Question for the Non-Christians

[txag007]

[Josh W]

Apparently you don't want Christians to be able to see the results of this poll.

[thatpfunk]

Ok, people who say no. What would be your response/explanation for someone rising from the dead and ascending to heaven?

[andyfox]

So far, it's 3 yes, 1 no.

[txag007]

Sorry. I guess I should have made the results available. My fault.

More information needed. I'm not even sure what the resurrection is supposed to be, the accounts in the bible are conflicting and frankly, don't make sense as a historical record.

Another point is that I'll never believe in original sin, the flood, etc, and the whole point of Jesus' death and resurrection was original sin. So the whole thing is just weird, and it wouldn't convince me of anything.

What would convince me is if:

-God suddenly appeared and spoke to whole world simultaneously, or even a few thousand people.
-The flood waters in New Orleans were miraculously removed biblical style.
- All Christians are suddenly miraculously healed of illness
- A faith healer could heal visible external injuries instantly
- So many other things....

[Cooker]

I answered yes of course. If I were convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, I would return to Christianity and its not even close. It would have to be pretty strong evidence, because as of right now I am not even convinced Jesus even existed.

[kbfc]

Here's a question: do YOU think one should? (rationally, of course)

I voted no. There's a huge gap in logic in the statement, "the resurrection happened IMPLIES the christian bible is the word of God." I see a lot of disagreements about what exactly makes a christian, so I've chosen "belief in the bible as the word of God" as my benchmark. I don't think you'll have any problems with this.

Clearly, proof of the resurrection would cause me to consider more carefully other sorts of apparently supernatural claims. It would in no way prove, or even really support at all, the entirety of christian mythology. It would simply mean that the bible has a story that is at least partially accurate. I'm sure we all know the whole "broken clock, twice a day, etc....." spiel.....

[RxForMoreCowbell]

I guess I probably would answer no to this, though let me specify. This basically explains the line to me of "believe in God" vs. "become a Christian." If it was proven that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, this would certainly make me lean towards believing a God existed.

However, to "become a Christian" in my opinion means to become a follower of this God. As I’ve mentioned before I do not assume that if there is a God, he is worthy of following. What would make me a follower of this God would be evidence that through the crucifixion humans were "saved" or helped in some way. Because sacrifice is severely counterintuitive, I cannot support someone who uses sacrifice without being proven that it does work, and showed how it worked. Furthermore, some day the resurrection account could be proven completely false, yet that there is a God proven true. If through sacrifice this God did in fact save humans, I would follow that God as well.

[JoshuaD]

I voted yes: If I was 100% sure that Jesus rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven 40 days later, I would have to believe in a Judeo-Christian god.

I probably would have trouble finding a christian relgion that felt right to me, but I would still be christian.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
If you became convinced the resurrection actually took place, would you become a Christian?


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly not:

Knowing that someone recovered for a short while from what was considered death a couple of millennia ago would convince me of nothing more than the fact itself.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you became convinced the resurrection actually took place, would you become a Christian?


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly not:

Knowing that someone recovered for a short while from what was considered death a couple of millennia ago would convince me of nothing more than the fact itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a different question you answered. I definitely wouldn't become a Christian under any circumstances.

Mack

[txag007]

Here (http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html) is what was considered death a couple of millennia ago.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you became convinced the resurrection actually took place, would you become a Christian?


[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly not:
Knowing that someone recovered for a short while from what was considered death a couple of millennia ago would convince me of nothing more than the fact itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats a different question you answered. I definitely wouldn't become a Christian under any circumstances.
Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to admit to not really understanding the original question. I do not believe it would be possible to prove (whatever that means) the details of anything that happened 2000 years ago, so the question is purely academic.

However:

If you create a model where the resurrection (whatever that means), is taken as a basic assumption then I do not believe you can conclude much more than the resurrection itself. Which is the point I was trying to make.

Christianity has a lot more to it than the history of Jesus Christ, like God, Holy sprit, life after death, Genesis, angels the devil etc. For a model to encompass the whole of Christianity you should expect to make further assumptions than those specific to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hence unless you are very tricky about defining what “the resurrection” means, you cannot deduce Christianity logically from the resurrection.

Still when has logic ever stopped anyone believing what the want to believe.

[txag007]

"Christianity has a lot more to it than the history of Jesus Christ, like God, Holy sprit, life after death, Genesis, angels the devil etc. For a model to encompass the whole of Christianity you should expect to make further assumptions than those specific to the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christianity relies on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. If the resurrection is untrue, Christianity falls apart. There is no Christianity without the resurrection.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Christianity has a lot more to it than the history of Jesus Christ, like God, Holy sprit, life after death, Genesis, angels the devil etc. For a model to encompass the whole of Christianity you should expect to make further assumptions than those specific to the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christianity relies on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. If the resurrection is untrue, Christianity falls apart. There is no Christianity without the resurrection.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there could be resurrection without christianity.

chez

Even assuming the Christian god exists and resurrected Jesus Christ, I wouldn't become Christian. Just because a powerful being exists doesn't mean I should worship it.

[jdl22]

I answered yes but wish to clarify. I would have to be convinced that the following two events happened:

1. Jesus (fully) died and was dead for a number of days, or at the very least several hours, in other words well after medical recovery would be possible.
2. Jesus then via God or whatever the story is rose from the dead state mentioned in step 1.

As it is I have a huge number of problems with the religion in general. I think a person being fully dead and authentically (not through some sort of weekend and bernies type thing /images/graemlins/wink.gif rising from the dead would indicate something beyond normal is going on and that Christianity or something in its superset is most likely correct.

[ACPlayer]

If I became convinced that resurrection took place I would instantly check myself into a mental institution.

[thatpfunk]

ok this is obviously hypothetical.

imagine your friends with dr. emmit brown and instead of taking the Delorean back to 1955 instead you cruise to 33 AD and watch Jesus die and then rise, etc etc etc. (there was a back to the future marathon on today /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

That is what the OP meant, imo. And, if that was the case, then of course I would become a Christian. However, if I was to go back there as an observer I know I'd just see some normal dude get his [censored] ass kicked.

[spaminator101]

Since I am a Christian and do not want to skew the results could someone post them here? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[txag007]

"But there could be resurrection without christianity."

Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for the sins of mankind, and rose again on the third day. You'll find this belief is universal among those who call themselves Christians.

[txag007]

"Since I am a Christian and do not want to skew the results could someone post them here?"

My fault, Spam. I should have made the results available. The results are 19 yes and 17 no. (One of the yes votes is mine--so I could see them.)

[spaminator101]

Thanks, could you update them occasionaly. I am interested in this as well.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"But there could be resurrection without christianity."

Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, died for the sins of mankind, and rose again on the third day. You'll find this belief is universal among those who call themselves Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, so anyone who believes Jesus was resurrected but not the son of god wouldn't be a christian.

That's the camp some of us could be in if we became convinced that Jesus was resurrected.

chez

If I ever saw someone do all the things that Jesus supposedly did in the bible in such a way that even the Amazing Randi couldn't show was just a magic trick or some faith healer type show gimmick, then I would instantly fall on my knees and kiss his feet and proclaim him my savior. And if I could miraculously do all these things myself, I would expect any reasonable person, even Sklansky, to instantly discard any previous thoughts they had on the issue of faith and decide to worship me.

[txag007]

Subtract my vote, and it's even 20 yes and 20 no.

[txag007]

"Fine, so anyone who believes Jesus was resurrected but not the son of god wouldn't be a christian."

