Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

"When" does not automatically mean "the next thing happening". There is a break in the text when Luke 24:50 appears after a heading, "The Ascension". It's like beginning a new chapter in a book with a heading. It does not mean the new chapter's events are a continuation of the previous one.

I am not a fundamentalist thank you very much!

RESPONSE: Luke 24 is his gospel's last chapter and tells the events of the last day in Christ's earthly life. That day begins with his Resurrection and ends with his Ascension.

Luke 24 doesn't add one sentence of a new chapter and then say nothing more. If Luke would have wanted to, he would have written chapter 25. He didn't. Are you really arguing that Luke just added something that supposedly occurred 40 days later as an afterthought?



However, biblical fundamentalists have to explain away what Luke says in Luke 24, and what Luke(?) contradicts in Acts, so at the very least they have to claim a 40 day delay between the last two sentences in chapter 24. That's very imaginative, but hardly makes any sense, does it?

Comparing it to a chapter was wrong. Rather compare it to dividing accounts into sections. We are not to assume that Luke did not mention the 40 days because he didn't believe it happened then (thus believing the ascension happened shortly after the resurrection) or he forgot to mention it He is merely giving a condensed version without feeling the need to note all the times and circumstances. Yet this is construed to mean he meant ascension was shortly after the resurrection because he gave no timeline.

Instead of thinking that Acts is a contradiction, we should see it has Luke elaborating.

RESPONSE: (Lukes?) changing the same day to 40 days is a lot more than "elaborating." It's called "contradicting."

Omission of the time line is not the same as stating the ascension happened the same day. This is an inference. If Luke meant the same day, he could very well have just said like, "On the day of the resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven." Therefore we cannot just assume he meant the same day.

[polonius]

"When" does not automatically mean "the next thing happening". There is a break in the text when Luke 24:50 appears after a heading, "The Ascension". It's like beginning a new chapter in a book with a heading. It does not mean the new chapter's events are a continuation of the previous one.

I am not a fundamentalist thank you very much!

RESPONSE: Luke 24 is his gospel's last chapter and tells the events of the last day in Christ's earthly life. That day begins with his Resurrection and ends with his Ascension.

Luke 24 doesn't add one sentence of a new chapter and then say nothing more. If Luke would have wanted to, he would have written chapter 25. He didn't. Are you really arguing that Luke just added something that supposedly occurred 40 days later as an afterthought?



However, biblical fundamentalists have to explain away what Luke says in Luke 24, and what Luke(?) contradicts in Acts, so at the very least they have to claim a 40 day delay between the last two sentences in chapter 24. That's very imaginative, but hardly makes any sense, does it?

Comparing it to a chapter was wrong. Rather compare it to dividing accounts into sections. We are not to assume that Luke did not mention the 40 days because he didn't believe it happened then (thus believing the ascension happened shortly after the resurrection) or he forgot to mention it He is merely giving a condensed version without feeling the need to note all the times and circumstances. Yet this is construed to mean he meant ascension was shortly after the resurrection because he gave no timeline.

Instead of thinking that Acts is a contradiction, we should see it has Luke elaborating.

RESPONSE: (Lukes?) changing the same day to 40 days is a lot more than "elaborating." It's called "contradicting."

Omission of the time line is not the same as stating the ascension happened the same day. This is an inference. If Luke meant the same day, he could very well have just said like, "On the day of the resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven." Therefore we cannot just assume he meant the same day.

Or if he wanted to save words he could have simply said "Then..." which I believe he did.

[JLB32168]

(Lukes?) changing the same day to 40 days is a lot more than "elaborating." It's called "contradicting."

You operate with a novel interpretation of the word “contradiction.� Etymologically it means “To say opposite.� The correct description would be “discrepancy� which is defined as “be out of harmony/inconsistent with [X].� The two words in Latin have different connotations – connotations that carry over into their English counterparts.

[polonius]

(Lukes?) changing the same day to 40 days is a lot more than "elaborating." It's called "contradicting."

You operate with a novel interpretation of the word “contradiction.� Etymologically it means “To say opposite.� The correct description would be “discrepancy� which is defined as “be out of harmony/inconsistent with [X].� The two words in Latin have different connotations – connotations that carry over into their English counterparts.

