honorable Burial
1 The Enigma of the Pious Jew/Secret Admirer
0 Alternative Burial Traditions
0 Primacy of Galilean Appearances
0 Arimathea = Best Disciple Town
Arguments For the Empty Tomb
2 Paul's Testimony
0 Part of Pre-Markan Passion Story
2 Relatively Theologically Unadorned Story
2 Story Relatively Nonapologetic
3 Unlikely to Pin False Story on Famous Sanhedrenist
1 Unlikely to Pin Nice Story on Despised Sanhedrenist
2 Details About Tomb Confirmed Archaeologically
1 Incidental Details Dovetail One Another
0 Burial Had to Happen before Sundown
3 Only Women Named As Witnesses in Mark
0 Almost Contradictory Intention of Anointing
0 Present at Crucifixion, Present at Burial
0 Unlikely to Pin False Story on Well-known Women
1 No Traces of Conflicting Burial Traditions
2 Graves of Holy Men Preserved
2 Primitiveness of "The First Day of the Week"
0 The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple
1 Men Would Check Out the Empty Tomb Too
3 Body Would Be Known/Produced by Authorities
3 The Jewish Polemic Presupposes the Empty Tomb
Sum of Points Against the Empty Tomb: 2 Points
Sum of Points For the Empty Tomb: 28 Points
Kirby himself concludes on the equivocal side: "There is no conclusive historical argument that will prove or disprove the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus." We dispute this conclusion, and believe that the balance of the evidence is indeed "overwhelming" in favor."
Read it all at Response to Peter Kirby
Sum of Points Against the Empty Tomb: 2 Points (Peter Kirby and Gary)
Sum of Points For the Empty Tomb: 28 Points (Bible)
Scoring the evidence, 28-2. There's a clear winner and a clear loser. Gary, you said you'll go with the evidence. Will you humble yourself and go with the clear winner here?
Ok, Rho, I will read your post on "harmonization". Here is your thesis statement in your opening paragraph:
For the charge of contradiction to stick, the skeptic would have to demonstrate there is no possible harmonisation of the texts, not merely that it's difficult or that you don't understand it. And as I show here, this charge has no teeth. Glory to Jesus Christ.
Gary: Let me give you an analogy from the Mormon Holy Book:
The Book of Mormon states that ancient Hebrews sailed from Palestine many centuries before Christ and landed on the shores of North America. These Hebrews built great walled cities throughout the heartland of the continent (modern day Missouri, in particular) and used horses in their many military campaigns.
Archaeologists, sociologists, and geneticists state that there is zero archeological evidence of these ancient Hebrews in North America; there is no evidence of horses in North America until the Spanish brought them in the sixteenth century; and the genetic testing of American Indians finds no genetic relationship between native Americans and Jews.
So do the Mormons accept that these scientific findings prove that there actually are TRUE discrepancies in their Holy Book?
Absolutely not.
And why? Answer: Mormons use the same line of reasoning that you and all conservative Christians use: "God tells us in our hearts/souls/bosoms that our Holy Book is true, therefore the assertions of our Holy Book MUST be true, therefore if there is ANY POSSIBLE explanation to harmonize alleged discrepancies in the Book of Mormon, there therefore exists zero true discrepancies.
Have you talked to a Mormon about their "discrepancies", Rho? I have, and they do have them. They have a possible harmonization for every one of their discrepancies...as do the Christians theirs.
But here is the problem for both Mormons and Christians: It isn't whether harmonization is possible regarding discrepancies, the true question is: Is the harmonization PLAUSIBLE to any educated, rational, non-superstitious human being?
As long as Christians and Mormons insist that their all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural, invisible Deity MUST exist...then absolutely...everything is POSSIBLE!
So, are you willing, Rho, to drop that presupposition and just look at the evidence based on reason, logic, and common sense?
I am going to post the Resurrection account in Matthew and then the Resurrection account in John so that we can refer to these passages in our discussion:
Matthew 28 (NRSV)
The Resurrection of Jesus
28 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead,[b] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
John 20 (NRSV)
The Resurrection of Jesus
20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look[a] into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew,[b] “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Jesus and Thomas
24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin[c]), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
Ok, let's compare these two Resurrection stories verse by verse, "fact" by fact:
1. Who came to the tomb?
Matthew (M): Mary Magdalene and other Mary.
John (J): Mary Magdalene alone.
2. At what time of day/night did they/she go to the tomb?
M: as the day was dawning.
J: while it was still dark.
3. What happens next?
M: an earthquake
J: Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter and the "other disciple".
4. Next?
M: an angel descends; rolls back the stone; sits on the stone; due to the angel, the guards are fearful and faint/become unconscious. The angel tells the women not to be afraid; tells them Jesus is risen and to come and see (inside the tomb) where the body of Jesus was laid; tells the women to tell the disciples that Jesus is going to Galilee where they will see him again.
J: Mary Magdalene tells Peter and (John?) that someone has stolen the body of Jesus.