Yes, because rising from the dead is such a common thing. Let's assume that Jesus did infact "resurrect". If not God, whom?

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
If I became convinced that resurrection took place I would instantly check myself into a mental institution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
I answered yes of course. If I were convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, I would return to Christianity and its not even close. It would have to be pretty strong evidence, because as of right now I am not even convinced Jesus even existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

[txag007]

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Fine, so anyone who believes Jesus was resurrected but not the son of god wouldn't be a christian."

Yes, because rising from the dead is such a common thing. Let's assume that Jesus did infact "resurrect". If not God, whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

A different god or some advanced science beyond my comprehension.

chez

[txag007]

"A different god or some advanced science beyond my comprehension."

Why would you go so far out of your way to believe something so unreasonable?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"A different god or some advanced science beyond my comprehension."

Why would you go so far out of your way to believe something so unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Christianity doesnt hinge on just one event. Suppose the resurrection did take place - is that statement assuming everything the bible said about it is true as well?

Ie:
A book lists items A,B,C,D, and E to be true. We find out event B is true. Does it follow that items A,C,D, and E are also true? Not necessarily.

[David Sklansky]

"If I ever saw someone do all the things that Jesus supposedly did in the bible in such a way that even the Amazing Randi couldn't show was just a magic trick or some faith healer type show gimmick, then I would instantly fall on my knees and kiss his feet and proclaim him my savior. And if I could miraculously do all these things myself, I would expect any reasonable person, even Sklansky, to instantly discard any previous thoughts they had on the issue of faith and decide to worship me."

And of course I would. Religious people don't want to believe that for reasons already mentioned.

[spaminator101]

So, have the results changed any.

[txag007]

"Ie:
A book lists items A,B,C,D, and E to be true. We find out event B is true. Does it follow that items A,C,D, and E are also true? Not necessarily."

True, but as is the case with the resurrection, if item B is false the truth of items A, C, D, and E don't really matter all that much. However, item B is so outrageous that if it is in fact true the likelihood of the other items being true increases greatly.

[txag007]

Even. 21 to 21.

[txag007]

I believe it.

[spaminator101]

thanks

[David Sklansky]

"If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?"

Any alternative explanation is farfectched and hard to believe. For instance he had an identical twin who would dig him up and then take his place. (If that explanation is not possible at all because of some technicality that I am not aware of, then pick another one.) But that is almost irelevant. Why can't you guys understand this basic Baye's Theorem fact? It is the same for magic tricks that are performed everyday here on the Las Vegas stages. How do you explain such and such a trick if it wasn't actually magic? (Some explanations do in fact involve twins).

Non experts usually have no explanations or have farfetched explanations that may or may not be right. But that doesn't mean that the non experts start thinking that it is magic. That's true even when a charlaton magician like Uri Geller pretends he didn't use trickery. Because hard as it might be to come up with an explanation, it is that much harder still to accept it was magic. Similarly txag007 arguments are almost meaningless.

[txag007]

"Non experts usually have no explanations or have farfetched explanations that may or may not be right. But that doesn't mean that the non experts start thinking that it is magic. That's true even when a charlaton magician like Uri Geller pretends he didn't use trickery. Because hard as it might be to come up with an explanation, it is that much harder still to accept it was magic. Similarly txag007 arguments are almost meaningless."

There you go again relying on "experts" opinions when you don't know them nor can you explain them. Magic tricks have explanations. If this was such, tell me what the "experts" say. Look it up. Read about it. Talk to them. Then bring me a plausible explanation, and we'll discuss it. Until then, you're arguments are meaningless to anyone reading this who might actually be searching for the truth.

[thatpfunk]

Read "The Passover Plot" and get back to me...

Probably deserving of its own thread but you can also respond to:

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."
Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.


One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders 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.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

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)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Read "The Passover Plot" and get back to me...

Probably deserving of its own thread but you can also respond to:

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."
Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.


One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders 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.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

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)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find mention of a monetary reward here? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[David Sklansky]

I have no idea what you just said. Maybe you didn't get what I said. (My use of the word non expert pertained to magic non experts and is not a relevant aspect of my reply). Which is that the three points you made about the apparent resurrection are not persuasive because there are other possible explanations. And as long as there is any explanation that is within the bounds of science, as weird as it may be, that is the one that should be assumed. Just like in the case of unexplained tricks performed by someone who claims he is using real magic. Only if something has no real possibility of a scientific explanation should one start seriously considering a metaphysical explanation.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

I can't find mention of a monetary reward here?

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I actually am curious as to the response to this. It isn't going to change my beliefs, and I am not hoping to change anyone else's, I just find the contradictions interesting.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I can't find mention of a monetary reward here?

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I actually am curious as to the response to this. It isn't going to change my beliefs, and I am not hoping to change anyone else's, I just find the contradictions interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why I asked regarding monetary reward was because contradictions on the surface are as easy as "copy and paste", however the answer involves several theories regarding the time and authorship of the synoptic gospels in their relation to Mark and whether there was a Q document (oxford theory) at all. (= Very time consuming)

Cheers,
SDM

[thatpfunk]

But if it is the word of God, why would there be contradictions? God should have been able to explain things pretty simply, no? And if they got the MOST important aspect of Christianity, that which it all hinges upon, how can we trust that there aren't other mistakes?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
But if it is the word of God, why would there be contradictions? God should have been able to explain things pretty simply, no? And if they got the MOST important aspect of Christianity, that which it all hinges upon, how can we trust that there aren't other mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google 'synoptic problem' 'griesbach theory' 'q' 'markan prioirity' 'augustinian theory' 'farrer theory'.

There is no easy answer here.

Cheers,
SDM

[thatpfunk]

So far I have only skimmed, but looks to be some interesting stuff. Thanks.

[txag007]

If there are any possibilities within the realm of science, I'm asking you to name them. My point was that you often appeal to scientific arguments that you can't even specify.

[Zygote]

i only read the first few paragraphs, and that was enough for me to know your web page is incredible. They seem to think that those who believe Shakespeare is about the least likely playwright, among about seven other candidates, for writing all those plays are morons. This is ofcourse ridiculous to anyone who actually minimally investigates this topic. For example, Christopher Marlowe alone, is far more likely than Shakespeare to have to been the playwright.

[txag007]

"Read "The Passover Plot" and get back to me..."

The theories in Schoenfield's work take more faith to believe than the actual resurrection. If you'd like to discuss individual theories within the book, I'd be glad to. Tell me what you think happened on that day.

I would like to point out, however, that you offered no explanation to my three questions in the post to which you replied. Again, tell me what you think happened.

[txag007]

"But if it is the word of God, why would there be contradictions? God should have been able to explain things pretty simply, no?"

As I've said before, what may appear to be a contradiction on the surface is not actually so when put in the proper context.

[txag007]

"It isn't going to change my beliefs, and I am not hoping to change anyone else's"

See, that is where you aren't being honest with yourself. If you don't look at this stuff with an open mind, what is the point of evaluating it at all? I will readily admit that if you can show me the proper evidence, I will change my mind. I just haven't seen it yet.

[txag007]

From this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html) website, here are two possible sequence of events that harmonize the four gospels:

Casteel:
Such is the case with these Gospel accounts. With further study, the apparent contradictions disappear. For example, all four accounts are in harmony with the following sequence of events: Very early a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels 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; without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord's body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John. The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples. 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, and Jesus makes His first appearance to her. Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus appears to Peter; He appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas.

[Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, pp.212-213]

Gleason Archer
The Women's First Visit to the Tomb

On Saturday evening three of the women decided to go back to the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, where they had seen Christ's body laid away on Friday at sundown. They wanted to rewrap His corpse with additional spices, beyond those which Nicodemus and Joseph had already used on Friday. There were three women involved (Mark 16:1): Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife (or mother) of James, and Salome (Luke does not give their names; Matthew refers only to the two Marys); and they had bought the additional spices with their own means (Mark 16:1). They apparently started their journey from the house in Jerusalem while it was still dark (skotias eti ouses), even though it was already early morning (proi) (John 20:1). But by the time they arrived, dawn was glimmering in the east (te epiphoskouse) that Sunday morning (eis mian sabbaton) (Matt. 28:1). (Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1 all use the dative: te mia ton sabbaton.) Mark 16:2 addst hat the tip of the sun had actually appeared above the horizon (anateilantos tou heliou--aorist participle; the Beza codex uses the present participle, anatellontos, implying "while the sun was rising").


It may have been while they were on their way to the tomb outside the city wall that the earthquake took place, by means of which the angel of the Lord rolled away the great circular stone that had sealed the entrance of the tomb. So blinding was his glorious appearance that the guards specially assigned to the tomb were completely terrified and swooned away, losing all consciousness (Matt. 28:24). The earthquake could hardly have been very extensive; the women seemed to be unaware of its occurrence, whether it happened before they left Jerusalem or while they were walking toward their destination. There is no evidence that it damaged anything in the city itself. But it was sufficient to break the seal placed over the circular stone at the time of interment and roll the stone itself away from its settled position in the downward slanting groove along which it rolled.


The three women were delightfully surprised to find their problem of access to the tomb solved; the stone had already been rolled away (Mark 16:34)! They then entered the tomb, sidestepping the unconscious soldiers. In the tomb they made out the form of the leading angel, appearing as a young man with blazing white garments (Mark 16:5), who, however, may not have shown himself to them until they first discovered that the corpse was gone (Luke 24:2-3). But then it became apparent that this angel had a companion, for there were two of them in the tomb. The leading angel spoke to them with words of encouragement, "Don't be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified" (Matt. 28:5). Nevertheless they were quite terrified at the splendor of these heavenly visitors and by the amazing disappearance of the body they had expected to find in the tomb.


The angel went on: "Why do you seek the living among [lit., 'with'--meta with the genitive] those who are dead? He is not here, but He has risen [Luke 24:5-6], just as He said [Matt. 28:6]. Look at the place where they laid Him [Mark 16:6], the place where He was lying [Matt. 28:6]. Remember how He told you when He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man had to be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, crucified, and rise again on the third day" (Luke 24:6-7).


After the angel had said this, the women in fact did remember Christ's prediction (especially at Caesarea Philippi); and they were greatly encouraged. Then the angel concluded with this command: "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead!" Then he added: "Behold, He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Lo, I have told you" (Matt. 28:7). Upon receiving these' wonderful tidings, the three delighted messengers set out in haste to rejoin the group of sorrowing believers back in the city (possibly in the home of John Mark) and pass on to them the electrifying news. They did not pause to inform anyone else as they hurried back (Mark 16:8), partly because they were fearful and shaken by their encounter at the empty tomb. But in their eagerness to deliver their tidings, they actually ran back to the house (Matt. 28:8) and made their happy announcement to the disciples who were gathered there


Mary Magdalene took pains to seek out Peter and John first of all; and she breathlessly blurted out to them, "They have taken the Lord away from the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" (John 20:2). She apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord had risen again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all she could think of was that the body was not there, and she did not know what had become of it. Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out.


Peter and John at the Tomb


The synoptic Gospels do not mention this episode, but it was extremely important to John, who therefore took pains to record it in detail. As the two men got closer to Joseph's tomb, they began to run in their eagerness to get there and see what had happened (John 20:34). John arrived there first, being no doubt younger and faster than Peter. Yet it turned out that he was not as perceptive as Peter, for all John did when he got to the entrance was stoop down and look into the tomb, where he saw the shroud, or winding sheet, of Jesus lying on the floor (v.5). But Peter was a bit bolder and more curious; he went inside the chamber and found it indeed empty. Then he looked intently at the winding sheet, because it was lying in a very unusual position. Instead of being spread out in a long, jumbled strip, it was still all wrapped together in one spot (entetyligmenon eis hena topon). Moreover, the soudarion ("long kerchief") that had been wound around the head of Jesus was not unwound and tossed on the shroud but was still wrapped together and lying right above it (vv.6-7).


In other words, no one had removed the grave-clothes from the corpse in the usual way; it was as if the body had simply passed right out of the headcloth and shroud and left them empty! This was such a remarkable feature that Peter called John back and pointed it out to him. All of a sudden it dawned on the younger man that no one had removed the body from that tomb. The body had simply left the tomb and left the grave-clothes on its own power, passing through all those layers of cloth without unwrapping them at all! Then John was utterly convinced: Jesus had not been removed by other hands; He had raised Himself from the dead. That could only mean He was alive again. John and Peter decided to hurry back and report to the others this astounding evidence that Jesus had indeed conquered death and was alive once more.


The Private Interviews With the Women and With Peter


For some reason, Peter and John did not tell Mary Magdalene about what they had deduced before they left. Perhaps they did not even realize that she had followed along behind them at her slower pace. In fact, she may not have gotten back to the tomb until they had already left. She arrived all alone, but she did not immediately reenter until she had paused to weep for a little while. Then she stooped down once more to look through her tear-stained eyes into the tomb (John 20:11). To her astonishment it was ablaze with light; and there she beheld two angels in splendid white robes, sitting at each end of the place where Jesus had lain (v. 12). Immediately they--the very same pair that had spoken to the three women at their earlier visit--asked her wonderingly, "Why are you crying?" Had she not understood the glorious news they had told her the first time? But all Mary could think about was the disappearance of Christ's body. "They have taken my Lord away, and I don't know where they have laid Him," she lamented. To this the angels did not need to give any answer, for they could see the figure of Jesus standing behind her; and they knew His response would be better than anything they could say.


Mary could sense that someone else had joined her, and so she quickly turned around and tried to make out through her tear-blurred eyes who this stranger might be. It wasn't one of her own group, she decided; so it had to be the gardener who cared for this burial ground of Joseph of Arimathea. Even when He spoke to her, Mary did not at first recognize Jesus' voice, as He kindly asked her, "Woman, why are you crying? Whom are you looking for?" (v.15). All she could do was wail at Him accusingly, "Sir, if it is you who have taken Him away, tell me where you have laid Him; and I will carry Him off"--as if somehow her womanly strength would be equal to such a task.


It was at this point that the kindly stranger revealed Himself to Mary by reverting to His familiar voice as He addressed her by name, "Mariam!" Immediately she realized that the body she was looking for stood right before her, no longer a corpse but now a living, breathing human being--and yet more than that, the incarnate God. "Rabbouni!" she exclaimed (that is to say, "Master!") and cast herself at His feet. It was only for a brief moment that she touched Him; for He gently withdrew Himself from her, saying, "Don't keep touching Me [the negative imperative me mou haptou implies discontinuance of an action already begun], for I have not yet ascended to My Father." Whether He did so later that afternoon and then returned afterward to speak to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and the rest of the group back in Jerusalem that evening is not altogether clear. But if Mary was asked not to touch Him at this point in the day and the disciples were freely permitted to touch Him that evening, it must be inferred that He did report briefly back to God the Father in heaven before returning to earth once more for His post-resurrection forty day ministry.