RESPONSE: If something happens "Then..." And something happens 40 days later, there is a contradiction.

Ignoring a "connotation" explanation is kin to the "context" ploy. I prefer the plain meaning of words commonly found in most English dictionaries.

Merriam Webster tells us:

Simple Definition of contradiction
: the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else
: a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true

[JLB32168]

If something happens "Then..." And something happens 40 days later, there is a contradiction.

In this case the example comports with the definition of “discrepancy� more than that of “contradiction� but I suppose you can use words in novel ways to your heart’s content. All that demonstrates is an immunity to evidence.

I read no further than the sentence I cited.

[marco]

RESPONSE: If something happens "Then..." And something happens 40 days later, there is a contradiction.

Interesting argument. I believe what is said here is incorrect. The word "then" is elastic enough to extend into a period of weeks. We can say: Charles 1 was captured and then he was executed without any implication that his execution immediately followed his capture.

There is certainly no contradiction, in any sense of the word. And it is hard to see there is a discrepancy, unless we accept that "then" involving 40 days is a stretch. I don't think it is, if the narrative is looking back, many years later.

[Claire Evans]

How beliefs in gods came about can be explained by ancient people observing superior beings who identified themselves as gods. The things these gods do can be described by comparing it to what ancients already know of and that is natural phenomena. Say a god detonated a bomb. The ancients believed it sounded like thunder and a destructive storm that destroyed things. Therefore they can attribute these gods as the god of thunder and destruction.

Claire, thank you so much for evidencing that an imagination is all that is required in order to come up with gods/alien or what have you scenarios when trying to make sense of things we don't understand.
This is what I have been saying all along and what my psychology today article claimed that humans do.

I don't 'need' gods to be real. Therefore I'm not going to use my imagination in order to justify the gods as being real. Now, show me a god or an alien and then I will believe.

The difference between your argument and mine is that you assume ancient people just somehow thought of something without any evidence, whatsoever, like the supernatural, and attributed to weather, etc. However, they saw things with their own eyes, like the gods. To explain something they had no clue about had to be compared with these they did understand.

You are just assuming that. This is confirmation bias.

False. Your imagination allows you to imagine aliens dropping bombs which gave rise to the idea that aliens/gods are behind thunder and lightning and let's be honest, who knows what else you would be willing to point to aliens for.
Your very explanation in fact doesn't have any data to support it. What it has it seems is people imagining things to be real to explain gods/aliens that have not been shown to be real in the first place.

Robert Oppenheimer also had a very vivid imagination.

Just have a look at this from the Mahabharata:

"...a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as the thousand suns Rose in all its splendour… a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds… …the cloud of smoke rising after its first explosion formed into expanding round circles like the opening of giant parasols… ..it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. …The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause, And the birds turned white. After a few hours All foodstuffs were infected… …to escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment."

Does this sound like nuclear warfare or not? If not, why?

https://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress ... eexamined/

Not according to the FBI. And I don't make this stuff up to attempt to explain anything. Sometimes just putting two and two together will suffice.

The FBI is not hear to debate. Claire, you need to realize that not everything you read on the internet is true. Let's examine your source shall we:
Ancient Code is a website containing a host of articles which are mostly pseudoarchelogical and pseduohistorical hoaxes. The site seems to be registered in Croatia.[1] One Ivan Petricevic is presented as editor-in-chief[2], where he says he also writes for EWAO, Share Knowledge, Svemir Online and Ancient Origins. It is unclear whether he actually believes in the stuff he writes, or if the site is purely an advertising revenue generator.

Clownboat, that sites links it to the FBI's own site.

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

I'm posed with two scenarios.
1) People imagined the claim that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a horse.
2) Muhammad had alien technology at his disposal.
Which of these 2 do we know for a fact is a possible explanation?

Number 2 is far more likely:

Let it go on record that Claire seems to agree that alien encounters are more likely an explanation for Mohammad's flight to heaven then people imagining the story.

What seems more likely here Claire, that Tolkien imagined the Lord of the Rings stories, or that they were inspired by actual orcs, goblins, wizards and hobbits?

Wizards are magicians. That is a fact. We have claims of people who have seen tokoloshe, dwarf-like water sprites. They are associated with witch craft. Very similar in appearances to goblins we picture. It is very possible that the concept of goblins are based on actual sightings.