5. Next?
M: The women quickly leave the tomb and run and tell the disciples. However, on the way to tell the disciples, Jesus appears to them, greets them, and they touch his feet and worship him. Jesus repeats the angel's instruction for the women to tell the male disciples to go to Galilee.
J: Peter and "John" run to the tomb, eventually both go into the tomb, and see the burial wrappings but no body.
6. Next?
M: The Resurrection story has ended. Jesus goes to Galilee where the story picks up again.
J: Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene. She mistakes him for the gardener. Jesus says Mary's name and Mary recognizes him. Jesus tells her not to touch him because he has not ascended to the Father. Jesus tells her to go and tell the "brothers" which she does.
John (cont'd): That evening Jesus appears in the midst of the (ten) disciples in the upper room. He shows the disciples his wounds. Jesus gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit and gives them the power to forgive sins. One week later, Jesus appears to all eleven disciples as Thomas is now present, who touches the wounds in Jesus' body.
Rho: So you don't see any irreconcilable discrepancies between these two accounts? I see plenty. I will list them shortly.
One thing I would like to point out is this: Many conservative Christians will say the following when these discrepancies are pointed out: "It is just like when four different people witness a traffic accident. They see the accident from four different directions and their individual perspectives.
Unfortunately the event of the Resurrection cannot be compared to a traffic accident witnessed by four people. Why? The four "eyewitnesses" (the alleged authors of the Gospels) to the Resurrection did not see the entire event. Was Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John present when Jesus appeared to the first witnesses or witness: the Marys or the one Mary? No. No one but God, allegedly, witnessed all of the events of the Resurrection. And if the Christian God is the all-knowing Being that he is alleged to be...why didn't he get HIS four stories straight???
So is there a discrepancy regarding who came first to the tomb, two Marys or just Mary Magdalene?
Probably not a big deal if a human is writing the story, but it is odd that God would do it. But, just due to this "discrepancy", I personally wouldn't discount the story.
So what time of day or night was it?
Now, last time I checked, the statement "it was dawning" and "it was dark" are irreconcilable. If you have ever gotten up and watched the sun rise you will know that there is a very big difference between the dawning of the sun, even if it is just starting to happen, and when it is "dark".
It is NOT dark at dawn.
This is an irreconcilable discrepancy.
Matthew has an earthquake happen that is never mentioned in John. Now, this earthquake was so strong that it tore the temple veil in two and shook the ground so violently that dead people came up out of their graves...but John never says a word about it. Odd.
But let's buy the well-worn Christian argument that this "fact" was not important to the literary and spiritual purpose of John's Gospel. But let's look at Mary Magdalene.
In John's Gospel, Mary goes to the tomb and sees that the stone has been removed...and runs back to Peter and John to tell them that the body has been stolen. So if Mary is thinking that the body has been stolen, that would mean that neither a "man", nor an angel or angels, nor Jesus had appeared to you yet. But Matthew tells us that the angel tells the women not to be afraid, that Jesus, is risen, shows them the empty tomb, and to go tell the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Then Jesus appears to Mary and tells her the same story...and lets her touch his feet!
So why would John say that Mary went back to the disciples and told them that Jesus body had been stolen, but yet Matthew says that both an angel and Jesus have told her that Jesus has been resurrected...and Mary touched the very body...that, in John, she laments has been stolen????
I always have had a "heart" for Joseph of Arimathea, dont really know why but just imagine taking Jesus' body down and burying him then hearing of the resurrection and seeing His followers preaching in the Synagogue a few weeks / months later. Dont know too much on the timeline but Acts seems to have taken place very close to the time of the Death of Jesus.
I tend to think an early authorship of the book of acts is more accurate. One may not agree with the authenticity but the epistles and the book of acts were written very near the death of Jesus say 20 years or less, I would agree with a later dating of John and the Book of Revelation.
You know Gary I sort of understand what you are saying but none of that ever bothered me. Could be I am just lazy but I have always take the Bible as a sort of well I dont know, its not like Rho or TUAD, in a way I envy them because they are so sure. I just dont know, the bible seems to fail to offer basic info on some basic issues that would have saved humanity a great deal of suffering at least in the temporal sense. Such as God explaining Germ Theory, how vaccines work, water purification etc. I would find that truly prophetic.
I think Rho and TUAD would say, but I dont know just suggesting is the Bible speaks of how someone comes to know God, I E learn we are sinners "law" and how we are delivered from our sin "Gospel". That is simplistic but I think somewhat accurate.
There is also the aspect of a consistent world view. Now Gary I think you and me are more closely aligned with issues like plurality of belief, science, age of the earth, ToE, maybe even social political issues. I dont know I get all mixed up in all the particulars.
You've mistakenly conflated two separate issues.
Harmonisation has to do with INTERNAL consistency. Talking about how archaeology or whatever other discipline jives with the text does not have to do with internal consistency and so is a totally different set of analyses.
Have you talked to a Mormon about their "discrepancies", Rho?
Dozens of times, yes.
They have a possible harmonization for every one of their discrepancies.
