The next alternative theory supposed by some is that the women and disciples went to the wrong tomb on the first Easter Sunday.
Somehow these women that followed Jesus every where he went, even to the cross, were unable to locate the tomb of a wealthy, prominent Jewish leader that held their Rabbi? Then after they went to get the disciples both the women along with Peter and John still go to the wrong tomb? How does that make any sense at all?
Even if somehow they did go to the wrong tomb on the first Easter, what was to prevent the authorities from pointing to the right tomb when the disciples start claiming that Jesus was alive. Christianity would have been destroyed from the beginning. The Pharisees, who knew where the tomb was since it belonged to one of their own, could have simply brought people to the correct place and it’s over.
Something must explain the actions of individuals in the first century. Something caused the disciples and followers of Jesus to become suddenly bolder about proclaiming Him as God. If the wrong tomb was the only explanation, Rome and Jewish leaders would have been fighting over which was going to end Christianity first.
They would have held the first century equivalent of a press conference at Jesus’ real tomb showing everyone that he was still dead. “The Christians are lying to everyone,” they would say. “Here is his tomb, with the stone still in place and the seal unbroken.” It makes no sense.
Honestly, this has to be one of the stupidest explanations anyone can give.
How about this Aaron? Was the tomb door closed (Matt 28:2) or open (John 20:1) when Mary Mag first got there?
It was opened by the angel as she arrived. John's description doesn't contradict Matthew's, it just leaves out the issue of the angel rolling the stone away.
John's gospel constantly wants to skip over things that aren't significant to the person of Jesus. John doesn't care about the angel (when he wrote his gospel Matthew's was already out there), he wants to move the narrative along to get to Mary, John and Peter's response to the empty tomb.
So Aaron, you assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?
Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).
After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?
Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.
LOL, Cineaste, you are in a fine line of skeptics when it comes to trying to debunk the scriptures. Don't you think by now someone would have written an explanation for these apparent discrepancies?
How about skeptic turned believer Simon Greenleaf's harmony of the resurrection passages, just to start. I'm not sure if he addresses the verb tenses, but I'll check around for that too.
Here's some posts regarding the verb tenses. You may not buy the "flashback" idea explaining the aorist verb tense, but it's plausible, so you can't say they are impossible to reconcile.
Harmony of resurrection accounts
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, by John MacArthur
Greenleaf does do a much better job than I ever could at explaining the harmony of the Gospels. If you are honestly interested in reconciling the stories and not just playing "stump the evangelical," read Greenleaf's passage by passage comparison.
While you may not believe it or accept it, you can at least see that what appear to be discrepencies can be explained and understood within context.
"While you may not believe it or accept it, you can at least see that what appear to be discrepancies can be explained and understood within context."
Wait Aaron and Seeker, I'm not done yet. Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.
This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?
Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)
But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.
I believe that Greenleaf answers these questions, but I’ll find the answers. Your questions have been easily answered for generations.
Cineaste, what do you suppose happened on Easter and what proof do you have of it?
I have posted all the explanations/excuses that people give to explain away the resurrection. Do you hold to any of those, if so how do explain the questions I raised about each one?
As to your post, if I hold your comment to the same standard you hold the NT to, I would have to completely ignore everything you say because of one mistake you made.
You say nothing can be trusted because of discrepencies you see in the Gospels, but you made an out right mistake in claiming that all the Gospels are anonymous. John identifies himself in his Gospel (John 21:24). While the other Gospels may not have a "by Matthew" at the end of them, no evidence is out there that supports the authors being anyone but Matthew, Mark and Luke – all with connections to Jesus and to eye witnesses.
We can look at historical documents and compare how well the NT stacks up to every other document from antiquity. We can look at how many copies we have of the NT and compare that with other documents that are accepted as historical fact. We can look at the time period between the original and the first copy we have – no other book of antiquity comes close to the Bible.
no evidence is out there that supports the authors being anyone but Matthew, Mark and Luke
I’m sure there might be *some* evidence to support competing theories. I mean, linguistic theorists have long had issues with parts of John. However, I would venture that the best evidence supports the claimed authorship.
Don’t forget that one of the reasons the Apocrypha and other non-canonical writings were rejected, among other reasons, because their authorship WAS in question, so presumably, the ones accepted did not have this issue.
"Cineaste, what do you suppose happened on Easter and what proof do you have of it?