However, the Americans are planning to return to the Moon, this time to invade Allah’s own mosque.�

So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened.

http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2014/07/is ... om-easton/

And a claim on a blog is all that Claire seems to need in order to take these odd stories as plausible. A mosque on the moon!

Of course not. I just find it interesting that there is room for extraterrestrial in Islam. And of course, it is not restricted to Islam.

It is not outlandish to think that people like Mohammed could have been in spacecrafts.

No? Really? Show me information on space ships. You imagining space ships is not a reason for anyone to believe Mohammed ascended up to heaven nor that he has a mosque on the moon.

You don't believe spaceships exist? I didn't say it is reason to believe but it is something to keep in mind.

We already know the FBI admits there are spacecraft with crews.

Right, because you like to visit conspiracy theorists blog sites to gather your info.

No, the actual FBI site.

How do you know the resurrection claims were not to be found credible in Jerusalem?

The Jews to this day still reject that it happened.

But of course they do. They don't want to admit anything that challenges their faith.

Pot, meet kettle.

This is not about me. This is about how the Christian faith began in the first place.

That is what Jews believe. They resurrect but they don't need Jesus to do so. So why tell ancient Jews need Jesus to resurrect when they had a resurrection belief prior to Jesus' resurrection?

Christianity (especially Paul's version) was for the gentiles it seems. The Jews in Jerusalem from 2,000 years ago and still the Jews of today reject that the resurrection happened. The chosen people of the claimed god in the actual city where these claims are said to have happened did not find them credible. This should mean something to you IMO.

What's Paul's version? Of course the Jews today reject the resurrection claim. It doesn't suit them. Anyway, they are far removed from the fact. None of them are eyewitnesses.

What mechanism to you employ when reading the Bible that determines what is metaphor and what is not? Please be specific so I can start applying this said mechanism.

Do the research then come up up with your own conclusion.

This is a complete and utter fail on your part for telling us the specifics in the mechanism for knowing what is metaphor and what is not in the Bible. Therefore, you cannot be trusted to inform us humans as to what is metaphor and what is not.

In other words, just don't come to a conclusion based on what you read. Try and see the concept.

The claim of the resurrection would not have survived as a metaphor. People needed proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

If you think that this is true, it explains why you are forced to imagine reasons as to why people believed that Zeus was behind thunder and why Mohammed had access to alien space ships.
I of course disagree with you and would point to the numerous resurrection myths out there and point to nothing more than an imagination is needed in order for them to survive as stories.

Then let's start a thread on the other resurrection myths.

No. Scientific studies have shown prayer to the Christian god anyways to be ineffective. For all I know, prayers to Vishnu help, but I will doubt it until shown otherwise.

What? Show these studies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

My goodness, it depends on what is being prayed about. Do not expect God to be a genie. One must not pray for complete healing, but rather for His will to be done and that is not always in sync for with ours. We all have to die sometime. If I pray for God to be immortal, does that show God didn't answer my prayers when I die? Those scientists cannot possibly know what happens in prayer between and individual and God. It's just total arrogance on the scientists' part.

In other words, you can't close the possibility that they are telling the truth.

That's just not how this world works Claire. If people want to be credible, they need to show that they are credible. Please tell me you don't believe every claim you hear. Even if it's from a blog site!

Absolutely not. However, just because the claims are fantastic, doesn't automatically mean it cannot possibly be true.

Put your money where your mouth is Claire. Make me aware of the paranormal!

Do the research yourself. Get in contact with paranormal investigators or something.

So you can't show that you speak the truth and you expect me to waste time myself trying to prove the paranormal? I'm content with you believing in whatever absurdity you choose as long as you are not harming others.

Over in Internet? I don't think so. My beliefs do not harm others.

I don't understand what you are asking me. I'm pointing out that oral tradition is one way for rumors to start. Is oral tradition immune to starting rumors in your opinion?

Because the gospels were already established before Paul came onto the scene as I mentioned about the early Church.

Please show that Biblical scholars are mistaken and that the gospels existed before Paul came to the scene.

For some reason, you think it is plausible that Peter, Luke and the early church would just suddenly make up things about Jesus. Peter knew Jesus personally. He'd be the first to attack Paul's lies.