1) You're commenting on something I'm not commenting on at the moment.
2) The difference is that when I respond, my responses are rational and logically consistent, while Mormons' are not.
are you willing, Rho, to drop that presupposition and just look at the evidence based on reason, logic, and common sense?
Drop what presupposition? The single presupposition on which all reasoning and intelligibility relies? Nope! Can't do that! If I did, I'd be like you, with no answers to the most fundamental questions.
let's compare these two Resurrection stories verse by verse, "fact" by fact:
Nothing you've said here overturns my harmonization. In fact, all one would have to do to answer you is read my post. You said you read it, but you did not read with any understanding.
No one but God, allegedly, witnessed all of the events of the Resurrection.
Why should that bother anyone? God is the ultimate eyewitness - He sees all, knows all the angles, never lies, is timeless...
why didn't he get HIS four stories straight???
He did, Gary. You haven't even gotten close to demonstrating that He didn't. You're just asking questions like the answers haven't already been given. You're not actually advancing the conversation.
So what time of day or night was it?
Was what?
The first time Mary came to the tomb? Right at the border between night and dawn.
the statement "it was dawning" and "it was dark" are irreconcilable.
1) Not for anyone who has recently been outside without the benefit of electrical lights right as it begins to dawn.
2) Even if you were right about that, all the harmonization would require is to posit a yet earlier visit to the tomb by Mary all alone.
It is NOT dark at dawn.
I was up this morning before dawn. It is dark when it starts to dawn. Dawn is not a one-second phenomenon. It lasts several tens of minutes.
John never says a word about it. Odd.
Odd TO YOU. So what? You're not even intellectually honest enough to grapple with the fundamental problems of your own worldview.
As long as you are unwilling to consider that your invisible deity may not exist, it is futile to debate you.
If your belief system allows for ANY possible event due to the supernatural powers of your invisible deity, no amount of reason, logic, or common sense will ever convince you otherwise.
Goodbye
As long as you are unwilling to consider that the external world may not exist and that your senses and reasoning may not be reliable, it is futile to debate you.
If your belief system allows for ANY possible event due to the unpredictably random nature of the universe and given that change is a property thereof, no amount of reason, logic, or common sense will ever convince you otherwise.
Ok, its a slow day at work.
I read your harmonization in its entirety:
First, you seem to believe that the passage in Matthew can be read to infer that the earthquake, angel, guards fainting, etc., all occur BEFORE the women get to the tomb. Let's look at the passage:
After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.
They went to the tomb..."and suddenly"...
That sounds to me like a progressive description of chronological events. To pull the earthquake out of that passage to try and say: Early in the morning the women went to the tomb...BUT...earlier that morning there had been an earthquake, an angel, fainting guards, etc. BUT...back to the present..."the angel says to them not to be afraid."
That is a classic case of grasping at straws, my friend. The only way I can see you getting around this one is to blame the translators for not translating this passage as you would have liked, which is a common strategy with evangelical Christians from my experience.
The simple, clear understanding of this passage is:
women went to tomb->earthquake->angel moves stone and sits on it->guards faint->angel speaks to women.
"Jesus exits tomb while soldiers flattened"
Why does the Almighty Ruler of the Universe need ONE angel to come down from heaven to move away a big rock so he can get out of a tomb?????
If the resurrected Jesus can appear and disappear from the Emmaus Road, can appear in the midst of his disciples without bothering with the locked door...he doesn't need to wait for an angel to open the tomb door for him!
Your statement is blatant speculation, not an obvious deduction, as you state.
Remember, the resurrected Jesus is now fully God again. The God who created the world can get himself out of a hole in the side of a hill.
I personally do not believe there were in guards; I believe this is an embellishment since no mention of it is made in the first Gospel written, Mark.
But you have them get up and "scatter" and then have the women showing up after they are gone.
Nope. Not if the rules of the English language have not changed in the last three minutes. The word "and" infers a continuing action. You are convoluting the English language to make the story harmonize.
"The find the stone rolled away"
Actually, if we believe Matthew's account there was an angel sitting on the stone with an appearance like lightening. So it goes without saying that if this assertion is true, the women would have paid as much if not more attention to this supernatural being sitting on the stone as they did the stone.
"Mary M at least runs to tell Peter and John that the stone is rolled away"
Well, here is where the story goes four different ways in the four different stories of the four different Gospels. Only "John" has Mary M running to separately to inform Peter and John. "Mark" of course (at least the original gospel that was not doctored by a later Church scribe who thought the gospel needed a better ending) says that the women told NO ONE anything.
In "Luke's" account, there is no angel sitting on the stone. The angels (plural) do not show up until the women are inside the tomb.
But if we are to try and harmonize Matthew's account with John's account, how about we use Luke's account to do so.
So Matthew says that the "women" went and told the disciples. John says that Mary M told Peter and John while the other women told the other nine disciples who did not believe their story. But John and Peter at least believe that the stone has been rolled away and go to the tomb to see if the body has really been stolen as Mary has told them.
