Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?

[Regens Küchl]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

[TRANSPONDER]

Most of your post is denial and rubbish.

Opinions.

Just one example - I keep posting the same old stuff because you keep posting the same old denial. For example trying to deflect a straight question as to whether hard evidence of Gospel unreliability doesn't give you reason to doubt as a 'loaded question'.

But it was a loaded question.

You asked why would I accept the Gospels when they contradict..."the Gospels contradict" is an alleged statement of truth that is embedded in the question.

The question is embedded with a unsupported (and false) premise...making it loaded.

I do not accept any premise that the Gospel accounts are contradictory...nor have you given any solid reasons as to why I should.

But the reaching that you have to do to prove your case is legendary.

Your only point worth bothering with is the story construction.

Which is about 95% of the contention between us.

If course this is hypothetical but the clue is in the empty tomb being common to all 4. Thus it is a claim common to the original story. That it did not originally have an angelic explanation is proven by John not having it and suggests (hypothetically - concedo) a later elaboration of the original claim. This is hard evidence for all your denial or evasion of pointing to angels appearing later on with no message.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

How can the fact that it did not originally have an angelic explanation be proven by John, when JOHN WAS THE LAST GOSPEL WRITTEN???

Makes no sense.

If John was the last Gospel written, then no prior accounts could have ORIGINATED from him.

Or do you not understand this?

You have the same blunder here, that you have with 1 Corinth and the Gospels.

SMH.

That, plus the fact that I already explained why John's account is different.

Still waiting on a response to that one.

So the explanation (repeated) of why the women would go there at all (no good reason)

You: There was no good reason for you guys to go to the tomb.

Mary Magdalene to other Mary: Who is this guy, living 2,000 years later on an online debate forum, to tell us whether or not it was a good reason to visit our Lord and Savior (and my son's) tomb?

Me to the women: I know, right. And the crazy part about it is, he doesn't even believe in Jesus!!

Mary: What?! Oh, then his opinion REALLY doesn't matter then.

Me: My sentiments, exactly.

and why it wouldn't have occurred to them that it would be closed is shown to be a plot problem arising from a claim that hadn't been thought through.

Hahahaha that hadn't been thought through?

It was thought through enough for the author to literally have the women ponder about how they would get in after he JUST told us that they knew it was closed, right??

Smh.

Sounds like the only thing that hasn't been thought through is your objections, mi amigo.

That is proven by various plot -solutions John gives no reason at all.

Syllogism test.

1. Joh gives no reason about X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Non sequitur. Illogical reasoning.

Test FAILED.

The synoptic original evidently said it was to anoint the body, but Matthew clearly sees this makes no sense as this had already been done. So he does drop that reason, says they just went to look at the tomb (not very ingenious) and found it opened up by an angel which is described in detail.

You are reaching.

Matthew does not tell us why the women went to the tomb, so your explanation as to why they went is nothing but reaching speculation...gotta keep that skepticism sharp.

So basically, you are saying that Matthew had the women going to the tomb for no reason other than to look at it.

I guess the conversation was something like..

Mary Magdalene: Hey girls, it is boring around here. Lets grab some popcorn, and go stare at Jesus' tomb.

Other women: Aight, cool. Lets go.

Makes no sense.

So denial aside, it makes more sense to ascribe it to a conflicting story derived from a simple claim 'The tomb was empty - Jesus must have got up and walked'.

?

What else. Yes, there are common elements in the story which prove an original source. That only goes to show in the purple pencil of redaction criticism, what has been altered, added to or omitted.

Opinions.

Your excuses are irrelevant. The actions of the women contradict your attempt to appeal to the excuse of them being confused. Your denial and failed excuses get you nothing. I reckon my argument is just as good and thus pretty much deflates the 'empty tomb' apologetic, plus having evidence in the incoherent plot and contradictions. You now change your apologetic from the women being Distracted to them being fixated.

They were fixated with going to the tomb to anoint Jesus, while at the same time in a state of sorrow/grief.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Once they had done the job and set out, it only then occurred to them the tomb would be closed? Come on - it is your denial that it's even a legitimate point shows how you have to keep your faithbased denial obtuse.

This is apparently a key element to your skepticism that you just cant seem to let go.

It is silly, and I addressed it enough times.

What more. Oh yes, The crummy apologetic that the story makes so little sense, it has to be true or they wouldn't tell it. Sorry. These people were not the sharpest knives in the box, sometimes. And it overlooks that it is the contradictions that discredit a story that otherwise might pass.

