Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

[POI]

It's 16 minutes.

For Debate:

Christians, is the argument, "who's going to die for a lie", a good and sound argument to present to skeptics? If so, please watch the counter arguments in this above video, and then place your counter answers accordingly.

Mind you, this is also just ASSUMING that all his close followers did indeed martyr themselves....

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #45]
OK then.

Post in this thread.

Good grief.

What contradictions you got for us?

Very relevant ones to this thread.

Sunday night morning. The women arrive at the tomb. They apparently do not see Matthew's angel roll the door away and scare off the guard (so just who told Matthew about that?) as Luke and Mark have to women arrive and find the angel. Now the discrepancies about what women were there and whether they talked to the angel in the tomb or outside or whether there were two or just one are minor ones. Bible apologists just shrug such matters off.

The real contradiction is a major one - John has no angel or message. There is also a small but significant one - Luke changes the message.

It gets worse: Mark's women run away and say nothing to anyone. That's where it ends (the add - on being a later concoction using a mix of Matthew and Luke). The others have them run back to tell the disciples what they have seen, but Luke says the disciples did not believe their tale of seeing angels. In John there is no such tale.They have no idea of where the body went. Evidence (near proof) that John contradicts the angel and message. But in Matthew the women actually run into Jesus who just repeats the angels' message, even though he is supposed to be on the way to Galilee. And they must have reported that along with the empty tomb and the angel. But not only does John have nothing of that but neither does Luke.

Cleophas, who was there long enough to hear what the women said and the disciples confirming the empty tomb, sets out to Emmaus for some unexplained reason. He and his companion run into Jesus on the road, even though the Lord is supposedly appearing to Mary back at the tomb and to Simon according to Luke, but we hear no more about that. What we hear is Cleophas telling Jesus that the women saw angels and checked out the empty tomb, but no mention of the women seeing Jesus. I'd say a three way contradiction. No appearance of Jesus as described by Matthew.

After Jesus hath revelethed himself to them, they return to Jerusalem where they are told that Jesus has appeared to Simon. Nobody else reports that stunning appearance and Luke does not describe the event. But the real contradiction here is that Matthew has them pack up and leave for Galilee where they meet Jesus. This totally contradicts Luke and John who have Jesus turn up that evening and, according to Luke/Acts, stays with them instructing them for over a month. A smaller but telling contradiction is that Luke says the eleven (minus Judas) were there but John has Thomas absent of course as he turns up later and doubts the story and Jesus has to turn up later and give the evidence that is supposed to be good enough for everyone to not have doubts after that.

To round it off, John does have some of the disciples go to Galilee (contradicting Luke) but, unlike Matthew, not to see Jesus but to return to fishing, where the see Jesus (in a story uncannily like the draft of fish episode at the calling of disciples in Luke and as a poetic simile in Matthew 13.47,

I think that is enough Major, minor and incidental contradiction to have the Resurrection story tossed in the gutter outside the courthouse and perjury fines liberally dished out. What would you say?

[Wootah]

Very relevant ones to this thread.

Sunday night morning. The women arrive at the tomb. They apparently do not see Matthew's angel roll the door away and scare off the guard (so just who told Matthew about that?) as Luke and Mark have to women arrive and find the angel. Now the discrepancies about what women were there and whether they talked to the angel in the tomb or outside or whether there were two or just one are minor ones. Bible apologists just shrug such matters off.

I don't think bible apologists shrug things off. I don't think anything is contradictory here as presented.

The real contradiction is a major one - John has no angel or message. There is also a small but significant one - Luke changes the message.

This isn't a contradiction.

It gets worse: Mark's women run away and say nothing to anyone. That's where it ends (the add - on being a later concoction using a mix of Matthew and Luke). The others have them run back to tell the disciples what they have seen, but Luke says the disciples did not believe their tale of seeing angels. In John there is no such tale.They have no idea of where the body went. Evidence (near proof) that John contradicts the angel and message. But in Matthew the women actually run into Jesus who just repeats the angels' message, even though he is supposed to be on the way to Galilee. And they must have reported that along with the empty tomb and the angel. But not only does John have nothing of that but neither does Luke.

