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?

[Difflugia]

All the points in the so called "Easter challenges" have been thoroughly debunked.

We have very different ideas about both "thoroughly" and "debunked."

Each of these is considered a challenge because one can't reconcile them with the doctrine of inerrancy without doing damage to the plain and obvious meanings of the texts involved. Apologists must always decide in cases like this whether their cherished doctrines are more important than the Word of God itself.

The women went to the tomb twice? They didn't tell anyone at first, but later changed their minds? Mistranslating the aorist tense in Matthew 28 to harmonize with Mark's and Luke's perfect tense? When it's all an apologist has, it has to be good enough.

It seems to me, that anyone wanting to know what the Bible really says would want to know why Matthew changed Mark's story, rather than pretending that he hadn't. I'd think that someone that truly believes that God Himself is responsible for the differences in theology between the Synoptics and John would work to understand those differences, instead of hamfistedly rewriting what God has already written.

[Zzyzx]

.

All the points in the so called "Easter challenges" have been thoroughly debunked. See LINKS below.

Is this to say that you agree with yourself?

Citing one's own writings is not regarded as supporting one's position -- or as legitimate debate.

[1213]

Nor should I have to prove the fairy-tales you believe in are fiction.

You believe in those stories, YOU prove they aren't fairy-tales. .

Usually it is so that the one who makes a claim, has the burden of proof, but apparently you have some kind of double standard. Dont worry, I understand why. You dont have anything reasonable to support your claims.

[Zzyzx]

.

Nor should I have to prove the fairy-tales you believe in are fiction.

You believe in those stories, YOU prove they aren't fairy-tales. .

Usually it is so that the one who makes a claim, has the burden of proof, but apparently you have some kind of double standard. Dont worry, I understand why. You dont have anything reasonable to support your claims.

1213, is the Bible a true and factual account of events it tells?

[PghPanther]

We are debating over accounts written 30 to 90 years after they took place from verbal conversations of believers relaying such information and in a language (greek) foreign to the language from which Christ and his followers spoke........and in a place 800 miles from where those activities took place.

Furthermore the 4 selected accounts of this event were canonized into scripture from council debate for Biblical inclusion as the Holy Spirit inspired account from many other "gospel" scripts that were in vast conflict with even reality let alone the events. They pitched the ones that didn't match up to the ones they kept........but yet the 4 they kept don't match up very well unless you harmonize (make up ways to fit it all together) it anyway.

and these 4 accounts have no signed authorship...........those gospel names were given to each manuscript after the fact.........

Now, in less that 20 years after the first weather balloon crashed in Roswell, NM you have stories in print based on the verbal conversations of zealous believers in Ufology that this crash was actually an alien space craft and furthermore had 3 small aliens that were still alive and were taken into life support system in the basement of area 51 and we learned to communicate with them as they showed us how to back engineer antigravity flight.........................

Today you can go to UFO conventions and discuss this with the utmost passion and credibility with other zealous believers of that event.

Does anyone think the Ufology account of that weather balloon crash is reality?

Why would we take the verbal stories of zealous believers written down 30 to 90 years later as any more accurate?

Besides.......who in their right mind would take the advise from aliens in antigravity propulsion when they crashed their ship to begin with?

See how silly all this stuff is..............the gospel accounts are no different other than they have a much high level of social acceptance in their claims that than Ufology claims.

[Zzyzx]

.

We are debating over accounts written 30 to 90 years after they took place from verbal conversations of believers relaying such information and in a language (greek) foreign to the language from which Christ and his followers spoke........and in a place 800 miles from where those activities took place.

Furthermore the 4 selected accounts of this event were canonized into scripture from council debate for Biblical inclusion as the Holy Spirit inspired account from many other "gospel" scripts that were in vast conflict with even reality let alone the events. They pitched the ones that didn't match up to the ones they kept........but yet the 4 they kept don't match up very well unless you harmonize (make up ways to fit it all together) it anyway.

and these 4 accounts have no signed authorship...........those gospel names were given to each manuscript after the fact.........

Much more recently we have a first-hand account by a person whose identity is known beyond reasonable doubt " Joseph Smith " claiming to have received information supernaturally.

There are witness accounts from his era testifying to the truth of what he claimed.

Yet, less than two percent (2%) of the US population apparently believes the claims and stories enough to be members of the LDS.

It is informative to note that most who believe the claims and stories were born into the LDS and raised in the church. Likewise, most who believe the claims and stories of Christian sects outside Mormonism were born and raised in their chosen religion. The same holds true for Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, and other of the worlds 4000 religions.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 59 by Athetotheist]

All the points in the so called "Easter challenges" ( claimed "vontradictions" in the gospel narratives), have been thoroughly debunked. See LINKS below.