So let's read Luke:
...and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the ELEVEN and to ALL the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.
"But Peter arose..."
Again we see a series of continuing actions in this passage. There is no indication that the actions are not occurring chronologically:
1. The women tell the ELEVEN/ALL...so Peter and John are present.
2. The eleven/all do not believe them.
3. BUT...Peter runs to the tomb.
Sorry, your timeline is once again distorting the text, the plain English, and the "inerrant, Words of God".
Your timeline has Mary M at the tomb after Peter and John have gone home, and "probably" with the other women.
I say this is highly unlikely without completely dismantling the rules of English grammar.
After looking into the tomb, Mary turns around and sees Jesus. In John, Jesus says, "WOMAN, why are you weeping?" He did not address "women".
If it is true that the other women and Mary M had separated at the sight of the stone being rolled away, as you assert, then we have a problem. Where are the other women who are mentioned in Matthew and Luke? We are told in other gospels that the "women" plural see Jesus and touch his feet. But in John, Jesus specifically forbids Mary M. from touching his feet because he has not yet "ascended to his Father". She then runs and tells the disciples she has seen Jesus.
So we have two sets of women running to tell the disciples that they have seen Jesus: one group who say that Jesus allowed them to touch him, and Mary M. who says Jesus forbade her to touch him beause he had not yet ascended.
How do you harmonize that?
"Looks like many or all of the women run off first of all and are so blown away by the experience that they don't say anything for some time"
Well that's how the first gospel, Mark, originally ended. But wouldn't it be really odd (and not just to me, Rho) for the author of Mark to end the story there is the women DID end up telling people just a few hours later?? They had to have said something that day if we are to believe the other Gospels that have Peter (or Peter and John) running to the tomb, Jesus appearing on the Emmaus Road and having a meal with Cleophas et. all, and then appearing to the eleven (or ten, depending on the gospel) that same Sunday evening.
Isn't it much more likely that the author of Mark knew nothing about any post-resurrection appearances to women or the disciples on the Emmaus Road? Paul, writing earlier, doesn't seem to know anything about these people either.
"Peter runs to the tomb and goes inside, see the cloths. Looks like this is the 2nd time that Peter runs to the tomb.
Huh?
It John, Mary tells Peter and John that the body has been stolen, Peter and John run to the tomb, go inside, see the burial clothes...and "go their homes".
Jesus then appears to Mary M. she runs and tells the disciples about Jesus and not being able to touch him; they don't believe her, just like they didn't believe the other women who HAD touched Jesus. So we seem to be dealing with the same nine disciples here because John and Peter did believe the reports and have already gone to check them out. Now we are to believe that Mary M. goes to Peter house where he is watching TV alone (John went to his house too), and now Peter runs back a second time???
This story is more convoluted that a Mexican tele-novela!
By the way, why would Peter and John have homes in Jerusalem? Aren't they from Galilee? The idea that peasant fisherman living and working in Galilee would each have second homes in Jerusalem sounds like an embellishment to me.
They went to the tomb..."and suddenly"...
Yes, they DEPARTED on their way. And around the same time they were leaving their house there was an earthquake. Most earthquakes are sudden, as I'm sure you know.
The only way I can see you getting around this one is to blame the translators for not translating this passage as you would have liked, which is a common strategy with evangelical Christians from my experience.
You badly misunderstand how translations go and what common translation difficulties are, in that case.
Why does the Almighty Ruler of the Universe need ONE angel to come down from heaven to move away a big rock so he can get out of a tomb?
1) This has zero effect on whether the passage is harmonisable. So you're not bringing up anything interesting here.
2) Who said anything about Him "needing" the angel?
I personally do not believe there were in guards; I believe this is an embellishment since no mention of it is made in the first Gospel written, Mark.
That's fine. Nothing do with the harmonisation.
But you have them get up and "scatter" and then have the women showing up after they are gone.
Well... are the guards still there when the women get there? No.
The word "and" infers a continuing action.
1) Ignores the fact that the NT was written in Greek.
2) Does not interact with the actual intent of the text.
the women would have paid as much if not more attention to this supernatural being sitting on the stone as they did the stone.
1) And you know this how exactly?
2) The angel on the stone was there the 2nd time they went to the tomb and not the 1st.
Only "John" has Mary M running to separately to inform Peter and John
So?
"Mark" of course (at least the original gospel that was not doctored by a later Church scribe who thought the gospel needed a better ending) says that the women told NO ONE anything.
Accounted for in the harmonisation.
In John, Jesus says, "WOMAN, why are you weeping?" He did not address "women".
It may well be that the other women had arrived at the tomb along with Mary M and then they walked away or were inside the tomb or were in the area but a few dozen meters away.
Where are the other women who are mentioned in Matthew and Luke? We are told in other gospels that the "women" plural see Jesus and touch his feet.
Accounted for in the harmonisation.
But wouldn't it be really odd (and not just to me, Rho) for the author of Mark to end the story there is the women DID end up telling people just a few hours later?
No.
