A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[AB]

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

The 'fact' is that there was a story around, and they wrote as if the story was true. They probably believed in the core of the story, but elaborated on it.

OK. So you think they elaborated.. Prove it. Where did they elaborate? Calling you to the floor on this. As you stated before did they "just lie"?

Reading the 4 Gospels, the core of the story is intact.

So what? The stories were written decades after the fact, with Matthew and Luke copying from Mark according to some Christian biblical scholars. That ignores the other gospels that didn't make it into the final cut by the Council of Nicea.

The fact that the 'core' of the story (in your opinion) is intact doesn't make it any truer. If you look at the date of when the gospels are believed to be written vs how elaborate the stories are, the later the writing, the more elaborate the story. That shows the development of a myth, not the relating of a historical event.

I bet John and Matthew would be offended hearing this. Don't you think? They witness something, wite about and then are accused of elaborating and spinning the truth. Really, that is what are proposing.. i.e. John and Matthew "Lied".

Still waiting to see a contradiction you claim.. Where is it? Come on Man! Where are the contradictions you claim?!

[Goat]

After the "Fact" tradition. Okay, you have placed this. What is the fact?

The 'fact' is that there was a story around, and they wrote as if the story was true. They probably believed in the core of the story, but elaborated on it.

OK. So you think they elaborated.. Prove it. Where did they elaborate? Calling you to the floor on this. As you stated before did they "just lie"?

Reading the 4 Gospels, the core of the story is intact.

So what? The stories were written decades after the fact, with Matthew and Luke copying from Mark according to some Christian biblical scholars. That ignores the other gospels that didn't make it into the final cut by the Council of Nicea.

The fact that the 'core' of the story (in your opinion) is intact doesn't make it any truer. If you look at the date of when the gospels are believed to be written vs how elaborate the stories are, the later the writing, the more elaborate the story. That shows the development of a myth, not the relating of a historical event.

I bet John and Matthew would be offended hearing this. Don't you think? They witness something, wite about and then are accused of elaborating and spinning the truth. Really, that is what are proposing.. i.e. John and Matthew "Lied".

Still waiting to see a contradiction you claim.. Where is it? Come on Man! Where are the contradictions you claim?!

You see, you can not demosntrate that the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Matthew were written by eye witnesses. We don't KNOW who wrote those gospels. As a matter of fact, most CHRISTIAN biblcial scholars do not feel that they were written by eye witnesses at all.

See my other thread about some contradictions.

[AB]

.

See my other thread about some contradictions.[/quote]

Please don't make me do that. Can you just copy and paste one here.

[Goat]

.

See my other thread about some contradictions.

Please don't make me do that. Can you just copy and paste one here.

[/quote]

Read post 12 in the resurrection. Cutting and pasting the same information into two threads is tacky in my opnion.

I don't know how to put a link to a specific post here.

[AB]

.

See my other thread about some contradictions.

Please don't make me do that. Can you just copy and paste one here.

Read post 12 in the resurrection. Cutting and pasting the same information into two threads is tacky in my opnion.

I don't know how to put a link to a specific post here.[/quote]

Got it. We are posting on that thread.

[achilles12604]

The resurrection could have been a vision shared by the community.

It was real, as the Scriptures attest, where Jesus even ate fish and challenged Thomas to put his finger in the crucifixion wounds.

There is no such thing as mass hallucination. It is physically impossible because a hallucination is caused by a chemical imbalance inside a single person. It can't be shared.

[Sleepy]

Can confirm there is no such thing as a mass hallucination of the SAME vision.

People in bars and clubs tripping on LSD have been known to all hallucinate at the same time however they do not see the same thing.

A shared vision could only be the case if they all saw the same thing for real, or if there was some sort of magical trick (if you have ever been to a magic show you will know what I am talking about)

However in the case of the resurrection being that multiple different instances occured in a variety of places and in some cases physical contact was evident from the stories. Either they all lied about their experiences or they all saw it. People don't die without exception for a lie when they know it was a lie. They only die for something they believe in if they really are convinced of it. Most of these people went to their deaths for what they believed they saw.

[Cephus]

However in the case of the resurrection being that multiple different instances occured in a variety of places and in some cases physical contact was evident from the stories. Either they all lied about their experiences or they all saw it. People don't die without exception for a lie when they know it was a lie. They only die for something they believe in if they really are convinced of it. Most of these people went to their deaths for what they believed they saw.

Just because there are zealots who die for their beliefs does not prove the beliefs are true. The fact is that ther aren't multiple independent eyewitness accounts for the resurrection, in fact we don't know if any of them were actual witnesses at all. Certainly none of the Gospel accounts agree and none of the external events were ever written about by the local authorities. Don't you think that someone would record the eclipse (like the sun worshipping cultures on the other side of the planet who record every other solar event but completely missed this one) and the dead wandering around Jerusalem.

It's a myth, nothing more.

[McCulloch]

[...] Don't you think that someone would record the eclipse (like the sun worshipping cultures on the other side of the planet who record every other solar event but completely missed this one)

The fact is that the visibility of solar eclipses is somewhat local. I personally do not know enough about astronomy and the Jewish calendar. Is it possible to have a solar eclipse at the time of the passover?

and the dead wandering around Jerusalem.

According to the biblical record,

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

I don't know about you, but I wonder what these resurrected corpses were doing between the time that they were brought back to life shortly after Jesus death, and they appeared in Jerusalem, after his resurrection. You would think that someone, anyone, other than Matthew would have recorded such an unusual event.

[Sleepy]

Just because there are zealots who die for their beliefs does not prove the beliefs are true.

I did not say this.

It does however suggest they believed their beliefs were true. THIS is what I said in my post, don't jump to wrong conclusions so rapidly.