There are a lot of things that are happening which makes no sense, even within the times of smarter, educated, more sharper knives in the box.

And we can these times 2022.

No charges for the lesson, spade.

Off the internet. A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (such as, a presumption of guilt). That is NOT what I was doing./ I was presenting evidence of a contradiction and asking whether it wasn't persuasive evidence. The contradiction is real, your 'explanations invalid. 'Your calling it loaded is well - poisoning as well as evasive. Which is indeed 95% of the difference between us. To me truth matters; to you Faith matters.

Well it's an answer of sorts. That John has no angelic message is clear contradiction and to me would suggest there originally wasn't such but the synoptic version added it on as an 'explanation'. Your attempts to fiddle and deny this shows that faithbased denial is your 'answer'.

h Now that's a good question. How can John as a later gospel contain the earliest version? The obvious answer is the conspiracy theory or tripping up a witness. Subsequent elaborations of the story show later invention. But you have to know what their original story was - or the same story recorded by someone else. Even Luke (one of the worst elaborators) sometimes has the original, like a simple feeding of the 5,000 while Matthew and Mark use a version with an added feeding of 4,000. In the same way the original rejection at Nazareth should surely contain the messianic declaration and attempted murder if it had really happened, or the penitent thief. Excuses as to why it isn't there won't wash. Luke invented it.

In the same way John reflects the original empty tomb claim. The synoptic version that Matthew, Mark and Luke used added an angelic explanation. It's not rocket science. But so many still argue that rockets can't work . "Because there's nothing to push against in space" As usual I am left wondering whether you really don't get it or just pretend that you don't. Though (as usual) I know the answer - evidence doesn't really matter; Faithbased denial does.

Sorry I don't recall an explanation of why John's account was different. Can you repeat or give a post number?

I loved your self -serving little playlet of the Gospel characters saying how wrong I was. I could do that too, but I prefer a rational evidence -based and honest argument.

"It was thought through enough for the author to literally have the women ponder about how they would get in after he JUST told us that they knew it was closed, right??" Wrong. It was lack of thinking it through that landed them (If they realised it) in the position of explaining why they didn't think of the the tomb being closed. Your excuse that they were both distracted AND fixated just becomes more dubious. And to anticipate your last point, they weren't as smart as you - they din't explain that 'For they had not considered that the tomb was closed since they were both distracted and fixated."because they hadn't thought it through.

Your syllogism fails. Evidence of absence is valid and always was. Failure to mention something significant is evidence that it didn't originally happen (1).

The 'He forgot' excuses do not wash. The same faithbased denial about I Corinths. Excusing serious witness contradictions with improbable appeals to forgetfulness or whatever. If you make any excuse other than denial or I'm just wrong.

My suggestion that Matthew dropped the anointing at least fits the clues, given a common original text. It explains why the synoptic original purpose of anointing is dropped and why the opening of the tomb is given, just as the tale that the disciples stole the body is a reason why Matthew has a tomb guard and nobody else does. You cal it my reaching but it addresses these discrepancies and does not ignore then as Bible Experts have done for 2,000 years.

Then more evasion, denial, feigned (probably) incomprehension. Claims that you explained when the excuses had failed. The usual. You have nothing to teach me, sunshine, but you are a very Good bad example that enables me to make my explanations of my case and the failure of yours, and the similar Bible -apologetics methods.

(1) one of these days I could explain (again) the validity of negative evidence (withing known parameters) and the fallacy of apologetics kneejerk dismissal of "That's argument from absence" Which is the usual dismissal without actually understanding the argument.

[Clownboat]

Are molecules alive or inanimate matter? Are you not made up of inanimate matter (molecules)?

So, Clownboat...if what you've been saying is true; what was the point of the Miller-Urey experiment?

What an odd way to admit you were wrong about inanimate matter coming to life.
In the Miller-Urey experiment, they were trying to mimic the conditions of an early earth.

Your claim that it would take voodoo is clearly false and you should retract it for being false to maintain some level of honor.

It is worse than voodoo, actually.

Got it. Doubling down.
Readers, is it not true that we are all made up of inanimate matter that has coalesced into what we are?

I just don't think we have another word in our English vernacular to describe the ridiculous concept...a clean word, that is.

Try 'reality'.

Sorry, it took a belief in a god for me to deceive children.

Oh, so you are the deceiver of children, not God?

No. I have abandond my god beliefs and no longer deceive children.