The add-on is well-attested and I think the final analysis on it hasn't been written (I am open to either answer). https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/202 ... ribes.html

Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

If we stop there it emphasises the fear of finding Jesus not there. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Clever place to stop.

John seems to cut out the part where the women aren't believed and goes from the women to John/Peter. No biggie.

Matthew seems to have a lot of other details. Jesus is in his 'final form'. Clearly, he is moving around a lot more supernaturally than prior to his resurrection. Entering locked doors and stuff.

I don't see any contradiction or why each disciple has to include or not include details.

Cleophas, who was there long enough to hear what the women said and the disciples confirming the empty tomb, sets out to Emmaus for some unexplained reason. He and his companion run into Jesus on the road, even though the Lord is supposedly appearing to Mary back at the tomb and to Simon according to Luke, but we hear no more about that. What we hear is Cleophas telling Jesus that the women saw angels and checked out the empty tomb, but no mention of the women seeing Jesus. I'd say a three way contradiction. No appearance of Jesus as described by Matthew.

I must be blind(ed) to the contradiction that you see.

After Jesus hath revelethed himself to them, they return to Jerusalem where they are told that Jesus has appeared to Simon. Nobody else reports that stunning appearance and Luke does not describe the event. But the real contradiction here is that Matthew has them pack up and leave for Galilee where they meet Jesus. This totally contradicts Luke and John who have Jesus turn up that evening and, according to Luke/Acts, stays with them instructing them for over a month. A smaller but telling contradiction is that Luke says the eleven (minus Judas) were there but John has Thomas absent of course as he turns up later and doubts the story and Jesus has to turn up later and give the evidence that is supposed to be good enough for everyone to not have doubts after that.

I think Jesus is moving around quite supernaturally after the resurrection. Is that the issue?

To round it off, John does have some of the disciples go to Galilee (contradicting Luke) but, unlike Matthew, not to see Jesus but to return to fishing, where the see Jesus (in a story uncannily like the draft of fish episode at the calling of disciples in Luke and as a poetic simile in Matthew 13.47,

I think that is enough Major, minor and incidental contradiction to have the Resurrection story tossed in the gutter outside the courthouse and perjury fines liberally dished out. What would you say?

Verses? I think in general we can say they all staying Jerusalem but that doesn't preclude trips here and there.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.
...

So the beginning of intelligence is the fear of Christians?

I don't get this Christian notion that we should fear a god that is supposed to be him such a loving one of em.

[Tcg]

...
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.
...

So the beginning of intelligence is the fear of Christians?

I don't get this Christian notion that we should fear a god that is supposed to be him such a loving one of em.

To fear a God that can't be shown to exist outside of the imaginations of those who chose to believe in it is absurd. It is perhaps the worst approach to life one could take. Of course, we can't expect the Bible to make any sense at all. Certainly not logical sense. Perhaps some need to be motivated by fearing what is almost without question non-existent. I am so glad I am not one. What a horrible way to go through life.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

[
To fear a God that can't be shown to exist outside of the imaginations of those who chose to believe in it is absurd. It is perhaps the worst approach to life one could take. Of course, we can't expect the Bible to make any sense at all. Certainly not logical sense. Perhaps some need to be motivated by fearing what is almost without question non-existent. I am so glad I am not one. What a horrible way to go through life.


Tcg

I mean, I fear the pretty thing getting mad at me, but that's mostly for then she won't let me see her nekkid

[TRANSPONDER]

Very relevant ones to this thread.

Sunday night morning. The women arrive at the tomb. They apparently do not see Matthew's angel roll the door away and scare off the guard (so just who told Matthew about that?) as Luke and Mark have to women arrive and find the angel. Now the discrepancies about what women were there and whether they talked to the angel in the tomb or outside or whether there were two or just one are minor ones. Bible apologists just shrug such matters off.

