Their witness does not agree

[Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56)

If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

[FWI]

Why inspire the original writings and not inspire the translations?

Well, as previously stated, the original writings are not actually classified as being inspired, but labeled as historical writings. Hence, not having the original writings (for verification) could make the translations susceptible to human error. However, this doesn't mean that all the content is unreliable. Where, it would be necessary to evaluate each book, chapter, verse and in many cases each word to make sure a proper translation has been presentedBut, few are willing to exercise this important tool and accept its value!

Where, a record that appears to cause confusion or embarrassment (as to the subject matter of the author) is apparently less likely to have been produced by the original authorThis also can be applied to writings, where different individuals are known by each other and have the same belief system, such as the gospelsAlso, a fact or statement that appears to be consistent with our past and present understanding of the historical context is more likely to be true than one which appears to be at odds with it. Thus, those requiring that "all" who have written about a certain subject must agree (totally) is considered as deflecting from the obvious factsWe should also consider that a fact or event that appears to have been preserved through several independent traditions is more likely to be true than one that is only preserved through a single source.

So, all this leads to the reality that the resurrection story, as well as, the last supper of the Christ, not being a Passover meal is historicalYet, because of certain differences added by translators (after the originals were written) the skeptics have used these minor differences to critique the stories.

[polonius]

(quote) Because all four accounts testify that Jesus died and was subsequently resurrected. On that there is no disagreement.(/quote)


JW[/quote]
If someone says that John Doe drove from Denver to Las Vegas in a pickup truck and someone else says he made the same trip on a motorcycle, are they in complete agreement because they both say he drove from Denver to Las Vegas?[/quote]


Irrelevant.

All four gospels are in complete agreement about the method and location and time of death and resurrection.

None say Jesus was drowned or died in a skiing accident.

JW[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Question: Was one account written, and then the other three copied from that one?

Unfortunately, that is sometime done in news reporting especially if that's what the reader wants to hear.

[Athetotheist]

Why inspire the original writings and not inspire the translations?

Well, as previously stated, the original writings are not actually classified as being inspired, but labeled as historical writings. Hence, not having the original writings (for verification) could make the translations susceptible to human error. However, this doesn't mean that all the content is unreliable. Where, it would be necessary to evaluate each book, chapter, verse and in many cases each word to make sure a proper translation has been presentedBut, few are willing to exercise this important tool and accept its value!

Where, a record that appears to cause confusion or embarrassment (as to the subject matter of the author) is apparently less likely to have been produced by the original authorThis also can be applied to writings, where different individuals are known by each other and have the same belief system, such as the gospelsAlso, a fact or statement that appears to be consistent with our past and present understanding of the historical context is more likely to be true than one which appears to be at odds with it. Thus, those requiring that "all" who have written about a certain subject must agree (totally) is considered as deflecting from the obvious factsWe should also consider that a fact or event that appears to have been preserved through several independent traditions is more likely to be true than one that is only preserved through a single source.

So, all this leads to the reality that the resurrection story, as well as, the last supper of the Christ, not being a Passover meal is historicalYet, because of certain differences added by translators (after the originals were written) the skeptics have used these minor differences to critique the stories.

As I was pointing out in the OP, the differences between the gospel accounts----especially of the alleged resurrection----are hardly "minor".

If the original writings weren't inspired, why couldn't there have been mistakes and fabrications in them? And how is that not likely where the inconsistencies are glaringly obvious?

[Clownboat]

Why inspire the original writings and not inspire the translations?

Well, as previously stated, the original writings are not actually classified as being inspired, but labeled as historical writings. Hence, not having the original writings (for verification) could make the translations susceptible to human error. However, this doesn't mean that all the content is unreliable. Where, it would be necessary to evaluate each book, chapter, verse and in many cases each word to make sure a proper translation has been presentedBut, few are willing to exercise this important tool and accept its value!

Where, a record that appears to cause confusion or embarrassment (as to the subject matter of the author) is apparently less likely to have been produced by the original authorThis also can be applied to writings, where different individuals are known by each other and have the same belief system, such as the gospelsAlso, a fact or statement that appears to be consistent with our past and present understanding of the historical context is more likely to be true than one which appears to be at odds with it. Thus, those requiring that "all" who have written about a certain subject must agree (totally) is considered as deflecting from the obvious factsWe should also consider that a fact or event that appears to have been preserved through several independent traditions is more likely to be true than one that is only preserved through a single source.

So, all this leads to the reality that the resurrection story, as well as, the last supper of the Christ, not being a Passover meal is historicalYet, because of certain differences added by translators (after the originals were written) the skeptics have used these minor differences to critique the stories.

To the bold.