What are you even talking about now? You're surely not addressing god magic and this seems like nothing more than a childish retort without any value.

Yeah, but God is the magician doing the magic tricks.

So this god is real, is a magician and does magic tricks. Uhhh k.

On your view, there is no magician,

No god magician out of any of the available gods have been shown to be true. Until that time, I cannot pick one and believe in it on faith alone. Via faith, you are free to believe in anything you want, and it seems you want a god. I see no issue with that myself, for yourself that is. Be merry!

yet magic is being done

I don't believe in magic. Please evidence magic for us all.

Evolution = organic transformation.

Animals don't transform.
Evolution: Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

Transformations!

And since abiogenesis is false, that is where the god magic becomes relevant.

Abiogenesis is false, but god magic? Please show your work.
I submit you are forced to accept god magic explination because that is how you can justify a resurrection that your soul depends on. I am no longer saddled with such a belief. If only there were witnesses to the resurrection.

Hey, for all we know, snakes and donkeys may have been able to talk back in the day.

Oops, I forgot about god magic for a sec.

But those talking species died off, and the nontalking species stuck around and are what we have before us today.

Please show your work.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Off the internet. A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (such as, a presumption of guilt). That is NOT what I was doing.

The controversial/unjustified assumption is your claim that the Gospels contradict.

Now, if you think otherwise, we will just have to disagree.

I was presenting evidence of a contradiction and asking whether it wasn't persuasive evidence.

Your question insinuates that it is a contradiction.

The contradiction is real, your 'explanations invalid.

Opinions.

'Your calling it loaded is well - poisoning as well as evasive. Which is indeed 95% of the difference between us. To me truth matters; to you Faith matters.

Both matters.

Well it's an answer of sorts. That John has no angelic message is clear contradiction and to me would suggest there originally wasn't such but the synoptic version added it on as an 'explanation'.

Syllogism test.

1. John has no angelic message.

2. Therefore, there was no angelic message.

Non sequitur. Test; FAILED.

Your attempts to fiddle and deny this shows that faithbased denial is your 'answer'.

Nonsense. It is Philosophy 101 and has nothing to do with faith.

Just because person X fails to mention event Y, doesn't mean that event Y did not occur.

This is a basic, fundamental level of logical reasoning...and I find it disturbing that you continue to cling on to this philosophical blunder.

h Now that's a good question. How can John as a later gospel contain the earliest version?

It doesn't. I think I said "precedes" when I meant "predate" (too lazy to go back and look).

Your claim is that the stuff from the synoptics originated from John, which is not possible if John was the later Gospel.

The obvious answer is the conspiracy theory or tripping up a witness.

LOL. This guy...

SMH.

Subsequent elaborations of the story show later invention. But you have to know what their original story was - or the same story recorded by someone else. Even Luke (one of the worst elaborators) sometimes has the original, like a simple feeding of the 5,000 while Matthew and Mark use a version with an added feeding of 4,000.

Matt 21 Now those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Mark 44 Now those who had eaten the loaves were [c]about five thousand men.

Luke 14 For there were about five thousand men.

John 10 So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

What you see is five thousand, all across the board.

SMH.

In the same way the original rejection at Nazareth should surely contain the messianic declaration and attempted murder if it had really happened, or the penitent thief. Excuses as to why it isn't there won't wash. Luke invented it.

Syllogism test..

1. Luke doesn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Non sequitur. Failure of sound logical reasoning.

In the same way John reflects the original empty tomb claim. The synoptic version that Matthew, Mark and Luke used added an angelic explanation. It's not rocket science. But so many still argue that rockets can't work . "Because there's nothing to push against in space" As usual I am left wondering whether you really don't get it or just pretend that you don't. Though (as usual) I know the answer - evidence doesn't really matter; Faithbased denial does.

Already responded to this failure sound logical reasoning. Do you have anything else?

Sorry I don't recall an explanation of why John's account was different. Can you repeat or give a post number?

I don't know if it was this thread or another one...since you apparently go on "tour" throughout the forum saying the same stuff lol.

My point was, the Gospels all tell the story but from different angels...it goes a little something like this..

1. Mary Magdalene (MM) and the women went to the tomb and noticed the stone was removed.

2. When MM saw the tomb was removed and perhaps from the message of the angel who sat outside the tomb of "He is not here", she ran off to tell Peter and John, leaving the other women behind at the tomb. She ran off without hearing the full story.