This private interview with the risen Lord did not continue much longer, so far as Mary was concerned; for He commissioned her to hurry back to the group in the city and prepare them for His coming to join them in His resurrection body. "Go to My brethren," He said, "and tell them I am going up to My Father and your Father, My God and your God" (John 20:17). This definitely confirms the deduction that Christ did in fact make a brief visit to heaven during the middle of Easter Sunday before reappearing to Cleopas and his companion on the Emmaus road.


Nevertheless Jesus did not make ]His ascent to heaven at this precise moment, for He waited around long enough to meet with the other two women who had earlier accompanied Magdalene to the tomb at daybreak. Apparently Mary the mother (or wife of James, and Salome with her, had decided to go back once more to visit the empty tomb. Presumably they noticed that Mary Magdalene had slipped away again after conferring with Peter and John, and they must have guessed where she had gone. Very soon after Magdalene had left Jesus and headed back toward the city (but not so soon that they actually met one another on the way), the two women drew near to the same spot where they had encountered the two angels on their first visit (Luke 24:4).


We are not told whether the women actually entered the tomb once again, or whether they met Jesus just outside; but at any rate He apparently accosted them after they had arrived, and He greeted them (Matt. 28:9). (The Greek chairete here probably represents either the Hebrew shalom or the Aramaic Se lama'. Literally the Greek means "Rejoice!" whereas the Hebrew means "Peace!") Their reaction at seeing their risen Lord was similar to Magdalene's they cast themselves at His feet and kissed them as they clung to Him. Jesus reassured them as they were adjusting to the shock of seeing Him alive again, "Don't be afraid." Then He continued with a mandate similar to the one He had given to Magdalene: "Go and pass on the word [apangeilate] to My brethren that they are to depart for Galilee, and there they will see Me." It is highly significant that our Lord first revealed Himself in His resurrection body, not to the men, the eleven disciples themselves, but rather to three of the women among the group of believers. Apparently He found that they were even readier in their spiritual perception than the eleven men of His inner circle, on whom He had spent so much of His time during the three years of His teaching ministry. Be that as it may, it seems quite clear that Jesus chose to honor the women with His very first post-resurrection appearances before He revealed Himself to any of the men-- even to Peter himself.


Yet we must gather that Peter was the first of the male disciples to see his Lord alive after the Resurrection; for at some time after Mary Magdalene came back from her second visit to the tomb and her confrontation with Jesus there, Simon Peter must have had a personal reunion with Jesus. This we learn from Luke 24:34, where we are told that the disciples in the house of John Mark in Jerusalem had learned from Peter that he had already seen Jesus and had talked with Him, even before the two travelers returned from their journey toward Emmaus and reported back that they had broken bread with Jesus at the inn. They found as they came back with their exciting news and expected everyone there to be surprised at their account of talking with the risen Lord that the rest of the group were already aware of the stupendous event. The two travelers were delighted to meet with ready acceptance by all who heard them, for they were assured by all their friends, "Yes, yes, we know that Jesus is alive and has returned to us; for He has appeared to Simon Peter as well" (Luke 24:34). Presumably they were already aware (cf. v.22) of the earlier interviews reported to them by Mary Magdalene (who told them, "I have seen the Lord," and then relayed His announcement about ascending to the Father in heaven; cf. John 20:18) and by the other Mary and her companion, Salome, who had passed on His instructions about the important rendezvous to be held up in Galilee.


As for this personal interview between Christ and Peter, we have no further information; so we cannot be certain as to whether it was before or after His ascension to the Father and His subsequent return in the afternoon of Easter Sunday. All we can be sure of (and even this is perhaps arguable) is that He talked with Peter before He met with Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus. It is interesting to note that Paul confirms that Christ did in fact appear to Peter before He revealed Himself to the rest of the Eleven (1 Cor. 15:5).


The Interview With the Disciples on the Way to Emmaus


The next major development on that first Easter Sunday involved two disciples who were not of the Eleven (the number to which they were reduced after the defection of Judas Iscariot). Cleopas was relatively undistinguished among the outer circle of Jesus' following; at least he is hardly mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament record. As for his companion, we are never even told what his name was, even though he shared in the distinction of being the first to walk with Christ after His resurrection. Jesus apparently chose these two disciples outside the circle of the Eleven in order to make it clear to all of His church that He was equally available or accessible to all believers who would put their trust in Him as Lord and Savior, whether or not they belonged to any special circle or had come to know Him at an earlier or a later date. Perhaps He also felt that for their future testimony to the world--that they had become convinced of His bodily resurrection even in the face of their initial assumption that He was already dead and gone--such a manifestation would be of special helpfulness to future generations.


One thing is certain: a true believer does not have to belong to the original band of chosen apostles in order to experience a complete transformation of life and the embracing of a new understanding that life with Jesus endures forever, in spite of all the adversities of this life and the malignity of Satan and the terrors of the grave. The Emmaus travelers replied, "Did not our hearts glow within us on the way and as He opened the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32). They thus became the first example of what it means to walk with Jesus in living fellowship and hear Him speak from every part of the Hebrew Scriptures.


This account is contained only in the Gospel of Luke, that Evangelist who took such special interest in the warm and tender personal relationships that Jesus cultivated with individual believers, both male and female. We may be very grateful to him (and the Holy Spirit who guided him) that this heart-stirring record was included in the testimonies of Jesus' resurrection; for this encounter more fully than the others shows how life may be transformed from discouragement and disappointed hope into a richly satisfying and fruitful walk of faith with a wonderful Savior who has conquered sin and death for all who put their trust in Him.


One interesting feature about this interview deserves comment. As in the case of Mary Magdalene, Jesus did not appear to the Emmaus travelers at the first with His customary form, features, or voice; and they failed to recognize His identity. They took Him for a stranger who was new to Jerusalem (Luke 24:18). It was not until after He had taught them how the Old Testament had clearly foretold how Messiah would first have to suffer before entering into His glory--and indeed not until after they had sat down for a bite to eat at some roadside cafe and heard Him give thanks to God for the food--that they realized who He was. And then, at the moment of recognition, He suddenly left them, vanishing from their sight. This sudden disappearance showed them that this new friend of theirs, who had flesh and bones and could use His hands to break bread with them, was a supernatural Being. He was the God-man who had triumphed over death and had risen from the grave to resume His bodily form, a marvelous new body with power to appear and disappear according to His will and purpose, as He saw fit.


As soon as Jesus had left them, the two wayfarers sped back to Jerusalem as fast as their legs could carry them. They lost no time in making their way to the assembled believers and sharing with them the electrifying news of their lengthy encounter with the risen Lord. "And they began to relate their experiences on the road, and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread."


The Interviews With the Assembled Disciples


Luke tells us that while the Emmaus travelers were finishing their report to the assembled believers, the Lord Himself entered through the locked doors and appeared in their midst (Luke 24:36), much to the amazement of all those who had not previously seen Him risen from the dead. Graciously He greeted them with His customary "Peace be with you" (the Greek eirene hymin doubtless represents the Aramaic S'e lama' 'am'e kon (John 20:19]). Then He hastened to allay their fears by showing them physical evidence of His bodily resurrection and restoration to life. "Why are you troubled and why do doubts arise in your heart?" He asked (Luke 24:38), as He held out His pierced hands for them to see and removed His sandals to show the nail holes through His feet (vv.3940). He even uncovered the scar of the gash that the Roman spear had made in His side as He hung lifeless on the cross (John 20:20). "Look at My hands and feet," He said to them, "for it is really I. Feel Me and see, for a mere spirit does not have flesh and bones such as you behold Me to have" (Luke 24:39).