Is it possible to harmonize the four different gospel accounts of the resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#926583


EXECUTION

WHEN did Jesus die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 932#893932

THE WOMEN

When (what time) did the women visit the tomb?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 933#926933

Why did the women visit the tomb
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 941#926941

Who were the women that visited Jesus tomb?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 331#908331

How many women visted Jesus' tomb
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 331#908331

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 335#908335

Did the women tell anyone what happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 395#908395

Did the women remain silent FOREVER about their experience?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 713#986713

Who was at the tomb when the women arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 336#908336

THE ANGELS

Where were these messengers (angels) situated when the women arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#926581

WHERE were the angels when the women first arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 523#986523

What did the messenger(s) say?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 557#926557

MARY

Why did Mary and the others not see the angel sitting on the stone?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 388#986388

Why can we suppose Mary Magdalene have left the group of women before their angelic encounter?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 635#986635

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 568#926568

When did Mary first see Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 569#926569

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 706#908706

Why is Mary's name included in Luke's summary of events if she wasn't with the women when they met the angels?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6390#98639

THE MEN

After the women, to whom did Jesus "first" appear?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 574#926574

Where and when did Jesus first appear to his disciples?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 576#926576

Did the disciples doubt?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 240#927240

Did the disciples believe the two men (Cleopus & his companion)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 571#926571

What happened at the appearance?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 577#926577

Did the Apostles travel to Galilee on the first Sunday?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 277#927277

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 579#926579

Where did the ascension take place?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 561#926561

Synopsis
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#926583

Sequencing & Related Posts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 585#926585

Go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY * and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

* Easter Challenges [/quote]
As soon as you have Mary Magdalene leave the other women, the harmonization fails because no gospel writer has that happen and their accounts cannot be harmonized without it. Simply put, their witness does not agree without a statement that Mary left and the burden of proof is on the one who argues that she did, not on anyone who concludes that she didn't.

Another logical conclusion is that, according to John, Jesus did forbid Mary to touch him. The Greek word in the text, "haptomai", is the same word used when the woman with the issue of blood touches the hem of his robe, when he touches the little children to bless them and when he touches the tongue of a mute man to loose his speech. And anyone wanting to argue about translation also has context to contend with; it would make no sense for Jesus to tell Mary not to hold onto him because he had "not yet ascended" because after he had ascended she wouldn't have been able to hold onto him anyway.

It doesn't matter how "mobile" angels are; in the testimony of these authors the angels have to be where the authors put them. The authors don't move them [except for setting Matthew's angel on the stone], and the only motive for anyone else to move them is to make the accounts harmonize where they don't. No one is under any intellectual or moral obligation to assume anything other than what the authors wrote.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Greek word in the text, "haptomai", is the same word used when the woman with the issue of blood touches the hem of his robe, when he touches the little children to bless them and when he touches the tongue of a mute man to loose his speech.

source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... rongs=g680

Someone that argues that context can be disregarded for a word that can mean having sexual contact, physicality assulting, merely touching or prolonged clingling not only has no business studying literature but may well find themsleves in court one day.




JW

RELATED POSTS

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 706#908706

[JehovahsWitness]

The authors don't move [angels] [except for setting Matthew's angel on the stone], and the only motive for anyone else to move them is to make the accounts harmonize where they don't.

CAN ANGELS MOVE?

There is indeed biblical support that angels are mobile. Obviously if an angel moved the tombstone and sat on it then he moved from on location (the tomb opening) to another (by the side of the tomb opening). Thus we have established that angels can indeed move.

When and hownthey did is often left to the readers imagination. Matthew for examplehas the angels say to the women, presumably on ground level "Come, see the place where he was lying" implying he is inviting them inside the tomb and not to climb up on top of the stone. Those with powers of deduction can reasonably conclude that whereever he was at the time of speaking it wasnt up on top of the rock which would necessitate an invitation to "go" as in "go and see the place where he is lying"

To suggest that in the absence of explicit statements, everyone including the angels stayed immobile in the exact same spot they were introduced as being in is a ludicrous suggestion and entirely out of line with the gospel narrative which are not stage directons and only include details which cannot usually be deduced with the minimum of common sense.



JW

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

You missed my point entirely. I was arguing that context CANNOT be disregarded. That's why a direction to Mary not to "cling" to Jesus would make no sense in the context of the reason he gives. He seems to be indicating that there is some mystical reason for him to avoid contact.

Why doesn't Matthew have him give the same admonition to the women who ran up and "held him by the feet"?