Isn't it much more likely that the author of Mark knew nothing about any post-resurrection appearances to women or the disciples on the Emmaus Road?
No, I don't see why.
Paul, writing earlier, doesn't seem to know anything about these people either.
He mentions them in 1 Corinthians 15.
This story is more convoluted that a Mexican tele-novela!
I agree it's not the most straightforward account I've ever seen.
1) Truth is often stranger than fiction.
2) It's hard to empathise since I've never given up everything to follow a guy around for 3+ years, watched Him silence the most learned people of His day with a word, cast out demons and heal people by the hundreds, teach me with crazy authority I've never heard, predict His own death, then get tortured, die in the most humiliating way possible, get buried, and then start to understand that He may well have risen from the dead. I have no idea how I'd react, how logically, how many times I'd go back to the tomb to check again, just to make sure I wasn't dreaming.
why would Peter and John have homes in Jerusalem?
No idea.
Aren't they from Galilee?
Yes. I've heard of people with homes in more than one location.
The idea that peasant fisherman living and working in Galilee would each have second homes in Jerusalem sounds like an embellishment to me.
That's fine.
Since you don't even know whether the external world exists or whether your senses and reasoning are valid, your mere opinion doesn't bother me much.
Gary, despite your blasphemies and wickedness, Jesus will still accept you. He died for sinners and rose from the dead to defeat death and wants to give you forgiveness of all your sin and eternal life as a gift, as well as freedom from your sin in this life.
Turn to Him in repentance and put your trust in Him to give you these things, then resolve to live for His glory. No longer pursue this foolish, sinful path.
Rho, be honest. If the same story but with a different "savior" and a different set of characters was read to you by a person of a different religion would you believe that all these discrepancies are harmonizable?
I don't think so.
But in this case, you are willing to choose some very far-fetched harmonizations to make your story inerrant. Why do you do this? You do it because you have already decided that it MUST be true, therefore it must harmonize.
Based on what do you do this? Based on what do you believe this story MUST true?
Let me ask you this question:
If there really were guards at the tomb, and they have "scattered" and run to tell the high priests and then report in to their Roman superiors, are we really to believe that both the Romans and the Jews would allow Jesus followers to be making multiple trips to the tomb all morning and afternoon?
No. It would have been treated as a crime scene, with the disciples as the primary suspects. IF there was a tomb, and IF there were guards, there is no way all these multiple trips to and inside the tomb occurred.
And another thing, you didn't explain why Jesus told Mary M. not to touch him because he hadn't ascended to his Father yet, but he allows the other women to touch him. Are you going to invent two ascensions to to heaven to harmonize this discrepancy?
would you believe that all these discrepancies are harmonizable?
Only if they were.
Did you see my recent post on harmonisation in the Qur'an?
I don't think so.
But to be fair, you don't know me at all.
You do it because you have already decided that it MUST be true, therefore it must harmonize.
Shrug. No virtue in seeing contradictions where none exist. Besides, the truth of tGotB is the necessary presupposition for reason and intelligibility, so...
Based on what do you believe this story MUST true?
We've talked about that already.
are we really to believe that both the Romans and the Jews would allow Jesus followers to be making multiple trips to the tomb all morning and afternoon?
1) You have no idea how long it took for the Roman soldiers to report back to Pilate, since this failure in their duties could well have meant their death.
2) The text says it. Just b/c you think it's implausible doesn't mean anything.
It would have been treated as a crime scene, with the disciples as the primary suspects
Oh, what are your credentials in ANE lifestyle and history?
you didn't explain why Jesus told Mary M. not to touch him because he hadn't ascended to his Father yet, but he allows the other women to touch him
I'm not sure about that. OTOH I know it doesn't matter that I don't fully understand why He said it.
Are you going to invent two ascensions to to heaven to harmonize this discrepancy?
Huh? He didn't say that right as He was ascending.
But you see, Rho, the issue of "not touching" and "touching" Jesus IS a contradiction UNLESS you invent an ascension between Jesus appearance to Mary M. and his appearance to the other women.
Jesus explicitly told Mary M. NOT to touch him "because I have not yet ascended to my Father". He didn't say, "Don't touch me until the other women touch me first."
So there is no way around this discrepancy except to invent a supernatural event which the text says nothing about: an ascension to heaven between the two appearances.
You say you don't understand, but that it doesn't matter. Why? The Skeptic is not obligated to prove to the Inerrantist that ALL the discrepancies are irreconcilable...only ONE! And I have found that one discrepancies that you cannot reconcile...and you shrug it off.
You shrug it off, even though previously you had claimed that you had harmonized ALL the alleged discrepancies and therefore you made the black and white statement that there are NO true discrepancies in the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection.
Admit it Rho, the only way you can get out of this "corner" is to appeal to the Supernatural: that Jesus made a quick trip up to Heaven, greeted his Father, and then immediately teleported back to earth to meet the other women so that they could now touch his feet.
It's not a contradiction since those are two separate incidents.