Decomposing bodies of 3 days do not reanimate and return to life. Differences in translations of ancient religious documents do not make this suddenly possible.

Religious promotional material is all the Christians have though of course, so that is what ends up being dicussed instead of the impossibility being argued for.

The cart gets placed in front of the horse.

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 181 by polonius]

Did Jesus Rise From the DEAD?
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.
What is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? An empty tomb story and questionable post mortem occurrences?
If a body is missing from a tomb, do we assume that the corpse has resurrected? Or do we try and discover who moved the corpse?
There are many possible explanations of why the corpse was moved. Ask me if you can't think of any. But Matthew's gospel appears to close the "loophole" with the guards on the tomb. But the guards on the tomb story is most certainly fiction. We have four gospel writers telling the same tale and yet only Matthew mentions guards. The guards are so important to the tale, that if it were true the other gospel writers would most certainly have mentioned the guards.
But Matthew didn't close the loophole tight enough with his guards on the tomb fiction.
Matthew 27:62-66 (New American Standard Bible)
62Now on the next day, [day in the Greek means daylight hours] the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,
63and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'
64"Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
65Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how."
66And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.
So you see that Jesus' corpse was placed in the tomb, and the NEXT DAY, during daylight hours, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and requested a guard be placed on the tomb. THE FIRST NIGHT THE CORPSE WAS IN THE TOMB THE TOMB WAS UNGUARDED. Anyone could have opened the tomb, removed the corpse, and closed the tomb to conceal the fact that the tomb was now empty.
So the empty tomb story proves nothing.
But what about those that saw Jesus post mortem?
We have Mary Magdalene.
Mark 16:9 (New American Standard Bible)
9Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. [See also Luke 8:2]
I would expect that any woman with seven demons would be considered a crazy woman mentally ill in today's world. Jesus may have calmed her down so she appeared normal.[cured] But most likely the shock of Jesus' sudden death and the loss of his soothing words may have pushed her back into a state of delusion. In any event she was not a competent witness.
But what about those 500 brethren who all saw Jesus at the same time post mortem according to Paul? This fiction is ridiculous. Did someone rent out a "Hall," and invite 500 brethren to all come at the same time to see Jesus? I am certain that this is Paul's fiction since Jesus only had 120 followers in the upper room on Pentecost when they all received the Holy Spirit.
What about Jesus' Apostles?
Matthew 28:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)
16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
This is an amazing Scripture passage. Here we have 11 men who lived with Jesus several years, they see Jesus post mortem and some of them have doubt?
I have my own theory of how the Jesus resurrection story started with the Apostles. Many were fishermen, probably others were laborers of some kind. Fishing in those days was hard work. But when they traveled with Jesus they got used to the soft life. They preached, and passed around the baskets, and didn't have to row boats and pull nets out of the sea.
After Jesus died they went back to their old hard life.
John 21:3 (New American Standard Bible)
3Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.
They fish, they catch nothing, but then one disciple thinks he sees Jesus on the shore.
John 21:7 (New American Standard Bible)
7Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.
Notice that Peter does not recognize Jesus. He "heard that it was the Lord." It is just some stranger on the shore, but at that moment Peter realizes that if Jesus were alive they could all go back to the soft evangelists life and to Hell with the hard fisherman's life.
It is interesting that post mortem, Jesus only shows himself to his own followers. He promised the high Priest and his entourage that they would see him. [Mark 14:62] But they never did.
Jesus promised his evil and adulterous generation that they would see him post mortem, [Matthew 12:39-40] but they never did.
If the Scientologists claimed that L Ron Hubbard resurrected, came to their conference, and then went to Heaven, would you believe them? So how can we believe a story when only Jesus' followers are the witnesses?
We have an extraordinary claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but the evidence for the claim is very poor.

[FWI]

Decomposing bodies of 3 days do not reanimate and return to life.

Yet, there is no evidence that the Christ's body did decompose, because a dead body was never found after 3 days! So, unless you can supply evidence, which states that the Christ's body was found decomposing and not resurrected, you have nothing, but an opinion

However, we should wonder why there are several theories; which try to suggest reasons the body of the Christ was not in the tomb after 3 daysSuch as: the stolen body theory, the wrong tomb theory, the swoon or resuscitation theory, the hallucination theory and the impersonation theory. Which, at least some can be traced back to the first century A.D. Where, common sense tells us that the skeptics (back then and today) believed that the body of the Christ was not in the tomb, after 3 days! Even though, there was a strong military guard present at the tomb.