How many took advantage of Christ's offer to touch Him, we cannot be sure. But numbers of those in the room found even this evidence too amazing to be believed; so He offered a yet more dramatic proof. "Do you have anything to eat?" He asked them. They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He proceeded to eat it as they looked on with wonder and delight (Luke 24:4243).


Having thus demonstrated that He was none other than their beloved Master risen from the dead, Jesus proceeded to explain to them, as He had explained to the two on the road to Emmaus, that all the amazing occurrences of Passion Week were fully predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures--all the way from Genesis to Malachi. The portions referred to were threefold: Moses (i.e., the Pentateuch), the Prophets, and the Psalms. (Notice that by this period all the Old Testament books other than the Pentateuch and the Psalms were included under the classification of "Prophets"--including all the books of history, Daniel, and probably the wisdom books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes as well, unless "Psalms" is intended to represent all five books of poetry.) The entire Hebrew Bible is about the Son of God. But His particular focus was on those predictions of His ministry, sufferings, and death found in the Pentateuch (Gen.3: 15; 49:10; Deut.18: 15-18, and all the types of priesthood and sacrifice contained in the Torah), the Prophets (e.g., Isa. 7:14-9:6; 52:13-53:12), and the Psalms (esp. Ps. 16:10 and Ps. 22), which foretold all the events that found their culmination on this Easter Day (Luke 24:44-46). Thus He assured them that all the apparently tragic events of the last few days were in exact fulfillment of the great plan of human redemption that God had decreed from before the beginning of all time. Instead of feeling intimidated and disappointed by the shame of the Cross, they were to see in it the greatest victory of all time; and they were to trumpet abroad the good news of salvation, which by His atonement He had purchased for repentant sinners everywhere.


This led Jesus quite naturally to the earliest pronouncement of the Great Commission. He told the disciples that repentance was to be preached in His name to all nations for the forgiveness of sins, beginning from Jerusalem, and that they as eyewitnesses were under special obligation to carry out the proclamation of this message.

(Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan: 1982, pp. 347-352)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are any possibilities within the realm of science, I'm asking you to name them. My point was that you often appeal to scientific arguments that you can't even specify.

[/ QUOTE ]

The simplest explanation, easily within the realm of science, is that the resurrection never happened. For those with low levels of credulousness then not believing in the resurrection is correct (BTW that's not the same as believing that the resurrection didn't happen).

chez

[David Sklansky]

"If there are any possibilities within the realm of science, I'm asking you to name them. My point was that you often appeal to scientific arguments that you can't even specify."

Do you realize that I am speaking only about the three points you brought up? There are a myriad of explanations that are not scientifically impossible. The simple one that Jesus never existed is an example. Or as I already said, Jesus had a twin. Any explanation that doesn't break the laws of physics is more reasonable than one that does. At least until we see one documented example of such a breaking.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

[/ QUOTE ]

This kills me with laughter. EXCELLENT LOGIC, Sherlock!

By this reasoning, David Koresh really WAS a messiah, the Hale Bopp suicide fruitcakes really were right about the end of the world, and that weirdo mumbling in the gutter is right about the aliens. After all, they all staked their lives and the success of their teachings on it, right?

[thatpfunk]

So you have tailored the story to fit your needs. Swell.

At least SDM thinks about this stuff and attempts to engage in an intelligent discourse. You, on the other hand, throw blind faith at the problem and expect a rational person to accept what is basically nonsense.

[spaminator101]

Have the results changed dramatically.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't I answer these questions? Um, maybe because they are pointless? I will no longer debate with you on this topic until you begin to use logic and reason. As of right now you expect others to become convinced because your blind faith seems convincing enough for you.

To be honest, on these boards, you are probably doing more to hurt Christianity's reputation than to help it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Have the results changed dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

29-29

[spaminator101]

I wouldn't say that dramatic.

[ThinkQuick]

30-32

I vote no. The fact that God resurrected Jesus wouldn't make him messiah nor would it make his word divine

[kbfc]

As I type this, the results are 30-32 in favor of no.

Apparently ~50% of non-christians (according to this small survey) are unable to avoid even simple logical fallacies: 'P implies Q' does NOT imply 'Q implies P'. On first glance, this is a tad disappointing. When you consider that the number for christians is 100%, though, it is a little less so.

[David Sklansky]

"Apparently ~50% of non-christians (according to this small survey) are unable to avoid even simple logical fallacies: 'P implies Q' does NOT imply 'Q implies P'. On first glance, this is a tad disappointing. When you consider that the number for christians is 100%, though, it is a little less so."

You are wrong buster. It doesn't matter that Jesus being resurrected doesn't logically guarantee that Christianity is true. That wasn't what the question asked. If Jesus was in fact truly ressurected, it would be overwheming evidence that basic Chritianity is true. (And if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists.) Anybody who thinks differently is the atheistic equivalent to spaminator.

[The Dude]

I'm having a really hard time imagining how somebody could say no to this poll. At the very least, it makes Christianity more likely than any other explanation. And yet I read things like "I would admit myself to an insane asylum," or "I would need all of these additional things before I did."

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Apparently ~50% of non-christians (according to this small survey) are unable to avoid even simple logical fallacies: 'P implies Q' does NOT imply 'Q implies P'. On first glance, this is a tad disappointing. When you consider that the number for christians is 100%, though, it is a little less so."

You are wrong buster. It doesn't matter that Jesus being resurrected doesn't logically guarantee that Christianity is true. That wasn't what the question asked. If Jesus was in fact truly ressurected, it would be overwheming evidence that basic Chritianity is true. (And if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists.) Anybody who thinks differently is the atheistic equivalent to spaminator.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this isn't a disagreement about logic its just a different interpretation of what premise we are agreeing to. If all it means is returning to life, then a natural explanation is possible, if it means resurrection as a supernatural event then something like god comes into play.

chez

[txag007]

"Why didn't I answer these questions? Um, maybe because they are pointless?"

The point of the questions is that if one is to arrive at an alternative explanation for the resurrection, these are three issues that explanation MUST include. Should I take your post to mean that you don't have a way to explain these things?

[txag007]

"Do you realize that I am speaking only about the three points you brought up? There are a myriad of explanations that are not scientifically impossible."

Yes, but those three points still have to be answered in context of the resurrection. For example, the theory that Jesus had a twin would have to explain how the person who stole the body got past the Roman guards, how the wrappings were still in the shape of a body, among others. In regard to just my three points, the theory would have to explain the nail-scarred hands, not to mention the supernatural occurrences after the resurrection.

As for the theory of Jesus never existing, this has already been discussed here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3212232&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

And by the way, how is the resurrection NOT a documented example of such a breaking of the laws of physics?

[Piers]

I think you appear to miss an important point.

Creating complex religious constructions is a basic human instinct.

Imagine that some truly miraculous and public event was to happen today, something that the whole world could see and current scientific theory could not handle then. It’s guaranteed that it would generate a load of new religious. These religions would be constructs of confused people trying to make sense of something they don’t understand in their own flawed human way. Apart from the basic event observed, the details of these religions are going to be independent of the real reason why the miraculous event occurred.

Now jump back 2000 years and apply the same logic. Assume that some entity called Jesus Christ did die in a messy and obvious way, come back to life in a way that was unambiguous to the observers, then in full view of a load of people levitated up into the sky never to been seen again. What do you think the likely fall out from this is going to be?

If Jesus’ resurrection was a miracle, then Christianity is the natural human reaction. Something similar to Christianity would certainly have been created so its no surprise that it was. I see no evidence of further superhuman influence on the Christian religion since it was trigged by the resurrection. As I see it, Christianity caters far to well to human needs, desires and fears to be anything other than the product of human imagination.