I don't think bible apologists shrug things off. I don't think anything is contradictory here as presented.

I have seen it done, notoriously shrugging off 'one angel or two?' I don't make an issue about these minor differences. Closing your eyes as you do here to very real contradictions, is another matter entirely. And I may as well say that your denying everything (it has happened before with other Bible apologist posters) is not the issue. Your dismissing real contradictions or even making up excuses (as we shall see) does not alter the fact that there are contradictions - only shows that there may be explanations, and also that an excuse that may be good enough for you, such as the vague appeal to various journeys or mention of a miraculous doubling of the Jesus, but may not be good enough for the open - minded, and they are the target audience,not those whose minds are welded shut with the supaglue of Faith.

The real contradiction is a major one - John has no angel or message. There is also a small but significant one - Luke changes the message.

This isn't a contradiction.

Yes it is. The message is for the disciples to go to Galilee where they will see Jesus. In Luke it is what Jesus told them in Galilee (about his death and resurrection. This is not only a contradiction but a deliberate alteration of the story by Luke.

It gets worse: Mark's women run away and say nothing to anyone. That's where it ends (the add - on being a later concoction using a mix of Matthew and Luke). The others have them run back to tell the disciples what they have seen, but Luke says the disciples did not believe their tale of seeing angels. In John there is no such tale.They have no idea of where the body went. Evidence (near proof) that John contradicts the angel and message. But in Matthew the women actually run into Jesus who just repeats the angels' message, even though he is supposed to be on the way to Galilee. And they must have reported that along with the empty tomb and the angel. But not only does John have nothing of that but neither does Luke.

The add-on is well-attested and I think the final analysis on it hasn't been written (I am open to either answer). https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/202 ... ribes.html

Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

If we stop there it emphasises the fear of finding Jesus not there. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Clever place to stop.

John seems to cut out the part where the women aren't believed and goes from the women to John/Peter. No biggie.

Matthew seems to have a lot of other details. Jesus is in his 'final form'. Clearly, he is moving around a lot more supernaturally than prior to his resurrection. Entering locked doors and stuff.

I don't see any contradiction or why each disciple has to include or not include details.

The add - on well attested? To Mark you mean? Well - attested as not original, so why not say so? Final analysis? You hope that some explanation may pop up later on? That is not how reason and evidence works. It works like this - the Freer logion is a later addition and takes two stabs at that It is to be considered Spurious. The explanation is not that an original ending got lost or Mark thought it Theatrically correct to stop there - the apologetic that you use - or that 'everyone knew the story'. I've heard that one, but why tell a story at all? If you tell the story, you round it off. The explanation I propose is that Mark is the original ending, in the synoptic version and the proof is in the contradictions which are best explained as different stories invented separately.

You also skip and wangle the issue horribly - and you ain't the first Your fiddling of the end skips over the fact that Mark says they said nothing to anyone. That is a clear contradiction where in other gospels, they say plenty.

Cleophas, who was there long enough to hear what the women said and the disciples confirming the empty tomb, sets out to Emmaus for some unexplained reason. He and his companion run into Jesus on the road, even though the Lord is supposedly appearing to Mary back at the tomb and to Simon according to Luke, but we hear no more about that. What we hear is Cleophas telling Jesus that the women saw angels and checked out the empty tomb, but no mention of the women seeing Jesus. I'd say a three way contradiction. No appearance of Jesus as described by Matthew.

I must be blind(ed) to the contradiction that you see.

You are, as you show here. Matthew says the women saw Jesus. There is no way they would have just told about the empty tomb and angels but not said that Jesus had appeared to them (cue excuses - I can invent them myself (1). But Cleophas, who heard the women report and the disciples confirm the tomb was empty, says nothing about Jesus appearing to the women. Thus the smart money is on two contradictory stories, unless one is blinded by Faith and any excuse will do.