I suppose Jesus died and stayed that way (easter post #5). Do I have proof that people stay dead when they die? I would say, yes. Need you even ask what that proof is?
"As to your post, if I hold your comment to the same standard you hold the NT to, I would have to completely ignore everything you say because of one mistake you made."
My comment is not Gospel, Aaron. In fact, you do hold scripture to a different standard. The problem is I am holding you to it. Now you and Seeker are forced into the mental acrobatics required to twist these observations back into something not totally contradictory. Good luck to you.
You must not have read Greenleaf's defense.
As to your theory of what happened on the first Easter, how do you explain the questions raised by that theory? How did Christianity survive? How was their an empty tomb? What changed the lives of the disciples?
You must not have read Greenleaf's defense.
Honest to God, it's too long Aaron. Can you provide a synopsis? I am especially curious about traveling 150 miles in a day to get back in time for the evening meal.
As to your theory of what happened on the first Easter, how do you explain the questions raised by that theory? How did Christianity survive? How was their an empty tomb? What changed the lives of the disciples?
Resurrection is your claim not mine. The burden of proof is with you. Christianity surviving does not prove the resurrection. An empty tomb does not prove the resurrection. If someone digs up Anna Nicole Smith and she is not in her grave do you automatically assume she was resurrected? I think not. Disciples having issues does not prove the resurrection. It's not up to me to explain this myth, it's up to you.
If Greenleaf is too long, I don't want to be chided for not watching all of your videos then. ;)
But that (not looking at the defense) does seem to indicate that you are not really intested in an answer, but simply trying to stump Christians with skeptic talking points.
But to try and answer your question about the 150 miles, using part of Greenleaf's description, here goes:
Nowhere in Matthew's Gospel does it say that is the only apperance. It is the only one mentioned in his gospel, but he does not say this is the only one that happened. I also don't know why you think everything happened in one day, clearly they were spread out over different days.
If you incorporate other facts mentioned in other sources you can get a better picture of it. Luke talks about Jesus making appearances for 40 days after his resurection, allowing for all of the other ones mentioned by the other Gospels.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 speaks about one instance where Jesus appears to 500 people at once. It seems rather obvious that this instance in Galilee on the mountain is that time. This also explains why some doubted. The 11 had already seen and talked with Jesus who set up this specific time and place as His last appearance to give His final command to all His followers – some of which doubted as recorded by Matthew.
Also look at one key piece in the Gospel of Matthew – in 28:16 it says that the followers went to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus told them to go. The women were only told to tell the disciples that Jesus would meet them in Galilee. How did the disciples know which mountain to go to and why does Matthew say that Jesus told them to go there (instead of the women)? It should indicate that they met Jesus themselves and at some point he gave them a specific time and place for their final meeting.
As to proving the resurrection, here is my point. Jesus' bodily resurrection explains why the Jewish and Roman leaders could not crush Christianity (which they certainly wanted to do). It explains why there was an empty tomb and why the enemies of Christianity could not point to it. It explains why the disciples went from locking themselves in their houses to telling everyone that Jesus was alive and dying for that belief.
Your insistence that nothing happened doesn't explain that. It leaves all of these questions unanswered because you put the burden of proof on me. That's fine, but the answers to these questions (or lack thereof) are part of the proof for me. All of those things together (along with Jesus' own words and His actions) point to something else happening.
It is odd that you bring up Anna Nicole Smith. I used her as an illustration on Sunday to illustrate the audacity of Jesus' claim and that of His disciples. While skeptics dismiss it because of the supernatural element, many cultural Christians gloss over it because they have heard it a thousand times.
That's fine, but the answers to these questions (or lack thereof) are part of the proof for me.
That's faith for you. Muslims and Mormons explain their Holy Books like you just did! It goes back to…
"This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?"
This discrepancy seems hypocritical.
Aaron, what EXACTLY happened during Easter? The four accounts are confusing. Here are some more discrepancies I found…
What time did the women visit the tomb?