One could point to the success and staying power of Christianity as evidence. Rubbish, humans need religion, if not Christianity then something else. Most people maintain the same religion as their parents, which explains the longevity of any religion that reaches a certain critical mass. Whatever religion is currently popular; there will have been some trigger for starting it, if not the resurrection then something else.

And yes I think kbfc’s sentiment is pretty close to the mark.

Note that if you could define resurrection so that Christianity is implicit in the definition, then Christianity would follow logically from the resurrection, however the information content would be zero. (I have seen one definition that has ‘resurrection = the rising form the dead of Christ the Son of God’).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why didn't I answer these questions? Um, maybe because they are pointless?"

The point of the questions is that if one is to arrive at an alternative explanation for the resurrection, these are three issues that explanation MUST include. Should I take your post to mean that you don't have a way to explain these things?

[/ QUOTE ]

The three issues are entirely consistent with the resurrection not happening.

chez

[txag007]

"Assume that some entity called Jesus Christ did die in a messy and obvious way, come back to life in a way that was unambiguous to the observers, then in full view of a load of people levitated up into the sky never to been seen again. What do you think the likely fall out from this is going to be?

If Jesus’ resurrection was a miracle, then Christianity is the natural human reaction. Something similar to Christianity would certainly have been created so its no surprise that it was. I see no evidence of further superhuman influence on the Christian religion since it was trigged by the resurrection. As I see it, Christianity caters far to well to human needs, desires and fears to be anything other than the product of human imagination."

This is what I mean by "close-minded". Some will go so far out of their way to refuse Christianity that their alternative explanations require more faith to believe than it does to become a Christian.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean by "close-minded". Some will go so far out of their way to refuse Christianity that their alternative explanations require more faith to believe than it does to become a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you abandon all adherents to logic then you are possibly correct.

Edit: Or I think you are misapplying Occam’s razor.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Assume that some entity called Jesus Christ did die in a messy and obvious way, come back to life in a way that was unambiguous to the observers, then in full view of a load of people levitated up into the sky never to been seen again. What do you think the likely fall out from this is going to be?

If Jesus’ resurrection was a miracle, then Christianity is the natural human reaction. Something similar to Christianity would certainly have been created so its no surprise that it was. I see no evidence of further superhuman influence on the Christian religion since it was trigged by the resurrection. As I see it, Christianity caters far to well to human needs, desires and fears to be anything other than the product of human imagination."

This is what I mean by "close-minded". Some will go so far out of their way to refuse Christianity that their alternative explanations require more faith to believe than it does to become a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not a matter of going out of the way to believe something else. The problem with becoming a christian is it means the denial of any other explanation - this is being close minded.

Keep an open mind to other explanations by not taking on a belief that denies them.

chez

[txag007]

"Its not a matter of going out of the way to believe something else. The problem with becoming a christian is it means the denial of any other explanation - this is being close minded.

Keep an open mind to other explanations by not taking on a belief that denies them."

That's just it. Christians are NOT denying other explanations. We have considered them, and logically ruled them out.

Let me be clear that when I say "other explanations" I am talking about other ways to explain the evidence that already exists. If you are referring to "other explanations" as abstract thoughts for which no evidence exists (such as the resurrection being some type of cool physics that we haven't discovered yet), then that is where we have a problem. It is "other explanations" like that which I am calling close-minded.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just it. Christians are NOT denying other explanations. We have considered them, and logically ruled them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really understand how it's possible to logically rule out any other possibility. Can you give an outline of the logical argument.

chez

[txag007]

"I don't really understand how it's possible to logically rule out any other possibility."

It's not that we've ruled out every other possibility that could ever be proposed. It's that we've ruled out the alternative explanations that have been proposed, say to the resurrection for instance.

Additionally, I'm not offering 100% proof that Christianity is true. I believe it is, but what I'm saying is that it is the most likely scenario given the available evidence.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't really understand how it's possible to logically rule out any other possibility."

It's not that we've ruled out every other possibility that could ever be proposed. It's that we've ruled out the alternative explanations that have been proposed, say to the resurrection for instance.

Additionally, I'm not offering 100% proof that Christianity is true. I believe it is, but what I'm saying is that it is the most likely scenario given the available evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, so as a Christian you believe its possible that Christ is not the son of god.

Anyway here's another possibility for explaining the ressurection. Not something I believe but I'm interested to see how you logically rule it out.

Story more or less as you understand it but the resurrector is not divine. Rather he is a subject of the universe much as we are, but has at his disposal a much more advanced science.

chez

[txag007]

"The three issues are entirely consistent with the resurrection not happening."

If you believe so, what are your explanations for the three occurrences.

Something sparked the change in the disciples behavior. If not the fact that Jesus was alive, what was it?

If Jesus didn't overcome death, why isn't His tomb visited and worshipped like those of the founders of other religions? It's because the first century Christians believed He overcame death. Why did they believe this?

Why would Jesus risk His ministry on a prophecy that would so obviously discredit Him if He failed to fulfill it? The other religious leaders who have risked their ministries on similar claims have been easily discredited after their deaths. Another post mentioned David Koresh, for instance. Why wasn't Jesus's ministry discredited in the same manner?

If you believe these things are consistent with the resurrection not happening, what are your explanations for them?

"If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why? "

I'm surprised noone directly answered these 3 questions with the obvious answers. Unless they did, it was a long thread.

Here they are:

1) Jesus couldn't risk destroying Christianity as it formed much later, he could gamble what he wanted on future events as he had nothing to lose.

2) Because at the time he wasn't considered a great religious leader. A very small cult of followers wasn't enough enough to make a big deal about his tomb/grave, and so it is lost.
Remember Christianity only formed a few hundred years later later as leaders deemed it an appropriate way to control the population.

3) Because this part of the story was filled in 300 years after the event. Chinese whispers can contain whatever 'facts' are chosen by the story teller.

[txag007]

"Fair enough, so as a Christian you believe its possible that Christ is not the son of god.

Anyway here's another possibility for explaining the ressurection. Not something I believe but I'm interested to see how you logically rule it out.

Story more or less as you understand it but the resurrector is not divine. Rather he is a subject of the universe much as we are, but has at his disposal a much more advanced science."

First of all, I believe 100% that Christ is the Son of God. I've come to this conclusion given the available evidence. What I said in my earlier post was that I couldn't give you 100% proof, not that I didn't believe it 100%.

As for your alternative to the resurrection, that is the kind of abstract thoughts to which I referred earlier. There is absolutely no evidence for that. No one else in the history of the world has had access to that advance science. Why would one person obtain it, not tell anybody, use it only once, and disappear forever? And where did he go? And why would he lie about being who he said he was? What was his motivation for doing so?

If you were a detective in a criminal investigation these are the types of questions you would have to ask. When investigating religion, why do you ignore the same methods that are used when investigating anything else in this world?

[ QUOTE ]
"Why would Jesus risk His ministry on a prophecy that would so obviously discredit Him if He failed to fulfill it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have many times said to people that I am the son of God to make this point.

If I'm not 'resurected' everyone will forget I said it. If some freak occurence makes people believe I was resurected, I'm famous!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"The three issues are entirely consistent with the resurrection not happening."

If you believe so, what are your explanations for the three occurrences.

Something sparked the change in the disciples behavior. If not the fact that Jesus was alive, what was it?

If Jesus didn't overcome death, why isn't His tomb visited and worshipped like those of the founders of other religions? It's because the first century Christians believed He overcame death. Why did they believe this?