He didn't say "b/c I have not yet ascended to My Father and as a result nobody else gets to touch me evarrrrr". He had His reason to tell that to Mary M, even though I don't know what it is.
The Skeptic is not obligated to prove to the Inerrantist that ALL the discrepancies are irreconcilable...only ONE
Kinda... except even at that you have failed over and over again.
Hey, are you sure the Bible exists? How do you know?
Jesus gave a reason why Mary could not touch him: "I have not yet ascended to my Father."
The reason for not touching Jesus was very specific. He didn't say don't touch me because it would be inappropriate for her touch touch him without other people being present, or any other reason.
He forbade her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended while other gospel authors allow the other women and Thomas to touch him before he had ascended.
This is an irreconcilable discrepancy for which even you have no harmonization. It is a contradiction in this tale, proving that infallible men wrote them...alone...without the direction of an invisible ghost.
Bottom line, Rho, you have NOT resolved ALL the discrepancies in these very discrepant stories. And by not resolving ONE, you have proved the Bible ERRANT.
The Bible is not the Word of a god. It is a work of man just like the Koran or the Book of Mormon...full of errors and supernatural superstitions.
The assertion that there was something about Mary personally that made it inappropriate for her to touch Jesus, but it was appropriate for other women and Thomas to touch him is preposterous. It is the ultimate example of "grasping at straws". The Mormon harmonizations for their tall tale are far better and far closer to believability than your explanation of this blatant contradiction among the four gospel writers.
Just because I have prove to you doesn't mean you have to stop being a Christian. Millions of Christians believe that Jesus rose from the grave in a spiritual sense. But the Bible is NOT inerrant, and I have just shown you one glaring example of why it is not.
Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew,[b] “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
John 20:15-18
So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Matthew 28:8-10
So why could the other women "hold" Jesus, but Mary Magdalene could not? Jesus tells Mary that the reason is that "I have not yet ascended to my Father...". But he hadn't yet ascended to his Father when the other women held him, had he? And, it is not as if Jesus said, "Mary, since it is only you and me here it is inappropriate for you to hold me"...or..."Mary, you are holding me to tight. Let go of me so that you can go tell the disciples and I can teleport myself to Emmaus."
No. Jesus explicitly states that Mary should not hold him because he has not ascended to heaven...yet. Are we to read between the lines and assume that Jesus then teleported himself to heaven for a few brief minutes to see his Father, and then teleported back to earth so that now the other women could hold him???
Sorry, but this discrepancy cannot be harmonized without inventing a second "Ascension". An ascension not mentioned in any of the gospels; a supernatural event that had to of occurred between the appearance to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and the appearance to the "women" on the way from the tomb.
This irreconcilable discrepancy is absolute proof that the Resurrection story is an invention of fallible human beings. An all-knowing, perfect Deity did not write, dictate, or even edit this tall tale.
"Why did Jesus tell Mary to stop touching Him, then turn around and invite Thomas to touch Him?
The answer is alluded to in John 20:17. "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."'" Mary apparently wasn't just hugging Jesus as a friend or touching Him to convince herself He was real. She was clinging to Him, with all her might, to keep Him from ever leaving her again. It was a desperate act, meant to control Him and keep herself from being hurt again.
Jesus gives her a reason as to why she can't keep Him with her—He has to ascend to the Father. He cannot stay on earth as He had before. He has a job to do, and as much as He obviously cares for her, He cannot indulge her feelings of fear. In fact, He already addressed the issue of her fear in John 14:16-17 when He announced that when He left, He would send the Counselor to be with her, and all His followers, forever."
Excerpted from: After Jesus rose from the dead, He told Mary to stop clinging to Him, but then told Thomas to touch His hands. Why the difference?
Gary, you're a physician.
Here's another physician, a retired MD neurologist who provides a similar reason as above:
Don't Touch Me!
Tuad,
What a load of horse-puckey!
Jesus wasn't going to ascend for FORTY more days! You want us to believe that Mary was "clinging" so tight to him that Jesus thought he would still be held fast to the spot with her for FORTY days???
Give me a break.
If Jesus thought that Mary was not going to let go of him, he would have said, "Mary, let go of me. You go tell the disciples, I need to teleport myself over to the Emmaus Road to eat an early dinner with Cleophas and another guy. I can't stand here all day having you cling to me. Get a grip, Mary!
Come on, Tuad! The Mormons have better harmonizations than that lame excuse.
Jesus forbade her to touch him because he was in a special cosmic bodily state that needed to be desensitized by a special trip to heaven. He didn't want Mary to defile him right before he took off into space for his intergalactic voyage to the outer limits of the universe.
What really is going on here is that "John" is having another of his wild hallucinatory visions, similar to the wild ones he had while writing the Book of Revelation.
This is fiction, Tuad. A third grader could see that.
Gary, let me take the last couple of paragraphs of your previous post and change the attribution on the last paragraph in this way:
Gary: "Jesus forbade her to touch him because he was in a special cosmic bodily state that needed to be desensitized by a special trip to heaven. He didn't want Mary to defile him right before he took off into space for his intergalactic voyage to the outer limits of the universe."