After Jesus hath revelethed himself to them, they return to Jerusalem where they are told that Jesus has appeared to Simon. Nobody else reports that stunning appearance and Luke does not describe the event. But the real contradiction here is that Matthew has them pack up and leave for Galilee where they meet Jesus. This totally contradicts Luke and John who have Jesus turn up that evening and, according to Luke/Acts, stays with them instructing them for over a month. A smaller but telling contradiction is that Luke says the eleven (minus Judas) were there but John has Thomas absent of course as he turns up later and doubts the story and Jesus has to turn up later and give the evidence that is supposed to be good enough for everyone to not have doubts after that.

I think Jesus is moving around quite supernaturally after the resurrection. Is that the issue?

Well it's a semi - biggie. Yes, you have to wave a magic wand to have Jesus appear to the women (only in Matthew) before they report to the disciples, appear to Mary (apparently for the first time) after the disciples view the tomb, zoom over to intercept Cleophas on the road and get them to buy him lunch, then they rush back to Jerusalem leaving Jesus where he is (2) so he can zip back to Jerusalem to appear to Simon as in Luke. These contradictions in the stories are the issue not the need for magical levitation to have Jesus in two places at once.

To round it off, John does have some of the disciples go to Galilee (contradicting Luke) but, unlike Matthew, not to see Jesus but to return to fishing, where the see Jesus (in a story uncannily like the draft of fish episode at the calling of disciples in Luke and as a poetic simile in Matthew 13.47,

I think that is enough Major, minor and incidental contradiction to have the Resurrection story tossed in the gutter outside the courthouse and perjury fines liberally dished out. What would you say?

Verses? I think in general we can say they all staying Jerusalem but that doesn't preclude trips here and there.

You want chapter and verse? I can do that. It doesn't alter that the command to stay in Jerusalem conflicts with the command to go to Galilee aside from Jesus (who should be on the coach to Galilee) popping up to repeat that message in Matthew, or Luke changing the message or the Marys panting back to the disciples to pretty much say they haven't seen Jesus. You still see no contradictions? But No evening appearance in Matthew. They (it appears) leave for Galilee pretty much there and then, give or take a day or sos' preparation.

But Luke scuppers that by an an evening appearance by Jesus in Luke, followed by Acts leaving no room for a trip to Galilee in the action for over a month. Apart from the pointlessness of that anyway, Sure, you can excuse, dismiss or rewrite as you like, but the point is that anyone not blinded by Biblefaith will see the terminal contradictions that totally flatten the claim that the resurrection accounts are reliable eyewitness. The go - to hypothesis (or will be when the Bible critics out there start paying attention ) is that there was NO appearance originally - it ended where Mark ends, and these contradictory tales were concocted to put flesh on the bare bones of the empty tomb -claim

(1) but excuses will not wash as we already have evidence of the Real explanation - real contradictions. We must guard against this Method of looking at problems in isolation - as though it was the only one. The Bible has problems all the way through.

(2) there's a bit of plot -slippage. They would surely have begged Jesus to accompany them to Jerusalem to be seen by the disciples, but the plot no longer needs him. The whole episode stinks of story - construction.

Luke24 (evening appearance) Kjv 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (note - this makes the trip to Galilee to hear this command) pointless.)

48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (here Jesus tells them to stay put in Jerusalem, not to go to Galilee)

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. (they were in Jerusalem, they did not go to Galilee).Luke (for sure) goes on with the narrative in Acts 1

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (he was continually lecturing them over 40 days - no time to go to Galilee, aside from no reason and orders to stay in Jerusalem)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

This - to any but the most blinkered of denialists, is proof that Luke totally denies (let alone contradicts) the tripto Galilee as in Matthew.

[otseng]

To fear a God that can't be shown to exist outside of the imaginations of those who chose to believe in it is absurd. It is perhaps the worst approach to life one could take. Of course, we can't expect the Bible to make any sense at all. Certainly not logical sense. Perhaps some need to be motivated by fearing what is almost without question non-existent. I am so glad I am not one. What a horrible way to go through life.