Why would Jesus risk His ministry on a prophecy that would so obviously discredit Him if He failed to fulfill it? The other religious leaders who have risked their ministries on similar claims have been easily discredited after their deaths. Another post mentioned David Koresh, for instance. Why wasn't Jesus's ministry discredited in the same manner?

If you believe these things are consistent with the resurrection not happening, what are your explanations for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry the other bit of the discussion is interesting but I can't handle this. I've no idea why jesus would risk his ministry, even supposing that's what he did, I never met the guy but arguing that the risk is so great that its more likely his the son of god is too far fetched for me.

I just don't find this sort of thing plausible so in the absence of a logical demonstration of inconsistency I'll have to give it a miss.


chez

[ QUOTE ]
I've no idea why jesus would risk his ministry, even supposing that's what he did, ...arguing that the risk is so great that its more likely he's the son of god is too far fetched for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best response on the thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[txag007]

Your answer to all three points centers around the fact that Christianity was invented 300 years after the death of Christ. The oldest known New Testament manucript is a papyrus fragment of the Book of John that has been dated to approximate 125 A.D. How do you explain that?

You can backdate and include any old documents in a compilation, even a story 100 years late is tenous IMO.

5 generations of chinese whispers?

[txag007]

"I'm sorry the other bit of the discussion is interesting but I can't handle this. I've no idea why jesus would risk his ministry, even supposing that's what he did, I never met the guy but arguing that the risk is so great that its more likely his the son of god is too far fetched for me.

I just don't find this sort of thing plausible so in the absence of a logical demonstration of inconsistency I'll have to give it a miss."

You'd be right in that His prophecy wouldn't mean anything if the evidence were not there suggesting that He did in fact rise from the dead. Without the evidence, it's meaningless. With the evidence, hmmm...

Its more likely people decided he predicated it AFTER they decided it happened. Neither event needs to be factual.

[txag007]

So who was it that invented this Christianity? What was his name? His background? And what made "the people" suddenly start believing it?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I believe 100% that Christ is the Son of God. I've come to this conclusion given the available evidence. What I said in my earlier post was that I couldn't give you 100% proof, not that I didn't believe it 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are close minded. You've taken a position that denies all other possibilities without any proof that there aren't other possibilities.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your alternative to the resurrection, that is the kind of abstract thoughts to which I referred earlier. There is absolutely no evidence for that. No one else in the history of the world has had access to that advance science. Why would one person obtain it, not tell anybody, use it only once, and disappear forever? And where did he go? And why would he lie about being who he said he was? What was his motivation for doing so?



[/ QUOTE ]

You said you were going to logically rule out the possibility not complain about a lack of evidence.

chez

My understanding involves Roman empire building spreading what started as a small cult, and wasn't there a "conference of somewhere" to invent it and put the lot together, decide which religion, and lay down the laws? Sorry about the facts its a while since I've discussed this.

People believe some strange stuff if its passed on from friends/family/media just think about any old wives' tales.

[txag007]

Lol. You're running me in circles here.

Okay, first of all:

-CHEZLAW
"You've taken a position that denies all other possibilities without any proof that there aren't other possibilities."

In how many other things in life do you need 100% proof before taking a position? The only thing we have to evaluate is the evidence that is out there, and it points to Christianity.

-CHEZLAW
"You said you were going to logically rule out the possibility not complain about a lack of evidence."

Here is what I said in an earlier post. Did you fail to read it?:

Let me be clear that when I say "other explanations" I am talking about other ways to explain the evidence that already exists. If you are referring to "other explanations" as abstract thoughts for which no evidence exists (such as the resurrection being some type of cool physics that we haven't discovered yet), then that is where we have a problem. It is "other explanations" like that which I am calling close-minded.

[txag007]

Seems pretty far-fetched.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. You're running me in circles here.

Okay, first of all:

-CHEZLAW
"You've taken a position that denies all other possibilities without any proof that there aren't other possibilities."

In how many other things in life do you need 100% proof before taking a position? The only thing we have to evaluate is the evidence that is out there, and it points to Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the conviction that is the problem. You claim to believe something 100% but admit that you can't prove its true. If you can't prove its true then it might be false and you have no reason to believe it with 100% conviction.


[ QUOTE ]
-CHEZLAW
"You said you were going to logically rule out the possibility not complain about a lack of evidence."

Here is what I said in an earlier post. Did you fail to read it?:

Let me be clear that when I say "other explanations" I am talking about other ways to explain the evidence that already exists. If you are referring to "other explanations" as abstract thoughts for which no evidence exists (such as the resurrection being some type of cool physics that we haven't discovered yet), then that is where we have a problem. It is "other explanations" like that which I am calling close-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]

An explanation cannot be close minded. Close mindedness is denying that some possible explanation might be true (it even sounds silly when I write it down, how can I deny that a possible explanation might be true?). I think christians have to deny the possibility that god isn't divine and so have to be close minded. Anyone who believes any other possible explanation to the exclusion of all others would also be close minded.

chez

[txag007]

I think I've said enough to illustrate my point on this issue.

[thatpfunk]

What reality do you exist in?

[David Sklansky]

"Do you realize that I am speaking only about the three points you brought up? There are a myriad of explanations that are not scientifically impossible."

"Yes, but those three points still have to be answered in context of the resurrection. For example, the theory that Jesus had a twin would have to explain how the person who stole the body got past the Roman guards, how the wrappings were still in the shape of a body, among others. In regard to just my three points, the theory would have to explain the nail-scarred hands, not to mention the supernatural occurrences after the resurrection."

Unfair debating mister. You can't bring thes things up later. My post merely stated that the three arguments you originally mentioned were hardly persuasive given what you were arguing for.

"As for the theory of Jesus never existing, this has already been discussed here."

Again you are confused. If there is even the tiniest chance that Jesus never existed, that is more likely a possibility than someone being ressurected. So if that was the only plausible explanation for your points, it would be sufficient by itself.

"And by the way, how is the resurrection NOT a documented example of such a breaking of the laws of physics?"

You know what I mean by documented.

[txag007]

"Unfair debating mister. You can't bring thes things up later. My post merely stated that the three arguments you originally mentioned were hardly persuasive given what you were arguing for."

I'm not bringing anything up that wasn't originally part of the discussion. The things I mentioned are part of the resurrection accounts in the Bible. It's not my fault if you didn't know that or understand the topic before we began this discussion.

[hurlyburly]

Don't need one. 'Cuz it can't happen.

[hurlyburly]

"God suddenly appeared and spoke to whole world simultaneously, or even a few thousand people."

I think about this one a lot, or at least try to. I haven't caught any unicorns eating apples in my backyard yet either, i guess.

[siegfriedandroy]

How do you know it cant happen? How certain are you? Clearly you come to the table with some very strong presuppositions.

..."Miracles cannot happen because they cannot happen."

[andyfox]

"If Jesus did not rise from the dead, how do you explain the following:

1. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

2. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

3. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?"


1. People maintain whoppers all the time. Aren't there faith healers who maintain their "callings" with fakery? Haven't there been politicians who have maintained their good name with a string of lies, never expecting to be caught? I'm going to rise from the dead, I tell my cohorts, make sure I do.

2. & 3.: Wouldn't these things have happened if people merely thought that Jesus was resurrected, whether or not he really was?

[David Sklansky]

1. People maintain whoppers all the time. Aren't there faith healers who maintain their "callings" with fakery? Haven't there been politicians who have maintained their good name with a string of lies, never expecting to be caught? I'm going to rise from the dead, I tell my cohorts, make sure I do.