3. The other women stayed behind, being prompted to enter the tomb by the angel outside, and they go inside.

4. The women go inside the tomb, and notices a man sitting where Jesus' body had lay. While they stood there in confusion, two more angels appeared to them, prompting them to go tell Jesus' disciples the good news of "he has risen" and where they were to meet him.

5. The women run off to tell the disciples, but after a while, they were overcome with mixed emotions (being excited, afraid, and confused). Jesus appears to them to reassure them that everything is cool.

6. Meanwhile, MM (who had ran off) reaches the disciples and tells Peter and John that the tomb is empty, Jesus body is gone and she doesn't know where they took him.

7. Peter and John runs to the tomb to investigate (without Mary), and they both find an empty tomb...and they walk away, puzzled.

8. Meanwhile, Mary goes back to the tomb, but by the time she gets there, Peter and John had already left...and that is when Jesus appears to Mary.

Points 6-8 is an account of MM's perspective (John's Gospel)...and points 1-5 are from the women's perspective (Matt, Mk, Lk).

So, I said all of that to say; John's account is different is because it is from Mary's perspective, and from Mary's perspective, she was ignorant of the events inside the tomb that the other women experienced, because she left (John 20:2) without going inside.

So if she left without going inside, then OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN JOHN, BECAUSE IT WAS FROM MM's viewpoint, which is why MM WAS THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED.

Makes sense?

I loved your self -serving little playlet of the Gospel characters saying how wrong I was.

It was kinda funny.

I could do that too, but I prefer a rational evidence -based and honest argument.

"It was thought through enough for the author to literally have the women ponder about how they would get in after he JUST told us that they knew it was closed, right??" Wrong. It was lack of thinking it through that landed them (If they realised it) in the position of explaining why they didn't think of the the tomb being closed.

Your excuse that they were both distracted AND fixated just becomes more dubious. And to anticipate your last point, they weren't as smart as you - they din't explain that 'For they had not considered that the tomb was closed since they were both distracted and fixated."because they hadn't thought it through.

So your objection is, "they could have been more smarter...they could have thought it through".

Ok, I agree with you...but that has no bearing on whether or not the event occurred, which is what this is supposed to be about, isn't it?

People do dumb things all the time...but that is the point, it is still getting done...whether dumb or smart.

So your objection is irrelevant besides pointing out "they made a dumb move".

So what?

Your syllogism fails. Evidence of absence is valid and always was. Failure to mention something significant is evidence that it didn't originally happen (1).

Syllogism test...

1. I tell person A that I have a sister.

2. I don't tell person A that I also have a brother.

3. Therefore, I do not have a brother.

Non sequitur. Failure of sound logical reasoning.

Test failed.

The 'He forgot' excuses do not wash.

Straw man. I never claimed anyone forgot anything.

The same faithbased denial about I Corinths. Excusing serious witness contradictions with improbable appeals to forgetfulness or whatever. If you make any excuse other than denial or I'm just wrong.

You're just wrong. I like that one.

My suggestion that Matthew dropped the anointing at least fits the clues, given a common original text. It explains why the synoptic original purpose of anointing is dropped and why the opening of the tomb is given, just as the tale that the disciples stole the body is a reason why Matthew has a tomb guard and nobody else does. You cal it my reaching but it addresses these discrepancies and does not ignore then as Bible Experts have done for 2,000 years.

Syllogism test.

1. Matthew didn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not occur.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

Then more evasion, denial, feigned (probably) incomprehension. Claims that you explained when the excuses had failed. The usual. You have nothing to teach me, sunshine, but you are a very Good bad example that enables me to make my explanations of my case and the failure of yours, and the similar Bible -apologetics methods.

(1) one of these days I could explain (again) the validity of negative evidence (withing known parameters) and the fallacy of apologetics kneejerk dismissal of "That's argument from absence" Which is the usual dismissal without actually understanding the argument.

............

[We_Are_VENOM]

What an odd way to admit you were wrong about inanimate matter coming to life.
In the Miller-Urey experiment, they were trying to mimic the conditions of an early earth.

You are WRONG.

But not only are you WRONG about what the experiment was about...but you missed the point in why I asked you the question...

"The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment[2]) was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early, prebiotic Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions."

And the icing on the cake..

"Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller".

Both quotes in first paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2 ... experiment

Obviously, if the purpose of the experiment was for investigating abiogenesis (life from inanimate material), then this doesn't mesh with whatever point you are making about inanimate matter...which is why I asked you the question about the purpose of the experiment...because whatever point you are trying to make contradicts what the experiment was all about.

