Please Make This Make Sense?

[POI]

According to John 20, Mary went to the tomb and finds it empty. It is clear that she is presented to be alone here, as John 20:1 only mentions Mary, and also that John 20:2 states that she ran, rather than stating that they ran. Alternatively, Matthew 28:1 states Mary was with another, and also that Matthew 28:8 states that they left.

Theists will argue, "well, some of these (small) details don't really matter. All that really matters is that Jesus was found missing and later appeared to others." For which a skeptic might reply... "It does matter because Christians argue that THIS collection of events is said to be the most important storyline presented within mankind's history. If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?"

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

[RBD]

[RBD]

,

Anyone seeking Christ through anything [be it the Bible or any other scriptures] is definitely not finding the real and forever living Christ Jesus since the Lord Jesus is not the Bible.'[/color][/i]

Jesus is not a Unitarian.

What is Jesus then, and how did you know that?

Jesus is not the Christ of other writings than the Bible:

Luk 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

1 Cor 15:2
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So, I'll not argue with Unitarians about Jesus Christ and the Scriptures of God. You're more than welcome to your own faith, words, and Christ.

Tit 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

[OneJack]

,

Anyone seeking Christ through anything [be it the Bible or any other scriptures] is definitely not finding the real and forever living Christ Jesus since the Lord Jesus is not the Bible.'[/color][/i]

Jesus is not a Unitarian.

What is Jesus then, and how did you know that?

Jesus is not the Christ of other writings than the Bible:

Luk 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

1 Cor 15:2
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So, I'll not argue with Unitarians about Jesus Christ and the Scriptures of God. You're more than welcome to your own faith, words, and Christ.

Tit 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Do you agree that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Almighty God who came in the flesh - the flesh of the Son of God, the man who was born of Mary - during the apostles' time? And that the Son of God was the man who served as the physical vessel of the Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, in His incarnation.

[POI]

[Replying to Mr E in post #24]

Here's the problem...

John 20:1-2 records Mary going and discovering the "empty tomb". She, (or her and another female), then left to tell others, (i.e.) the men. Later, in John 20:11-18, Mary comes back a second time with men. At which time, is then when the shenanigans happened, (i.e.) seeing angles and stuff.

Alternatively, in Matthew 28:1-8, the shenanigans, (i.e.) angles and earthquakes, happened with Mary and another woman or women alone, (no men).

So, which one is it? Who was there when all these events happened and when?

Like I've told others here... If we are discussing a part of 'the greatest story ever told,' why are the accounts so inconsistent? Who was there, and who wasn't? Exactly what specific shenanigans actually happened, and what shenanigans didn't? You see, the fundamental story is already very far-fetched, and quite unbelievable to begin with. When an investigator is collecting accounts, to assess the claim, and the details do not align, why is it not logical to just discard the wild claim altogether?.?.?

Just imagine that another crazy claim was made, which leaves room for a high level of doubt; such as an alien sighting where rectums were claimed to be probed. And upon addressing (4) sources, told years apart from one another, the tale(s) vary in time, sequencing of events, as well as who was present to see what? Would this strengthen the veracity of the claim or diminish the veracity of the claim?

If the Gospels cannot even get 'the greatest story ever told' consistent, then what? Let alone the fact, that again, the fundamental claim itself is already highly unlikely, and we have a recipe for logical dismissal.

The 'minimal facts' believer may say... (paraphrased) "Well, all that really matters is that something out of the ordinary really did happen, even though the (4) eyewitness accounts produce wildly different details." I instead say that "as a logical investigator, if the story lacks consistency, and the story also defies physics/other itself, then maybe we should just instead discard the story entirely." The believer might then counter back again and say, "well, the fact that the stories do not copy each other word-for-word makes it more authentic, as differing people may have had a differing perspective."

At the end of the day, the ultimate claim is that a rotting body rose, as well as also laying witness to other claimed supernatural things happening as well.

Anywho... EVEN IF the believer has an argument here, in that the inconsistencies in the told sequencing of events proves to be more authentic, as every witness may have had a differing perspective, the storyline still smells. That's really all.

This created thread is not really the be-all-end-all of them all. It is instead just another observation, which, when added to all other point(s) of presented doubt, and when all collectively added together, makes for a storyline which is not very believable.

Thanx

[Mr E]

[Replying to POI in post #54]

I think your points are valid. Christians, in a very general sense do not do themselves or anyone else any favors by pretending the inconsistencies don't exist. I'd yield to the idea that many or most Christians entirely dismiss, or don't even realize that there are any inconsistencies at all. -But there are. It's undeniable and in print. It would be much better for this "greatest story ever told" to be a clean copy from 2000 years ago, with every member of the choir singing monophonic, a cappella from a single song sheet. But that isn't the case. We are left then with believing or rejecting whatever it is we have, and if we believe we must believe in whole or in part. For the believers, they might choose to reject the inconsistencies as errors in the telling of the story, and at the same time fully accept that the story is true in fact, complete with those errors in the telling.