* Matthew: “as it began to dawn” (28:1)
* Mark: “very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun” (16:2, KJV); “when the sun had risen” (NRSV); “just after sunrise” (NIV)
* Luke: “very early in the morning” (24:1, KJV) “at early dawn” (NRSV)
* John: “when it was yet dark” (20:1)
Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.” (28:5-7)
* Mark: “Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” (16:6-7)
* Luke: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” (24:5-7)
* John: “Woman, why weepest thou?” (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. “Neither said they any thing to any man.” (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. “And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.” (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven “as they sat at meat” (16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34–it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, “Go preach.” (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said “Go preach” (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
Actually Muslims and Mormons don't explain their books the same way because all of their books were written well after the fact and have no historical documentation for the events. Christianity has numerous documentation from the time of the events within Christian and non-Christian writing.
In the first century, no time for legend to develop, Christian and non-Christian writings say that Christians believed Jesus to have been resurrected and that they worshipped Him as God. Care to point me to non-Muslim or non-Mormon documentation that backs up their claims.
A couple things here on your list of questions: first of all, if the Gospels contained everything exactly the same – same details, same descriptions, same everything – skeptics would point to that to assure everyone that their were written in collusion and should not be trusted because they are too similar.
Numerous scholars view the Gosples as the perfect mix of having the facts of the story the same, but different individuals remembering and focusing on different facets. Some mentioning people, others not. Some remembering one conversation, others not. That is entirely consistent with people reporting on or telling stories.
Second thing: You are counting as contridictions things that are mentioned in one but not in the other. That is not a contridiction or a discrepency.
Third: Both you and I are ignorant of a lot of the culture and naming in that period. Did you know that Bethany was not only a town but a region of the Mount of Olives? Yeah, me neither until recently.
Fourth: You make huge assumptions on times and dates. You assume because the writer doesn't mention it changing days that they are writing about the same day. This is not always the case and is common in writing for the era. That is partly with my third point, both of us are ignorant of cultural issues from that time period that play into how and why the accounts are written as they are.
Greenleaf explains all of these that I saw. If this is truly a subject that interests you, i would think that you would look for someone with a different perspective than reading through skeptic sites and getting atheistic talking points. If you really are interested in the truth, look at someone who is extremely intelligent and was a former skeptic explain how the Gospel accounts can be reconciled. I don't expect that to convert you or anything, but you should at least be aware of and acknowledge the reconciliation that has been done by very bright people.
Aaron, I took the time to read the Greenleaf explanations and I still don't understand. What EXACTLY happened on Easter? What really happened????
You don't want to understand, that is quite clear. Even if Greenleaf or anyone else has answers to your questions, you have no intention of believing, it seems.
What happened? Jesus rose from the dead, like he predicted. People saw him. The disciples, formerly cowering in their homes, were suddenly emboldened, enough to preach his resurrection until all were killed. None of them backed down from their assertion, so either they were all seriously deranged and deluded, or they really believed because they saw him.
After being seen for 40 days by many people, he was received up into the heavens, where He awaits the proper time to return and judge the world.
That's what happened.
The records are too old and have gone through too many hands to be reliable. Too, they were written decades after the events, and by people who had reason to slant things (they had an ax to grind, in other words). Xianity claims to historically true, but really cannot provide adequate proof to back up its fantastic claims. Almost two thousand years have passed and still nothing from God. If He really wanted us to believe this, why can't He give us better and more reliable information? I mean, considering the history of xianity, its atrocities, its record of backing injustice and persecution, I really don't see why I should just take its claims on faith. Sorry.
Thank you Louis. Thank you! Seeker and Aaron don't have the guts to admit the obvious.
The records are too old and have gone through too many hands to be reliable.
This argument has been addressed much, using manuscript statistics and such.
Too, they were written decades after the events, and by people who had reason to slant things (they had an ax to grind, in other words).
Most were written by eye-witnesses, and almost all within 30 years of the events. While they may have had an axe to grind, they also have amazing agreement.
Xianity claims to historically true, but really cannot provide adequate proof to back up its fantastic claims.
Guess that defines how you define "adequate." At least two famous works have been done looking at the data from a legal standpoint, and they vouch for the historicity of the gospel accounts.
Almost two thousand years have passed and still nothing from God. If He really wanted us to believe this, why can't He give us better and more reliable information?
Good point. Chock that one up to "don't know." But what I DO know is enough for me.
I mean, considering the history of xianity, its atrocities, its record of backing injustice and persecution, I really don't see why I should just take its claims on faith.
Many are exaggerated, misconstrued, and in any case, disagree with the plain teachings of the NT, so they can be explained as human error, not an error with the teachings.