So no, I wasn't admitting being wrong about inanimate matter coming to life, I asked the question to point out your own folly.

No. I have abandond my god beliefs and no longer deceive children.

Do you teach evolution?

So this god is real, is a magician and does magic tricks. Uhhh k.

Magician's do magic tricks, don't they.

No god magician out of any of the available gods have been shown to be true. Until that time, I cannot pick one and believe in it on faith alone. Via faith, you are free to believe in anything you want, and it seems you want a god. I see no issue with that myself, for yourself that is. Be merry!

Typical atheistic mumbo, with no substance whatsoever.

I don't believe in magic. Please evidence magic for us all.

Macroevolution.

Animals don't transform.
Evolution: Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

Transformations!

I call a reptile changing to a bird a transformation. You can call it whatever you like.

Abiogenesis is false, but god magic? Please show your work.
I submit you are forced to accept god magic explination because that is how you can justify a resurrection that your soul depends on. I am no longer saddled with such a belief. If only there were witnesses to the resurrection.

If only there were to witness macro-level transformations in nature (reptile evolving to bird).

[Clownboat]

What an odd way to admit you were wrong about inanimate matter coming to life.
In the Miller-Urey experiment, they were trying to mimic the conditions of an early earth.

You are WRONG.

But not only are you WRONG about what the experiment was about...but you missed the point in why I asked you the question...

You brought up Miller-Urey not myself. My point was that inanimate matter does come to life. We are all made up of inanimate matter. I see why you don't want to address this and would prefer to talk about something else instead. Not very honorable though IMO.

Obviously, if the purpose of the experiment was for investigating abiogenesis (life from inanimate material), then this doesn't mesh with whatever point you are making about inanimate matter...

It seems that you have confused yourself. My point is simple. We are all alive and were formed when inanimate matterals coalesced into what we are.

because whatever point you are trying to make contradicts what the experiment was all about.

Correct, and this is your dodge. You dodge my point and discuss something all together different. It is not unnoticed.

So no, I wasn't admitting being wrong about inanimate matter coming to life,

Of course you didn't admit it! I had to show your folly.
Again, we are all alive and made up of inanimate matter.

I asked the question to point out your own folly.

Where is the folly in my pointing out that we are all alive, yet made up of inanimate matter?

Do you teach evolution?

No. I accept that it best explains what we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. If not evolution, what explination do you suggest fits what we see in both better?

Magician's do magic tricks, don't they.

I can show you a magician. Can you show me any of the god concepts we have here on earth?

No god magician out of any of the available gods have been shown to be true. Until that time, I cannot pick one and believe in it on faith alone. Via faith, you are free to believe in anything you want, and it seems you want a god. I see no issue with that myself, for yourself that is. Be merry!

Typical atheistic mumbo, with no substance whatsoever.

I'm not an atheist and I trust the readers note the truth of the words above.
Me: "None of the available god concepts have been shown to be true"
You: "Typical atheistic mumbo"
Our readers are more intelligent than you give them credit for and will note the truth of the words that no god concept has been shown to be real.

I don't believe in magic. Please evidence magic for us all.

Macroevolution.

I'm sorry, but you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. Is it because you cannot provide evidence for magic being a real thing? Why not just be honest and state that?

I call a reptile changing to a bird a transformation. You can call it whatever you like.

No reptile changed into a bird. There can be no question as to why you reject the Theory of Evolution. You don't seem to understand it.

If only there were to witness macro-level transformations in nature (reptile evolving to bird).

Witnesses would be great, but are not needed.
Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled ... -96679683/

We also have bacteria that can digest nylon, something humans invented and not something found in nature. Now that is quite the evolutionary trait that came about via evolution, but I get it, macro just can't happen. What is really needed is god magic.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #495]

Why read, let alone argue with someone who does not understand or believe in either science or evidence and doesn't even need witnesses for his fundamental, tho' impossible belief? This is the ultimate irony, rejecting science while believing in ghosts, talking snakes, world wide floods, all the animals in the world on a wooden boat for a year, fiery flying chariots, the dead becoming reanimated and then ascending to outer space as if there were an actual heaven "up" there. These are flat Earth, heaven is above dome beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

Off the internet. A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (such as, a presumption of guilt). That is NOT what I was doing.

The controversial/unjustified assumption is your claim that the Gospels contradict.