There is also external support from several hostile (non-biblical) pagan and Jewish accounts. Which, support that the Christ was born of a virgin and had a step-father who was a carpenter. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He preached. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the day before the Passover meal and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others that Jesus was resurrected. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith and martyred, without changing their claims. Where, this would be foolishness and considered suicide, if the events weren't accurate and believed

Differences in translations of ancient religious documents do not make this suddenly possible.

Well, it could if the critics would closely read the religious documents of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Where, the resurrection ties into the belief of the single God concept. We could also review the pain staking efforts that the ancient Egyptians went through to preserve the body, after death. Hence, the idea that we live in the midst of a vast and mostly unknown universe shows that a power (being able to create such a universe) has the ability to resurrect at will, as well as, cease such actions. So, looking closer into the documents should show the purpose for certain resurrections, in the past and future. It may also show the reason why they don't happen today

So, it seems that the cart was not put before the horse, as you suggest

[Yahwehismywitness]

clownboat wrote:
Decomposing bodies of 3 days do not reanimate and return to life.

24-72 hours after death " the internal organs decompose. 3-5 days after death " the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose. 8-10 days after death " the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.

So it may take 72 hours after death for a body to begin to decompose.

https://www.rd.com/true-stories/surviva ... k-to-life/
11 People Who Came Back to Life Reveal What They Saw on the Other Side

[Athetotheist]

Even though, there was a strong military guard present at the tomb.

Only the author of Matthew tells us this. Are we to take the word of one "witness" who probably wasn't a witness anyway?

There is also external support from several hostile (non-biblical) pagan and Jewish accounts.

I can recall only the scant paragraph attributed to Josephus, and scholars are in general agreement that it's a fairly obvious forgery.

Well, it could if the critics would closely read the religious documents of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Where, the resurrection ties into the belief of the single God concept.

Among the three, the death of a messiah to pay for sin ties only into Christianity. Beyond that, the dying-and-rising god is a Pagan concept.

[Clownboat]

Yet, there is no evidence that the Christ's body did decompose, because a dead body was never found after 3 days! So, unless you can supply evidence, which states that the Christ's body was found decomposing and not resurrected, you have nothing, but an opinion

Education. The greatest threat to religious beliefs.

What happens to the body after death?
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321792

Livor, rigor, and algor mortis
This process may begin after about an hour following death and can continue to develop until the 9"12 hour mark postmortem.

Rigor mortis settles in at 2"6 hours after death and can last for 24"84 hours. After this, the muscles become limp and pliable once more.

Other signs of decomposition
The greenish tint that the body may assume after death is due to the fact that gases accumulate within its cavities, a significant component of which is a substance known as hydrogen sulfide.

Decomposition is a known process. You pointing out that no one mentioned that it began to decompose is faulty thinking due to your religious indoctrination.

You made this bed though, you need to sleep in it.

Differences in translations of ancient religious documents do not make this suddenly possible.

Well, it could if the critics would closely read the religious documents of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Where, the resurrection ties into the belief of the single God concept.

Now you are just pretending that the Bible is clear on its god concept. Readers know how false this claim is and need to go no further than Holy Huddle to see Christians argue with themselves about Trinity beliefs.

We could also review the pain staking efforts that the ancient Egyptians went through to preserve the body, after death.

Please review them for me and let me know why it is relevant to the claim that decomposing bodies of 3 days don't reanimate.

Hence, the idea that we live in the midst of a vast and mostly unknown universe shows that a power (being able to create such a universe) has the ability to resurrect at will, as well as, cease such actions.

I do not share your imagination.

So, looking closer into the documents should show the purpose for certain resurrections, in the past and future. It may also show the reason why they don't happen today

What!?!
I'm just going to stick to my claim.
"Decomposing bodies of 3 days do not reanimate and return to life."

Feel free to show that my claim is wrong and I will retract it.

So, it seems that the cart was not put before the horse, as you suggest

Do bodies that have been decomposing (a known process) for 3 days have a mechanism for reanimating and returning to life?
If so, please explain the mechanism.

If your claim is that Jesus's dead body didn't decompose for some reason, please justify a position that goes against a known process.

[Clownboat]

clownboat wrote:
Decomposing bodies of 3 days do not reanimate and return to life.

24-72 hours after death " the internal organs decompose. 3-5 days after death " the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose. 8-10 days after death " the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.

So it may take 72 hours after death for a body to begin to decompose.

https://www.rd.com/true-stories/surviva ... k-to-life/
11 People Who Came Back to Life Reveal What They Saw on the Other Side

Decomposition starts much earlier as shown above.
I'm sorry, you are just wrong.

Show me one story of a person that was dead for 3 days that returned to life. Otherwise you are only pretending that they are equal claims.

We have FWI imagining things in his reply and you pretending. Surely if you had a god on your side you could do better?