All this before conspiracy-minded meddling begins. You are the forum's version of Candace Owens, looking to poke holes and seize on any real and imagined inconsistencies in order to make hay. She actually makes money, not hay, but the comparison remains-- it's an attempt to make the most out of the littlest.

At the end of the day, the ultimate claim is that a rotting body rose, as well as also laying witness to other claimed supernatural things happening as well.

Anywho... EVEN IF the believer has an argument here, in that the inconsistencies in the told sequencing of events proves to be more authentic, as every witness may have had a differing perspective, the storyline still smells. That's really all.

This created thread is not really the be-all-end-all of them all. It is instead just another observation, which, when added to all other point(s) of presented doubt, and when all collectively added together, makes for a storyline which is not very believable.

I think you nailed it. The story itself is a claim of supernatural events. You saw a ghost. I don't believe you did. I don't even think ghosts are real, but you saw one so you don't need me to believe you. Right? My unbelief never touches your belief, because your belief is not a mere feeling, it's an experience. Of course it's not believable, I shouldn't be expected to bank on your story... unless I know you so well, that I'm willing to bank on you. And that's what happens. These people were so convinced in their experience and so believable and completely credible that others have fully accepted their testimony on the basis of their character, having little or even nothing to do with the details of the telling. You tell me something unbelievable and I believe it having not seen what you saw, but believing YOU. And I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and years later a couple of folks decide that this all should be written down and preserved for posterity. Given that foundation, it would be entirely suspect if those independent recollections of what 'others' had seen and said were a perfect match. Then your skepticism might hold weight. As it is, you come across as little more than a naysayer, a fly in the ointment.

So how do I harmonize? Do I pick one and reject the other? Do I mix and match, or blend? Yes to all. I like the account in John as it has detail lacking in Matthew, which I find to be a little sensationalized with angelic pronouncements and earthquakes, recognizing however that I'm hearing/reading an account by a third party who wasn't even there as a participant or witness to the story he's telling. I don't think less of the story based on his telling, I think he's doing the best he can with what he's got. I think he's accurately representing whatever it was he was told. Does that make sense?

Good convo.

[RBD]

,

Anyone seeking Christ through anything [be it the Bible or any other scriptures] is definitely not finding the real and forever living Christ Jesus since the Lord Jesus is not the Bible.'[/color][/i]

Jesus is not a Unitarian.

What is Jesus then, and how did you know that?

Jesus is not the Christ of other writings than the Bible:

Luk 24:25
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

1 Cor 15:2
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

So, I'll not argue with Unitarians about Jesus Christ and the Scriptures of God. You're more than welcome to your own faith, words, and Christ.

Tit 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Do you agree that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Almighty God who came in the flesh - the flesh of the Son of God, the man who was born of Mary - during the apostles' time?

This is Scripture.

Although the time of the apostles was about 30 years after His birth. But hey, I shouldn't quibble...

And that the Son of God was the man who served as the physical vessel of the Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ, in His incarnation.

I'd say it a little different according to Scripture: Jesus Christ was not the physical vessel of Almighty God. The Son of God in the flesh, was Almighty God come in the flesh. His physical body served Himself on earth.

His physical body and vessel was fashioned by the Spirit from the natural flesh of the virgin's womb, and so was made of the seed of David and Abraham.

So, unless there's some specific reason for saying Jesus was the physical body used by God, other than a little bad wording, then I have no need to be quibbling again...

[RBD]

[Replying to Mr E in post #24]

Here's the problem...

John 20:1-2 records Mary going and discovering the "empty tomb". She, (or her and another female), then left to tell others, (i.e.) the men.

Here's the problem. Coming up with another woman, where none is mentioned. Especially when used to mar the rest of the record with it.

Later, in John 20:11-18, Mary comes back a second time with men. At which time, is then when the shenanigans happened, (i.e.) seeing angles and stuff.

That happened earlier in the night when the guards saw it, and became as dead men. They were not recorded there at the tomb, when Magdalene first came in the dark and saw it already empty.

The guards would only show up later in Jerusalem being paid off.

Mat 27:65
Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

They were only sent to guard a sealed tomb, not to keep watch on an open empty one.

Which is why they are not there on guard, to keep anyone from entering an empty tomb...

At the end of the day, the ultimate claim is that a rotting body rose

And another problem of made up things not in the record. The record says nothing of the body rotting, but that it did not see any corruption.

This created thread is not really the be-all-end-all of them all.

It certainly is the same as them all. It's just more another false accusations based upon more false handling of the record. Same old same old to the end.

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #54]

I think your points are valid. Christians, in a very general sense do not do themselves or anyone else any favors by pretending the inconsistencies don't exist.

Unbelieving Christians in a specific sense do not themselves any service of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor any favors for believers in all His words of truth.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

These people were so convinced in their experience and so believable and completely credible that others have fully accepted their testimony on the basis of their character, having little or even nothing to do with the details of the telling.

Like any other unbeliever, the Scriptures are not from God, but just men. Flawed ghost-seeing silly men at that...

So how do I harmonize?