Now, if you think otherwise, we will just have to disagree.

I was presenting evidence of a contradiction and asking whether it wasn't persuasive evidence.

Your question insinuates that it is a contradiction.

The contradiction is real, your 'explanations invalid.

Opinions.

'Your calling it loaded is well - poisoning as well as evasive. Which is indeed 95% of the difference between us. To me truth matters; to you Faith matters.

Both matters.

Well it's an answer of sorts. That John has no angelic message is clear contradiction and to me would suggest there originally wasn't such but the synoptic version added it on as an 'explanation'.

Syllogism test.

1. John has no angelic message.

2. Therefore, there was no angelic message.

Non sequitur. Test; FAILED.

Your attempts to fiddle and deny this shows that faithbased denial is your 'answer'.

Nonsense. It is Philosophy 101 and has nothing to do with faith.

Just because person X fails to mention event Y, doesn't mean that event Y did not occur.

This is a basic, fundamental level of logical reasoning...and I find it disturbing that you continue to cling on to this philosophical blunder.

h Now that's a good question. How can John as a later gospel contain the earliest version?

It doesn't. I think I said "precedes" when I meant "predate" (too lazy to go back and look).

Your claim is that the stuff from the synoptics originated from John, which is not possible if John was the later Gospel.

The obvious answer is the conspiracy theory or tripping up a witness.

LOL. This guy...

SMH.

Subsequent elaborations of the story show later invention. But you have to know what their original story was - or the same story recorded by someone else. Even Luke (one of the worst elaborators) sometimes has the original, like a simple feeding of the 5,000 while Matthew and Mark use a version with an added feeding of 4,000.

Matt 21 Now those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Mark 44 Now those who had eaten the loaves were [c]about five thousand men.

Luke 14 For there were about five thousand men.

John 10 So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.

What you see is five thousand, all across the board.

SMH.

In the same way the original rejection at Nazareth should surely contain the messianic declaration and attempted murder if it had really happened, or the penitent thief. Excuses as to why it isn't there won't wash. Luke invented it.

Syllogism test..

1. Luke doesn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X didn't happen.

Non sequitur. Failure of sound logical reasoning.

In the same way John reflects the original empty tomb claim. The synoptic version that Matthew, Mark and Luke used added an angelic explanation. It's not rocket science. But so many still argue that rockets can't work . "Because there's nothing to push against in space" As usual I am left wondering whether you really don't get it or just pretend that you don't. Though (as usual) I know the answer - evidence doesn't really matter; Faithbased denial does.

Already responded to this failure sound logical reasoning. Do you have anything else?

Sorry I don't recall an explanation of why John's account was different. Can you repeat or give a post number?

I don't know if it was this thread or another one...since you apparently go on "tour" throughout the forum saying the same stuff lol.

My point was, the Gospels all tell the story but from different angels...it goes a little something like this..

1. Mary Magdalene (MM) and the women went to the tomb and noticed the stone was removed.

2. When MM saw the tomb was removed and perhaps from the message of the angel who sat outside the tomb of "He is not here", she ran off to tell Peter and John, leaving the other women behind at the tomb. She ran off without hearing the full story.

3. The other women stayed behind, being prompted to enter the tomb by the angel outside, and they go inside.

4. The women go inside the tomb, and notices a man sitting where Jesus' body had lay. While they stood there in confusion, two more angels appeared to them, prompting them to go tell Jesus' disciples the good news of "he has risen" and where they were to meet him.

5. The women run off to tell the disciples, but after a while, they were overcome with mixed emotions (being excited, afraid, and confused). Jesus appears to them to reassure them that everything is cool.

6. Meanwhile, MM (who had ran off) reaches the disciples and tells Peter and John that the tomb is empty, Jesus body is gone and she doesn't know where they took him.

7. Peter and John runs to the tomb to investigate (without Mary), and they both find an empty tomb...and they walk away, puzzled.

8. Meanwhile, Mary goes back to the tomb, but by the time she gets there, Peter and John had already left...and that is when Jesus appears to Mary.

Points 6-8 is an account of MM's perspective (John's Gospel)...and points 1-5 are from the women's perspective (Matt, Mk, Lk).

So, I said all of that to say; John's account is different is because it is from Mary's perspective, and from Mary's perspective, she was ignorant of the events inside the tomb that the other women experienced, because she left (John 20:2) without going inside.

So if she left without going inside, then OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN JOHN, BECAUSE IT WAS FROM MM's viewpoint, which is why MM WAS THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED.