Because they were stored that way. I don't think the followers of Jesus could do that. Jesus, while one earth, was not that significant to write about. There were other miracle workers. It was only when Christianity took off that Jesus became very significant.

Or.... dun, dun, dun. Imagination was at play later on when the gospels finally got penned. This casts doubt on whether the res story is historical fact.

How do you know imagination later played a part?

This is a false statement if being made about an all powerful god.

Okay, tell me how God would that done it?

OK. First let me put my imagination to work...
Done. He could appear to each and every person so that they know him to be not just real, but the realist of all the gods out there. Like for really real.

Revelation says He will return to everyone. In the meanwhile, we don't need His physical presence to believe. We believe that the Holy Spirit is goo enough. If nonbeliever don't think that's good enough then they won't know.

You said it is a fact that they had control of the body.

Claire, according to the story, it is a fact they had control of the body. For all I know the body was thrown into a garbage pit for the dogs to eat like was common in the day.

Yes, fact according to the Bible, but that doesn't mean automatically it is a fact that it actually happened. If Jesus was thrown in a garbage pit, no resurrection story could have arisen in the first place.

It is not disputed that the tomb was empty. Would that have not been a problem for Pilate?

If the empty tomb claim didn't take place until after the death of Pilate, I don't see how it could have been a problem for him.

How do you know the empty tomb claim only came about after his death?

How would they have thought a resurrection took place if they were the ones to take Jesus' body to Galilee?

Use your imagination Claire. I can imagine a scenario where only a couple disciples were in on the hoax.

And the others just believed it? They didn't need a proof of a body?

It is you that ignores the additions to the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story, not I.

As I said, elaborate on that.

The ending of Mark where it is claimed that people saw the risen Christ is a forgery added many many many years later.

That is true but that does not the negate the other gospels. It is apparent that early scribes thought that Mark's gospel was not conventional enough and felt the need to interpret their own ending.

https://gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

The women at the well story is also a later addition. What needs elaborating?

I cannot find this claim when I google it. Can you give me a link?

Don't dodge what I said. Do you believe the FBI is making up claims of aliens?

What I believe is that if they were testing the U2 spy plane and lets imagine one crashed, they would prefer people to have invented alien claims rather than accurate top secret claims. I can just imagine FBI higher ups thanking ignorant conspiracy theorists for providing alien encounters for the general public to focus on.

In Roswell, they most certainly did not want the public to belief a spacecraft crashed. It was later told to be a weather balloon. Since this alien claim would have been consistent with what they revealed in the FBI document, I think they'd prefer people not to think there were aliens at Roswell.

I must show you what happened at Roswell? What? I'm just going to ask you a question, yes or no: Do you believe it is possible that it was a cover-up?

Yes, a cover up for the U2 spy plane that was being designed to spy on the Russians as well as other top secret projects.
FBI: Well gee guys, should we correct the reporting public about these crazy alien claims, or admit to our top secret research. Let's just let them go with aliens huh boys?

They did feel the need to correct as mentioned above.

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

It's in the Bible. Sorry Claire.

So? Should there be no metaphors in the Bible?

[Clownboat]

The difference between your argument and mine is that you assume ancient people just somehow thought of something without any evidence, whatsoever, like the supernatural, and attributed to weather, etc.

This is what you cannot seem to address. Imaginations are real, the supernatural is not.

However, they saw things with their own eyes, like the gods.

Please show that the gods are real. Again, an imagination is all that is required. Actual gods are not.

To explain something they had no clue about had to be compared with these they did understand.

There is not understanding to be had today about the gods, so why do you imagine that the ancients had the gods all figured out?

Robert Oppenheimer also had a very vivid imagination.

Just have a look at this from the Mahabharata:

"...a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as the thousand suns Rose in all its splendour… a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds…

Does this sound like nuclear warfare or not? If not, why?

https://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress ... eexamined/

No, this does not sound like nuclear warfare to me. Why, because it sounds like the writings of ancient ignorant man.
For example: "Pottery broke without apparent cause"
No cause they say? So a shock wave traveling near the speed of sound shouldn't brake pottery?
This desire of yours for their to be gods seems to have you seeing gods all over the place.

Clownboat, that sites links it to the FBI's own site.