Yeah, common charge by skeptics. But, on closer investigation, it holds no weight. This is why I've been spending so much time debunking this in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant? If the skeptics claim is true, shouldn't it be easy to provide rational argumentation to support the skeptics' belief? Yet, I have not seen any.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
If the skeptics claim is true, shouldn't it be easy to provide rational argumentation to support the skeptics' belief? Yet, I have not seen any.

Funnily enough, you accept the Bible can be wrong about the parts you don't believe, but find it hard to understand skeptics who don't believe more of it than you don't.

So your inability to recognize when rational argumentation passes you on the sidewalk is not the fault of skeptics, so much as your being real proud of believing there's a god who created an entire universe, then set about sacrificing some poor Jewish carpenter just so that god there could fit more folks in the pews.

[TRANSPONDER]

Wootah posted:

The add-on is well-attested and I think the final analysis on it hasn't been written (I am open to either answer). https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/202 ... ribes.html

These are explanations that range from claims without evidence that I can see to anecdotes that may be questioned. I remain of the view that the gospels are demonstrably based on a common story of a Christianized Jesus which is not what the original Jesus was like (for example, the story of David and the Shewbread cannot be an argument a Jewish person would make) and as an Ur- text, the three synoptics (including 'Mark' adapted them. Mark in minor ways and Matthew and Luke in major ways. I may alsoargue that Mark and Matthew both used a gospel that had material that Luke didn't have, like the 2nd feeding of 4,000.That is they both used an already amended version of the synoptic gospel

hashtag#Markisnottheporiginal

When one finds that other than the basics, John differs throughout, and talk of Alexandrine scribes becomes pointless as an explanation, as well as dickering about what words they put in or changed. The contradictions are pretty much forensic evidence that the stories (Matthew, Luke and John) were invented separately and that can only be because there was no original story they could use (after the empty tomb, which is common to all four - but not the angelic explanation). Thus the add -on using elements of Matthew and Luke is a fudged - up ending intended to remedy the lack of an appearance in Mark, no matter which two later writers had a bash at it.

Thus the final analysis, when it is written, is not going to find that the Freer Logion is a valid account written by an eyewitness but a cobbled together plugging of a very obvious lack.

Now, you won't accept that of course, but it seems clear to me that Mark is no recorder of eyewitness accounts and Clement (perhaps trustingly) is repeating claims and anecdotes that he is too willing to believe.

[Wootah]

From the free book: Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

Thelinkhttps://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Resurrecti ... B087YT8YDW

Re Luke

In Luke 24:1–53, Jesus’ resurrection, all of his appearances, and his ascension to heaven are narrated as though having occurred on that Sunday. That Luke compressed the events in this manner is clear, since in the sequel to his Gospel, Luke says Jesus appeared to his disciples over a period of forty days before ascending to heaven (Acts 1:3–9).

Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) (p. 65). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Re Narratives:

For all their apparent differences in the minor details, the Gospels’ accounts show sequential similarities concerning the main outlines of the story with the early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, such as concerning Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection on the third day, appearances to individuals and appearances to the group of disciples (Allison 2005a, pp. 235–239). The following is one logically possible scenario which takes into consideration the other details:10 10 Adapted from Casteel (1992, pp. 212–213); Bock (2002, pp. 394–404); Geisler and Howe (1997, pp. 365, 377, 400). Very early11 a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels appearing in human form are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened.12 Without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord’s body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John.13 The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels14 appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples.15 Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping. She saw two angels,16 who ask why she is weeping, and Jesus makes his first appearance to her.17 Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus then appears to Peter. He appears subsequently to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas in Jerusalem.18

Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) (pp. 63-64). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

I encourage you to read the whole book. I just don't think there are contradictions that cannot be resolved as you attest rather than the obvious differences we would expect from the capturing of eyewitness testimony about an event from different people and groups.