Makes sense?

I loved your self -serving little playlet of the Gospel characters saying how wrong I was.

It was kinda funny.

I could do that too, but I prefer a rational evidence -based and honest argument.

"It was thought through enough for the author to literally have the women ponder about how they would get in after he JUST told us that they knew it was closed, right??" Wrong. It was lack of thinking it through that landed them (If they realised it) in the position of explaining why they didn't think of the the tomb being closed.

Your excuse that they were both distracted AND fixated just becomes more dubious. And to anticipate your last point, they weren't as smart as you - they din't explain that 'For they had not considered that the tomb was closed since they were both distracted and fixated."because they hadn't thought it through.

So your objection is, "they could have been more smarter...they could have thought it through".

Ok, I agree with you...but that has no bearing on whether or not the event occurred, which is what this is supposed to be about, isn't it?

People do dumb things all the time...but that is the point, it is still getting done...whether dumb or smart.

So your objection is irrelevant besides pointing out "they made a dumb move".

So what?

Your syllogism fails. Evidence of absence is valid and always was. Failure to mention something significant is evidence that it didn't originally happen (1).

Syllogism test...

1. I tell person A that I have a sister.

2. I don't tell person A that I also have a brother.

3. Therefore, I do not have a brother.

Non sequitur. Failure of sound logical reasoning.

Test failed.

The 'He forgot' excuses do not wash.

Straw man. I never claimed anyone forgot anything.

The same faithbased denial about I Corinths. Excusing serious witness contradictions with improbable appeals to forgetfulness or whatever. If you make any excuse other than denial or I'm just wrong.

You're just wrong. I like that one.

My suggestion that Matthew dropped the anointing at least fits the clues, given a common original text. It explains why the synoptic original purpose of anointing is dropped and why the opening of the tomb is given, just as the tale that the disciples stole the body is a reason why Matthew has a tomb guard and nobody else does. You cal it my reaching but it addresses these discrepancies and does not ignore then as Bible Experts have done for 2,000 years.

Syllogism test.

1. Matthew didn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not occur.

Non sequitur. Test failed.

Then more evasion, denial, feigned (probably) incomprehension. Claims that you explained when the excuses had failed. The usual. You have nothing to teach me, sunshine, but you are a very Good bad example that enables me to make my explanations of my case and the failure of yours, and the similar Bible -apologetics methods.

(1) one of these days I could explain (again) the validity of negative evidence (withing known parameters) and the fallacy of apologetics kneejerk dismissal of "That's argument from absence" Which is the usual dismissal without actually understanding the argument.

............

I'll have a closer look at this tomorrow but already I can see an elaborate rewriting of what the Bible says happened to make it work. And it contradicts the Bible which makes it clear that both the women were together at the tomb and when they reported to the disciples. The two discrepant stories requires you to rewrite the Bible to make it say what you want it to say. But what it says is that in John's gospels they both had no idea what had happened to Jesus. In the synoptics they did, because they had been told by the angel.

Your syllogism (wrong reasoning dressed up to look like philosophy) is wrong because negative evidence can be valid. The point about contradiction - and they are real and you know they are but you have to try to explain them - is that they have to be inexplicable by an excuse that they forgot or didn't know or thought it wasn't important. It has to be something significant. Like no angelic explanation in John. Simple things like not saying you have a brother is a strawman of the actual serious omission.

Your attempt to explain this shows that you know it is a real contradiction and a valid question. And I don't thinkyou have explained it, not even with writing a new Bible to tell a different story to suit yourself.

I'll have a closer look tomorrow, but I reckon that's plenty for you to think about.

[The Nice Centurion]

For sure, if there were eyewitnesses in the NT for the actual resurrection (even invented ones), christians at last would have something and neednt always to throw out the same hogwash about pseudo-witnesses, like here:

Many witnesses: In the Gospels, Acts and Paul’s letters, it is evident that many people were alive who could have disputed the facts provided by the New Testament writers if the details were wrong. Instead, there is agreement and consistency in what we are told. Former persecutors and detractors like Paul (previously Saul) did not dispute the records. Christians were willing to live under the constant threat of death—which would have been unthinkable unless they were convinced that Jesus was not a charlatan. We also have the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the authors to remember events accurately (John 14:26; 16:13).
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/who-is ... urrection/

[TRANSPONDER]

For sure, if there were eyewitnesses in the NT for the actual resurrection (even invented ones), christians at last would have something and neednt always to throw out the same hogwash about pseudo-witnesses, like here:

Many witnesses: In the Gospels, Acts and Paul’s letters, it is evident that many people were alive who could have disputed the facts provided by the New Testament writers if the details were wrong. Instead, there is agreement and consistency in what we are told. Former persecutors and detractors like Paul (previously Saul) did not dispute the records. Christians were willing to live under the constant threat of death—which would have been unthinkable unless they were convinced that Jesus was not a charlatan. We also have the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the authors to remember events accurately (John 14:26; 16:13).
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/who-is ... urrection/

Yes. There are a number of similar efforts to try to prove the Resurrection through the back door or by default. Nonsense like 'Produce the body" or 'Nobody at the time stepped forward and said it didn't happen' or indeed 'The disciples would not die for a lie'.

It was hilarious when the Talpiot tomb was opened and they thought they Had found the body. Die for a lie depends of crediting the tall tales about Apostolic martyrdom. I don't even credit the killing of James in Acts. I don't credit anything much in Acts. And the one about nobody stepping forward at the time to deny the resurrection. Well, Paul seems to be arguing for the resurrection mainly on the basis of Pharisee belief in resurrection, a belief in the eventual return of the Messiah and this list of appearances in Ist Corinthians which i I don't accept as the Gospel story anyway.

The upshot being that if the disciples had the idea that the spirit had resurrected and the body was still there, the question of denial didn't arise. It was purely a matter of Belief. I know it's bound to be disputed but a non body resurrection makes sense of all the problems. That's assuming that anyone pays attention to them.

When the Christian version of the Jesus story came to be written, after the Jewish war, I'll bet, Though I don't expect to collect my winnings, In Christian circles, nobody was there who'd been there. And I remain sceptical about the Roman Christian claims to know someone who knew someone who knew someone who claimed to be one of Jesus' disciples. Simply because if he hadn't rejected the gospel account, he wasn't a real one of the 12. Based purely on the discrepant accounts that would have then slung out of a court of law into the street. And (anticipating a clamour of denial) That's the way I see it, even if nobody else does.

But the one thing they can't deny is Matthew's story of the tomb guard. At the end of describing them being bribed and told to stay quiet, Matthew says that the Jews say in his day that the disciples stole the body. Well there's denial of the resurrection right there.

[TRANSPONDER]

A P.s on Venom's post. I didn't claim that you did use the 'he forgot' excuse. I just gave that as an example of how apologists try to excuse away omissions. I say that the test case can't be excused, only denied.
Do I have to revisit the empty tomb excuse? Sure you can appeal to 'people do dumb things'. I say that if they were obtaining grinding pr mincing or pounding or whatever they do with the stuff, and decanting it into jars, it is equally or more reasonable to suggest that 'How do we get in?' might have crossed their minds.

On top of that this was clearly a bother to the gospels. Not John as he gives no reason, which (like no explanatory angel) is probably how the original gospel read. But the writer of the synoptic original (I think it is accepted that there was a common original, but Mainstream expertise says it's Mark, which I reject). scratched his balding head with his stylus. 'Wait...why the heck did they go to the tomb at all? To see to the body with burial rites and so on. That'll do."

Mark didn't question that. Luke didn't worry about it as he's already deleted the anointing for burial. Matthew dealt with it by saying they just went to look at the tomb, and explained how they found it open, because the conclusion that Jesus needed it open so he could get out...it has a few red flags. I can see why Matthew needed to work on his version a bit.

The point being, Venom old sausage, is that we can both make our claims but I can see how the problem was handled in evolving editions, whereas you can only rely on 'They were dumb'.

What more you got?

Oh yes. Jesus, chum. You need some Bible study. Or maybe you are just trying it on. There are 5,000 men fed bread and fish (Yukk (1) across the board, yes. But Matthew and Mark also have a second feeding of 4,000 which neither John nor Luke have. You may try to excuse this in one way or the other, but if that was the state of the Synoptic original never mind it being what really happened, Luke ought to have it if not John as well. I see Luke's 'Great omission' (as it is called as a way of sweeping it under the rug of faith) rather as Mark/Matthew material not found in Luke. The Syrio -Phoenecian woman, the cursing of the Fig tree and the quote from Psalms on the cross. That they all 4 have the basic feeding of 5,000 is irrelevant to the problem.

(1) sorry but the idea of cold flatbread and cold, bony sardines crossed my mind. Thank God for pot noodles.