The truth is Seeker, you don't know what happened on Easter except in the most general terms. How can you with 4 conflicting accounts? You just PRETEND to know. That's shaky ground to base your entire world view on, especially since scripture is so fragmented, biased, contradictory, implausible and unnatural.
But what I DO know is enough for me.
That's a recipe for ignorance. That's why science and religion don't mix.
Cineaste you have no desire to understand the accounts of what happened on Easter or what happened during Jesus' life. That's okay. I honestly don't expect you to, but you shouldn't ask questions like you care what the answers are.
You read a detail verse by verse account where someone reconciles the Gospel accounts and provides answers to your questions. Now you may not agree with it and still think it is wrong, but you cannot continue to call them without a doubt conflicting. That is where your bias comes in.
If we throw out the Gospels because of the time between events and recording, the number of copies, the time between now and then, etc. then we basically throw out all antiquity. The Gospels have more support in those terms than do any other book that is considered trustworthy from that time. We have no history if everything that you would have to classify along with the Gospels as "fragmented, biased, contradictory, implausible and unnatural" is thrown out.
As far as an ax to grind, I suppose you are speaking about the disciples. Here is where context comes in (and this discussion really should be under Pt 5 of this because I deal with all these issues there).
Around the time of Jesus dozens of "messiahs" had come and gone, many of His followers had likely been followers of other candidates, if you will. Some followed John the Baptist before Jesus came.
The disciples of the potential messiahs followed them around and then left when they heard something they didn't want to hear or like it was many times, the leader was killed. Why would the disciples not do what countless other first century Jews had done – mourn for awhile and find a new messiah?
How does Christianity survive a still dead Jesus laying in His tomb? The Jewish leaders would parade the body around Jerusalem – no converts. The Romans would point to the dead body still sealed in the tomb – no converts. Christianity would die just like any other breakoff sect.
Taking into account the time period, the context and the facts that we can know, logic says that something extraordinary happened that both prevented the leaders of the day from pointing to Jesus' dead body and inspired the disciples to spread the message of a dead man, leaving behind everything they have ever known to martyr themselves for no earthly reward. The best answer when considering all the evidence points to the fact that Jesus did just what He said He would do – rise from the dead.
Cineaste you have no desire to understand the accounts of what happened on Easter or what happened during Jesus' life.
You're dead wrong about that.
I just want to know, what EXACTLY happened during Easter? This shouldn't be a tough question for any half educated Christian to answer right? Yet, you guys are giving me the run around! What is so complicated about this? Just tell me the details in your own words!
I apologize for my certainty in your desires. I should have known better. That was part of my marriage counseling in how to argue: "Don't use always or never. Don't state opinions as if they are facts." So let me see if I can do better.
I told you what I believe happened on Easter (Jesus resurrected). You're don't seem concerned about that. You seem concerned with trying to find some avenue to give you a "gotcha" in this debate.
I believe the Gospel accounts are correct, but that does not mean that I know exactly where Jesus was at what time on what day. The Bible does not state the facts on many of those issues. The accounts can be reconciled, as Greenleaf did, and are consistent with what you would find if four different people wrote four different accounts – some using different eyewitnesses.
I attempt to answer your questions and show you why I believe what I believe. I follow that up with questions of my own that need explaining, but you seem to ignore those and dimiss my concerns.
Look at the length of my posts in this series and my comments in this thread. I am working to respond. Yet my questions are met with "That's not my job to answer them." That makes a discussion very hard.
Please, simply provide a direct answer for these questions in your own words.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
Who were the women?
What was their purpose?
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Where were these messengers situated?
What did the messenger(s) say?
Did the women tell what happened?
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Did the disciples believe the two men?
What happened at the appearance?
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Where did the ascension take place?
Cineaste, I will answer each of your questions. With such a long list it may take me longer than I'd like.
But here's my premise, I will answer these questions, but I want you to wait and reread my comment before you fire off a comment about any supposed contridiction you see. After you reread my comment, I want you to read part 5 of this series as it addresses many of your and Louis' concerns. I'm not saying this to be condecending, I just want to make sure you know where I am coming from and have all the information.
Then post away, but understand that you most likely will not find my answers convincing enough for you to believe in the resurrection. I just want you to understand that intelligent, logical people do believe in it and have worked out the issues. The answers may not convince you, but that does not mean the answers are not logical or reasonable.