Rhology: "This is fiction, Gary. A third grader could see that."
You still have resolved the discrepancy, Rho.
Sorry.
"...have NOT..."
Jesus gave a reason why Mary could not touch him: "I have not yet ascended to my Father."
Yes, why MARY could not. Didn't say anything about the other women.
I suspect there was sthg else underlying His admonition. I don't know what it is, but I also don't need to.
The assertion that there was something about Mary personally that made it inappropriate for her to touch Jesus, but it was appropriate for other women and Thomas to touch him is preposterous.
I'd ask you to prove it, but the one thing you've proven is that you don't like giving reasons for your emotion-driven assertions. You just like to make 'em.
You still have not resolved the discrepancy, Rho.
Yes, I have.
Again, your "harmonization" is worse, much worse, than those of the Mormons.
There was only one stated reason why Mary M could not "hold" him: he had not yet ascended. That's it.
However, in another Gospel other women "hold" an unascended Jesus. This is a contradiction whether you want to admit it or not.
Just as is the habit of the Mormons, YOU will hold/cling to your discrepancy-riddled supernatural tall tale regardless of the evidence that proves to any other rational human being that it is false...simply because an invisible ghost within you tells you that it MUST be true.
Impossibility of the contrary, Gary.
You don't even know if other people exist if your worldview is true.
Even if what you're saying is true, which it's not, the best thing we could say is that we don't fully understand. But Jesus is the grounds for all being and intelligibility, so besides the weakness of your objections I see no reason to accept your premise.
Ancient Hebrews landed on the shores of North America centuries before Jesus; they built massive walled cities in the modern-day Midwest; they brought horses with them to conquer the horse-less tribes around them; God sent an angel to Joseph Smith in upstate New York in 1830 to reveal this ancient story and to deliver a new revelation of Himself to the people of North America; and this is why you and I both should join the Mormon Church.
Now, why don't you believe this story to be true, Rho?
I don't believe it b/c the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible though he claims to be.
I've got a story for you. Once there was nothing. Then nothing didn't act upon nothing and spontaneously everything popped into being and began to self-organise. Rock evolved into living beings that care about politics and morality and intelligence and justifiability, and to think that the origin of everything is that life came from rocks even though there is no evidence to corroborate it.
Why do you believe THAT, Gary?
Just because your theological interpretation of the Bible is different than that of the Mormons doesn't prove that the above historical events did not happen. Why do you deny the Mormon claims that ancient Hebrews colonized North America, built great walled cities, and brought horses with them?
You have not provided any evidence for why I nor anyone else should not believe this story.
Gary, you believe that the Bible is mostly fictitious, but you don't get angry about it do you?
I've written the following fictitious parable about Apocalyptic Events on a Lutheran post about Pope Francis speaking about Christian persecution, and there are Lutherans who are angry at this obvious work of fiction. Why?
Here it is:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2014/09/first-it-was-your-turn-and-now-it-is-our-turn/#comment-1606917116
Truth Unites... and Divides . 4 hours ago
Are you baptized?
Yes.
Come with us.
Why?
You're a Christian and we're taking you to the concentration camps.
Just because I'm baptized?
Yes. That's the identification of a Christian.
Mom and dad had me baptized in a Lutheran church when I was a baby. It wasn't my choice.
So?
I want to be debaptized. I'll sign papers.
You reject your baptism?
Yes. I don't want to go to the camps.
Okay. Sign here. And take this ďebaptism mark on your right hand.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you! I get to live!
(Later that day the following discussion takes place by the persecutors.)
I'm noticing a pattern.
What's that?
Most of these ďebaptism certificates are signed by people baptized as babies.
So?
Nothing. Just a lot of Catholics, EOs, and Lutherans that's all.
Truth Unites... and Divides 2 hours ago
Part 2.
What's this mark mean?
It's the Mark of the ALBINO.
Excuse me?
ALBINO stands for Apostate Lutheran Baptized in Name Only.
Oh. I guess I am apostate since I rejected my baptism.
Yes, but at least you get to buy and sell goods. And free of the camps.
I see other folks with the Mark of the ALBINO..
Yes, many Scandinavian ALBINOs and German ALBINOs.
I'm from Minnesota.
Lot of Minnesota ALBINOs too. Wisconsin also.
Truth Unites... and Divides an hour ago
Part 3. (Discussion among the Pawns of Evil)
What's the status?
Generally good except for some fierce pockets of resistance.
Explain.
Lot of folks baptized as babies are taking the Mark of the ALBINO. The ones who don't, board the train for the camps.
Good. What's the bad news?
The ones fighting us are what we call the Credo-Baptists.
What's that mean?
They're the ones who professed faith and repentance prior to obeying the command to be baptized in the name of the Trinity.
These rebels must be exterminated with extreme prejudice.
Yes. Why can't they simply take the Mark of the ALBINO, or at least just board the train like the other baptized Christians?
I agree, sir. But it looks like you admire their courage.