God doesn't 'harmonize' with unbelief in any of His words:

Rev{3:16}
I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[1213]

[Replying to Mr E in post #24]

Here's the problem...

John 20:1-2 records Mary going and discovering the "empty tomb". She, (or her and another female), then left to tell others, (i.e.) the men. Later, in John 20:11-18, Mary comes back a second time with men. At which time, is then when the shenanigans happened, (i.e.) seeing angles and stuff.

Alternatively, in Matthew 28:1-8, the shenanigans, (i.e.) angles and earthquakes, happened with Mary and another woman or women alone, (no men).

So, which one is it? Who was there when all these events happened and when?...

Why you ignore the answer (Post #9) and continue preach your false inconsistency claim?

[POI]

Yes, good convo... I think you and I are passed this topic, but I would like to continue in the momentum of where this convo. may be headed?

I think your points are valid. Christians, in a very general sense do not do themselves or anyone else any favors by pretending the inconsistencies don't exist. I'd yield to the idea that many or most Christians entirely dismiss, or don't even realize that there are any inconsistencies at all. -But there are. It's undeniable and in print.

I can just imagine RBD, 1213, and maybe other(s), huffing and puffing to themselves in the background right now... As they are under the assumption that these identified things are not really present. But I no longer engage with 1213 anyways because he is a perpetual (handwaver). And RBD just thinks I'm one of the 'devil's' minions, which leaves no room for earnest discussion.

All this before conspiracy-minded meddling begins. You are the forum's version of Candace Owens, looking to poke holes and seize on any real and imagined inconsistencies in order to make hay. She actually makes money, not hay, but the comparison remains-- it's an attempt to make the most out of the littlest.

When a wild story is told, where the (4) given sources, told years and years apart from one another, misalign, should the skeptic lend <more or less> credence to the wild claim? This may be somewhat of a rhetorical question, as you and I have already articulated the scenario(s). (i.e.):

The stories are more genuine/authentic, because earnest differing perspectives exist (vs) the investigator finds too many inconsistencies in their stories, (rendering the already deemed wild claim to begin with), dismissed.

I think you nailed it. The story itself is a claim of supernatural events. You saw a ghost. I don't believe you did. I don't even think ghosts are real, but you saw one so you don't need me to believe you. Right?

Pretty much... I do not believe in a 'supernatural' realm until such a 'space' has been demonstrated. Which it hasn't. If I thought the 'supernatural' existed, then I certainly would add this option as a possible or viable answer into the wheelhouse of considered option(s) when a wild claim is being told. However, all which have been presented, thus far, are shaky anecdotal claims, (the Bible included), which never look to meet their burden of proof to represent the undemonstrated 'supernatural'.

My unbelief never touches your belief, because your belief is not a mere feeling, it's an experience. Of course it's not believable, I shouldn't be expected to bank on your story...

unless I know you so well, that I'm willing to bank on you. And that's what happens.

For me, it still depends on the claim. If the claim is wild enough, then they may still be earnestly mistaken, mentally altered, "fibbing", or other. I would not consider the 'supernatural' as a valid option, as I do not (yet) believe this option even exists for consideration.

These people were so convinced in their experience and so believable and completely credible that others have fully accepted their testimony on the basis of their character, having little or even nothing to do with the details of the telling.

1) Who exactly, and how exactly do we know this?
2) How do we know what they really actually saw?
3) Were these folks ever really vetted?

You tell me something unbelievable and I believe it having not seen what you saw, but believing YOU.

If your own mother told you she sees ghosts or demons, does this mean those ghosts/demons are actually present?

And I tell two friends and they tell two friends, and years later a couple of folks decide that this all should be written down and preserved for posterity.

Yes, both (actual true vs. actual false) claims are spread in the exact same way.

Given that foundation, it would be entirely suspect if those independent recollections of what 'others' had seen and said were a perfect match.

Yes and no. I think it depends on the claim(s). For one example, where Matthew 28 is concerned, his 'version' is the only one who mentions both an "earthquake" as well as "an angel rolling back the stone". Not small and easily forgettable event(s) to omit...

Then your skepticism might hold weight. As it is, you come across as little more than a naysayer, a fly in the ointment.

I've been debating believers for years. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for me to believe that a rotting corpse rose in this one instance. It's not my fault that this 'Jesus' character decided to perform this 'miraculous' set of events at a time where there is really no way to verify them. I guess this is one of the reason(s) 'faith' is required and carries so much weight.

So how do I harmonize? Do I pick one and reject the other? Do I mix and match, or blend? Yes to all. I like the account in John as it has detail lacking in Matthew, which I find to be a little sensationalized with angelic pronouncements and earthquakes, recognizing however that I'm hearing/reading an account by a third party who wasn't even there as a participant or witness to the story he's telling. I don't think less of the story based on his telling, I think he's doing the best he can with what he's got. I think he's accurately representing whatever it was he was told. Does that make sense?

Sure. But why should anyone believe that over 2K years ago, a 2-3 day old rotting corpse actually rose again and say 'hi' to a very select and unvetted number of folks for a month or so?