In fact Cineaste I may just turn those answers into a post because it will take a lot to answer all those and it may take me awhile to be thorough. So thanks for your understanding and patience from the start.
How can you with 4 conflicting accounts? You just PRETEND to know. That's shaky ground to base your entire world view on, especially since scripture is so fragmented, biased, contradictory, implausible and unnatural.
No, I don't pretend, I assume that the accounts are not in conflict, but merely show variations based on the witness' perspective. As Greenleaf shows, there are ways to harmonize the accounts without extreme gymnastics.
I don't find scripture as implausible as you suspect, esp. when I am not only focused on the supernatural, but on the historical, ethical, and world view implications of scripture, which make tons of sense to me.
As to your questions above, why won't you read greenleaf? If I answer all of those questions logically and in a way that harmonizes them, will you believe? ;)
Hi Louis, Cineaste, Seeker and Aaron:
Louis wrote something that seeker a;ready commented on, but I thought I'd like to give a different perspective on the issue:
…Almost two thousand years have passed and still nothing from God. If He really wanted us to believe this, why can't He give us better and more reliable information?…
Seriously. If God wanted to inerrantly convey a a book's worth of information to us human beings, it sure seems like he would have been better off simply miraculously implanting the knowledge into our minds directly instead of using the written word, using different authors with different literary "personalities" and whose command of Greek were different. The written word is often difficult to interpret, as evidenced by the fact that different Christians can come to very different interpretations of the same Biblical text. And I'm not just talking about crazy theological moderates like myself; even conservatives disagree about what certain passages mean, drawing quite different conclusions about ecclesiology (right word?) and ethics. If God wanted to give us a clear and inerrant "book", writing it in a book seems sub-optimal.
If my analysis above is right, then we can conclude God didn't intend to communicate an inerrant book. The atheists would agree–there is no God, they say, to write an inerrant book. But a Christian can still believe in God, still believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but be convinced that God didn't feel the need to transmit an inerrant Bible. He inspired the human authors, but his inspiration was filtered through fallible humanity, and thus the documents collected together as the Bible might contain some mistakes and might reflect some of the limited world view, prejudices and biases of the people who wrote them.
But if the Bible isn't fallible, then how can you trust any of it? IMO that question reflects a mistaken idea of how the Bible is to be used. The Bible isn't supposed to be an Encyclopedia Britanica where the ignorant can find the facts for every question they might ask. The bible is instead a pointer to the truth. It teaches us how to see the important spiritual truth, but it's our recognizing the truth that matters. If a passage in the Bible rings true, then it has taught you the truth. If it doesn't ring true (or if it rings false) then either (a) it is false or (b) you just don't get it. Thus God can use this errant book to teach the truth, just as he can use errant Christians to teach it.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cineaste:
You asked
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently?
I'd say there are some good arguments to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, and if so those would be pretty good arguments in favor of Christianity. And inasmuch as Christianity is incompatible with any other religion, and argument in favor of Christianity would be a reason to prefer Christianity to those other religions. I think there are good arguments, but I'll leave those to Aaron.
My reason is different. I became a convinced Quaker during a period of a few weeks in 1991. My convincement came because of personal reflection, not because of historical or philosophical arguments. Given that I became convinced, I began to believe that Christ was exactly who the Bible claims he is, and if he is then the other religions are wrong wherever they disagree with that. It's a simple matter of logic: I cannot consistently believe in Christ, and also believe things that conflict with this belief in Christ. It's as if you saw a greased pig in your bathtub. You'd believe there was a pig even if you were unable to provide evidence to us that you had seen it. I have had confirming experiences during the years, so I have no good reason to reject my conclusions.
your friend
Keith
But a Christian can still believe in God, still believe that the Bible is inspired by God, but be convinced that God didn't feel the need to transmit an inerrant Bible. He inspired the human authors, but his inspiration was filtered through fallible humanity, and thus the documents collected together as the Bible might contain some mistakes and might reflect some of the limited world view, prejudices and biases of the people who wrote them.
Keith, i essentially agree with you. I think it was Barth who said something like "the bible is not God's revelation to us, it is the RECORD of his revelation to us."
That's kind of how I view it – a signpost pointing the reality of God with whom we have to do.