I do. They have the courage of their Christian convictions and you have to respect that.
Tuady. Do you have a therapist?
Anywho...
Care to answer the question posed to Rho regarding disproving the Mormon evidence regarding ancient Hebrews in America?
Gary, you need Rho to be your therapist.
Sit on the keyboard and answer his questions so that you can see how your current worldview is a horrible trainwreck.
Then you'll be on the road to recovery.
I tell you what, Rho. I'll follow you down your rabbit trail if first you follow me down mine.
Agreed?
Ok, so Rho and Tuad don't want to go down this road, but I think that it will be very informative if we do.
What are the reasons that orthodox/conservative Christians give to prove that the Mormon supernatural claims are wrong, and how would a Mormon counter?
Christian (C): The Bible clearly teaches that the teachings of Mormonism are not from God.
Mormon (M): Did God create a committee to determine which denomination/Church follows His doctrine properly and which do not? The interpretation of the Bible is open to individual interpretation assisted by the Holy Spirit. Conservative Christians have no proof that the Holy Spirit does not direct our Mormon teachings. It is simply their opinion against ours.
C: Christians have multiple witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus, Mormons only have Joseph Smith. The Mormon supernatural beliefs must be believed by accepting one man's word. That is ridiculous. Joseph Smith could have simply had an hallucination, a vision, been drunk, or made the whole thing up.
M: Actually, that is incorrect. The Mormon Church has ELEVEN signed affadavits of men who swore under oath that they saw the Golden Tablets of Moroni and three of those men swore under oath that they also saw the angel himself.
Orthodox/conservative Christianity has no affadavits of eyewitnesses to their supernatural claim. They don't even have one single, SIGNED, testimony of an eyewitness to the Resurrection. All four of the Gospels are anonymous. The authors could have just been hallucinating, having visions, been drunk, or made it all up.
Besides, all scholars agree that Matthew and Luke are simply plariarized versions of Mark and John most likely used Mark as a basis for his story and then took off on his wild tale, inventing all kinds of new teachings, sermons, and doctrines not found in the Synoptics.
C: Archaeologists have not found one shred of evidence of an ancient Hebrew civilization in North America; their walled cities; or their horses. Horses did not arrive in the New World until the Spanish brought them.
M: The evidence just hasn't been found yet. It is there. God says so.
C: The Resurrection must have occurred because no first century Jew would have believed in an executed then resurrected Messiah. The growth of the early Church is proof that the resurrection really happened.
M: The Testament given to Joseph Smith by Moroni had to have occurred because no nineteenth century American would have believed that an angel would descend from heaven and give Golden Plates to an ex-criminal like Joseph Smith. Mormonism has grown from six people to 15 million in less than 200 years. Christianity never achieved that level of success in its first two hundred years.
C: Jesus gives us joy, peace, and comfort in our hearts and blesses us with many wonderful blessings and experiences in our lives. This is an additional proof that conservative Christianity is the only Truth.
M: Actually studies have shown that Mormons are among the happiest, kindest, most giving people on the planet. This is proof that WE are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
So do you see the problem, dear Reader? Mormons...and every other exclusivist, fundamentalist religion in the world...uses the exact same premise as do Rho and Tuad when their Holy Book is accused of containing contradictions and discrepancies: "Any possible harmonization to an alleged discrepancy refutes the charge of discrepancy."
So if you ask a Mormon why there is a complete absence of archaeological evidence of ancient Hebrews in North America, his response will be, "It just hasn't been found yet". When you ask the same Mormon why there are passages in the Book of Mormon that any third grader can see are contradictory, the Mormon always can find some harmonization...no matter how far fetched it may be.
If you ask an Orthodox Jew why there is no archaeological trace of two million Hebrews wandering in the Sinai for 40 years, one of their "harmonizations" is that one of the tribes of Israel went behind the movements of the entire people and "cleaned up" every trace of the Israelites!
Fundamentalists will go to the most amazing lengths to hold there discrepancy-riddled belief systems together. Why? Because they have already decided in their mind that it MUST be true, therefore, no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise.
So if every fundamentalist religion on the planet can 'harmonize' away every discrepancy in their holy books, how can we know which if any is the one true Faith? Each on of these religions will tell you that if you will just read their holy book with an open heart, God will reveal the truth to you. What they are essentially saying is, "Check your brain at the door. Abandon reason, logic, and common sense and just depend on an invisible ghost to tell you what is truth.
That kind of hocus pocus belongs in the uneducated, superstitious ancient world, not in the 21st century! Use your brains folks!
So the real question is: Why Mr. or Miss Fundamentalist MUST your belief system be true? If you ask them this question, you will begin to then see that ultimately the foundation of their belief system is not based on evidence or facts, but upon assumptions of facts and superstitious adherence (they call this "faith") to whichever supernatural tale that someone in their past convinced them to be true.
For anyone who reads this thread and wondering if this is the end of the discussion, it's not. It carried on to this post: The Convoluted Resurrection Accounts.
Post a Comment