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

And? I went through over half of the pages and didn't see any reference to aliens or the gods.

Let it go on record that Claire seems to agree that alien encounters are more likely an explanation for Mohammad's flight to heaven then people imagining the story.

What seems more likely here Claire, that Tolkien imagined the Lord of the Rings stories, or that they were inspired by actual orcs, goblins, wizards and hobbits?

Wizards are magicians. That is a fact.

So the Lord of the Rings is a true story?

We have claims of people who have seen tokoloshe, dwarf-like water sprites.

So the Lord of the Rings is a true story?

They are associated with witch craft. Very similar in appearances to goblins we picture. It is very possible that the concept of goblins are based on actual sightings.

So the Lord of the Rings is a true story?

http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2014/07/is ... om-easton/[/quote]

And a claim on a blog is all that Claire seems to need in order to take these odd stories as plausible. A mosque on the moon!

Of course not. I just find it interesting that there is room for extraterrestrial in Islam. And of course, it is not restricted to Islam.

Why is this interesting? We all have imaginations Claire, even Muslims.
Our imaginations don't make demons, angels, gods, Bigfoot, orcs, water spirits or aliens real.

You don't believe spaceships exist? I didn't say it is reason to believe but it is something to keep in mind.

I asked you: "Show me information on space ships".

We already know the FBI admits there are spacecraft with crews.

Right, because you like to visit conspiracy theorists blog sites to gather your info.

No, the actual FBI site.

Like I said, I believe the FBI would prefer people were talking about UFO's than the U2 spy plane or other top secret technology for example. This seems more reasonable than aliens and spacecrafts which you cannot show exist.

What's Paul's version?

That would need a thread of its own. Paul made Christianity what it is today IMO. Paul's words and Jesus's words all to often contradict each other.

Of course the Jews today reject the resurrection claim. It doesn't suit them.

Not just the Jews of today, but also the Jews in Jerusalem that would have been around when the claimed event happened. Yes, those very same Jews that would have witnessed 500 dead bodies walking around Jerusalem.

Anyway, they are far removed from the fact. None of them are eyewitnesses.

And the ones that would have been eyewitnesses also reject your claim about this Jesus person. I dare say they would know better than you whether this Jesus person rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Don' you agree?

This is a complete and utter fail on your part for telling us the specifics in the mechanism for knowing what is metaphor and what is not in the Bible. Therefore, you cannot be trusted to inform us humans as to what is metaphor and what is not.

In other words, just don't come to a conclusion based on what you read. Try and see the concept.

There are no other words needed. You cannot supply us with this mechanism, therefore you cannot be trusted to know the mechanism for determining what is metaphor and what is not in the Bible.

Then let's start a thread on the other resurrection myths.

All resurrection myths need nothing but an imagination to come up with the said claim. This does not need a thread of its own.

Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

My goodness, it depends on what is being prayed about.

You asked for the study as if it didn't exist. Well, it does and now you try to muddy the waters.

Do not expect God to be a genie.

How do you know a god is not a genie? You believe in all sorts of mythical things, why do you draw the line at genies?

One must not pray for complete healing, but rather for His will to be done and that is not always in sync for with ours.

Doesn't matter. Prayer is ineffective either way it seems.

We all have to die sometime. If I pray for God to be immortal, does that show God didn't answer my prayers when I die?

It would be evidence, but either way you would just be praying to the imaginary while asking for something impossible. So to expect this to work seems a bit ill informed.

Those scientists cannot possibly know what happens in prayer between and individual and God. It's just total arrogance on the scientists' part.

The results are what they are. Apparently not one Christian was praying 'correctly'. This explanation does not work on me.

Absolutely not. However, just because the claims are fantastic, doesn't automatically mean it cannot possibly be true.

Straw man. Who ever said that fantastic claims cannot possibly be true?
What is not a Straw man is that you source all sorts of fantastic claims to justify ancient stories.

I don't understand what you are asking me. I'm pointing out that oral tradition is one way for rumors to start. Is oral tradition immune to starting rumors in your opinion?

Please show that Biblical scholars are mistaken and that the gospels existed before Paul came to the scene.

For some reason, you think it is plausible that Peter, Luke and the early church would just suddenly make up things about Jesus. Peter knew Jesus personally. He'd be the first to attack Paul's lies.

Please don't address me. I asked you to show that Bible scholars are mistaken and that the gospels existed before Paul came to the scene. I see that you cannot do this.

How do you know imagination later played a part?

I don't claim to know the unknown. That is for religious people. However, I notice that imaginations are real and they are the only thing required in order to invent claims. Actual resurrections must happen without anyone noticing, or perhaps they don't happen because such a thing (a body decomposing for 3 days coming back to life) is not possible. Therefore, imaginations are the reasonable explanation.

Revelation says He will return to everyone. In the meanwhile, we don't need His physical presence to believe. We believe that the Holy Spirit is goo enough. If nonbeliever don't think that's good enough then they won't know.

You believe in all sorts of unbelievable claims IMO. Therefore you telling me that there is a Holy Spirit if meaningless because you cannot show that you speak the truth. I must chalk the Holy Spirit claim up there with all your other obsurd claims until you can show that you speak the truth about any of them.

Yes, fact according to the Bible, but that doesn't mean automatically it is a fact that it actually happened. If Jesus was thrown in a garbage pit, no resurrection story could have arisen in the first place.

This is false. If Jesus was killed, and I didn't want to give up my position of authority and become a fisherman again, I would use my imagination to imagine a scenario that would allow me to keep my followers and authority. Like, dun, dun, dun.... The body came back to life. All it takes is people that are not skeptical to believe the imagined claim.

How do you know the empty tomb claim only came about after his death?

I don't know when it came about and I don't pretend to know the unknown. I leave that up to religious people. I can imagine such a scenario though.

And the others just believed it? They didn't need a proof of a body?

You need to accept that these questions are things we cannot know. It is possible that they didn't want to give up their positions of authority though, and thus imagined a scenario like the dead body actually didn't stay dead.

The ending of Mark where it is claimed that people saw the risen Christ is a forgery added many many many years later.

That is true but that does not the negate the other gospels. It is apparent that early scribes thought that Mark's gospel was not conventional enough and felt the need to interpret their own ending.

I never said that it negated the other gospels. I expanded on Mark because you asked me: "As I said, elaborate on that." So I elaborated on it for you.

The women at the well story is also a later addition. What needs elaborating?

I cannot find this claim when I google it. Can you give me a link?

Odd. Took me a matter of seconds.
'Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel.'
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

In Roswell, they most certainly did not want the public to belief a spacecraft crashed.

I really have no desire to discuss your wackadoo conspiracies. To do so gives them more credit then they deserve IMO.

So? Should there be no metaphors in the Bible?

There can be sure. However, if there is, there needs to be a mechanism in place for us to determine what is true and what is just metaphor.
That you cannot articulate any such mechanism has been observed.

[FarWanderer]

How would they have thought a resurrection took place if they were the ones to take Jesus' body to Galilee?

Use your imagination Claire. I can imagine a scenario where only a couple disciples were in on the hoax.

And the others just believed it? They didn't need a proof of a body?

If proof of a body were needed, then why were guards placed at the tomb?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Claire Evans]


“It is not outlandish to think that people like Mohammed could have been in spacecrafts. “

“The claim of the resurrection would not have survived as a metaphor. People needed proof that Jesus rose from the dead. “


Post 1387:
[i"]So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened." [/i]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... start=1380


It is not outlandish to think aliens are involved behind the Jesus’s story too.

Let me create a science fiction narrative:

Aliens created all the ancient religions of the world as a psychological experiment. This aliens are responsible for the Jesus story.

Virgin birth of Maria : Some of these aliens impregnated Maria in vitro. Jesus was an genetically modified, more evolved human being capable of Psychokinesis, Telekinesis, Incredible Healing capabilities and so one.
Later the aliens implanted some fake memories in Jesus head that he was the son of God, that he is divine and so on. He started preaching about this.

After crucifixion Jesus was teleported to the mother-ship and healed by the aliens(He could have healed on his own, but they wanted his holes in the hands and legs to remain; so to be convincing)
After 3 days he was teleported back on the Earth.
Jesus when he woke up really believed he was dead and rose from the dead, this fortify his delusion he was the son of God and had a divine nature.

At the end when he ascended in the sky he was just levitated up in the sky by the aliens and after teleported to the mother-ship.