2. & 3.: Wouldn't these things have happened if people merely thought that Jesus was resurrected, whether or not he really was?

I find it quite offensive that you want to answer these deep religious questions with simple logic. Just because you might be good at puzzles doesn't mean that you are somehow better than other people (who use their heart and their pancreas for these questions, rather than their brain).

[ACPlayer]

..ly the only sane thing to do. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]

You are wrong buster. It doesn't matter that Jesus being resurrected doesn't logically guarantee that Christianity is true. That wasn't what the question asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to bump a thread that's been dead for a few days, but I had been away and had to respond.

Your word choice belies a certain amount of unwarranted hedging. You say, "doesn't logically guarantee," where the connotation is quite clear. You'd do better to say, "doesn't logically do much of anything." Denotatively, I suppose you can equate those two, but I hardly think you mean to.

As for the question asked, I suppose you could be correct in one sense (although I doubt it, since you don't hint at it all): I ignored the possibility of irrational conversion; someone could answer 'yes' honestly even if they understood the irrationality, if they felt like they would be emotionally or psychologically unable to maintain a course of reason under that circumstance. Perhaps I made an error in reading between the lines of the OP question. Perhaps he was really asking about some sort of personal reaction, rather than whether or not it would be logically convincing. If that's the case, though, who the [censored] cares?

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus was in fact truly ressurected, it would be overwheming evidence that basic Chritianity is true. (And if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists.) Anybody who thinks differently is the atheistic equivalent to spaminator.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply wrong, ahem, buster. Piers already addressed it pretty well, not to mention Nietzche in "Geneology of Morals." Given even a cursory examination of human history and psychology, it would be completely unsurprising for a mythology filled with fiction (ranging from mild to utter), like christianity, to arise from an event like the resurrection.

This is all assuming of course, as I believe Piers pointed out, that you don't just lump the entire definition of christianity into the word 'resurrection.' I'm taking it to mean, "a guy named Jesus was, by all measures, dead for a few days, then wasn't." This is the only honest way to define it for the question at hand. Note that I've completely dismissed trickery or magic or scientific ignorance; I'm granting the OP this much, which I think is fair.

David, I repeatedly see you express an acknowledged ignorance of major works of philosophy and religion, which you feel is excusable as you're only looking to work on a logical basis. I can sort of admire this (read: not completely dismiss it), but you put yourself at a huge disadvantage. Almost every time you ask a question or pose an argument that strays from basic issues of logic and math, this becomes apparent.

I'm thrilled that books like "Theory of Poker" and "Small Stakes Holdem" exist. There's no shame in doing a little reading to see what, in some cases, thousands of years of human thought as come up with. SSH probably saved me a year of learning and thinking about poker when I started becoming serious about it. A little sampler of modern philosophy might help you in a similar fashion. I'm just sayin'....

[David Sklansky]

"If Jesus was in fact truly ressurected, it would be overwheming evidence that basic Chritianity is true. (And if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists.) Anybody who thinks differently is the atheistic equivalent to spaminator.


This is simply wrong, ahem, buster. Piers already addressed it pretty well, not to mention Nietzche in "Geneology of Morals." Given even a cursory examination of human history and psychology, it would be completely unsurprising for a mythology filled with fiction (ranging from mild to utter), like christianity, to arise from an event like the resurrection."

Still wrong buster. As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics, is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability, and was predicted in advance. Last point being very important. (See my chapter on Coincidences in Poker Gaming and Life. The general concept, by the way, was given the stamp of approval by world reknowned statistician Persi Diaconis.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Still wrong buster. As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics, is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability, and was predicted in advance. Last point being very important. (See my chapter on Coincidences in Poker Gaming and Life. The general concept, by the way, was given the stamp of approval by world reknowned statistician Persi Diaconis.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned it before but 'against the laws of physics' is the issue of diagreement. Most of the disagreements about logic have in fact been about the meaning of the premise.

chez

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]

Still wrong buster. As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics, is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability, and was predicted in advanced. Last point being very important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back the truck up a second. Where did this come from?

[David Sklansky]

It was assumed in my earlier statement. Or at least I assumed that the person resurrected was the same person going around saying he was the son of God. Otherwise you are right.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Still wrong buster. As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics, is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability, and was predicted in advanced. Last point being very important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back the truck up a second. Where did this come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're defining resurrection as: 'I'm taking it to mean, "a guy named Jesus was, by all measures, dead for a few days, then wasn't." This is the only honest way to define it for the question at hand'

Then why is and was predicted in advanced particularly important.

chez

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
It was assumed in my earlier statement. Or at least I assumed that the person resurrected was the same person going around saying he was the son of God. Otherwise you are right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that was creepy. The post changed in the time between me reading it and clicking on the 'quote reply' box. I was going to just reply by saying, "ok, now I'm just confused," but your edit gives me something to work with.

Anyway, I had not assumed that his predictions were to be taken as part of the 'convincing' package. The prediction and the resurrection are 2 distinct events. Reports of the prediction are post-hoc and 2nd-hand at best. There is nothing contradictory about assuming the historicity of the resurrection and remaining skeptical about someone saying, after the fact (very likely WELL after the fact, and not necessarily as little as 2nd hand), "trust me, man, I knew that was gonna happen, cuz he told me it would, now let me sell you the rest of my delusions."

That all being said, even if you extend the assumption to include his prediction, it still wouldn't prove christianity, or even make it particularly likely. It would certainly give some sort of metaphysical status to this Jesus fellow, but that doesn't mean that the whole rest of the nonsense written down thousands of years ago by people who were NOT Jesus has any validity. (logically, even if it WAS written down by Jesus, that doesn't prove anything, but at least it's a tad more likely.) Believing that some guy did something supernatural does not make one a christian. Last time I checked, there was a lot more to it.....

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that if you could define resurrection so that Christianity is implicit in the definition, then Christianity would follow logically from the resurrection, however the information content would be zero. (I have seen one definition that has ‘resurrection = the rising form the dead of Christ the Son of God’).

[/ QUOTE ]

I get the feeling that you've studied some Wittgenstein. Am I wrong?

[Piers]

I think I see where the problem is,

[ QUOTE ]
if even ONE mega miracle in the bible actually happened, God exists

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a definition of miracle (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=miracle+&x=8&y=14)

1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Clearly if we use definition 1 or 3 above Sklansky is correct, if a miracle occurs a divine entity must exist.

The problem is that all an observe sees is 2. You can never know you have seen a miracle, all you know is that you have seen something that you can not explain using your understanding of current scientific models.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as you agree that a resurrection is against the laws of physics is therefore, before the fact, an event that has an infintesimal probability,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I don’t agree. I don’t accept the assumption that the resurrection would be against the laws of physics.

Or rather it might be contrary to the currently accepted Physical beliefs, but that just says there are things current Physics does not cover. Something we knew already.

If you see something you don’t understand the default assumption is not “A miracle has occurred God must exist”. It should instead be “Something I don’t understand has happened, the model of Physics I am currently using needs changing.”

Rather than become a born again Christian, a potentially more productive use of ones time might be to logical analyse the apparent miracle to see if you can devise a new more complete model of Physics.

So when you start statements with things like “If a (divine) miracle occurred then …” or “If it was against the laws of physics then …” your conclusions might be sound, however the statements themselves are empty. Not only are the assumptions ones that cannot be demonstrated in practise, they are also ones that no truly rational person can accept.

Given a choice between.

A) Something impossible has happened God must exist.

B) Something I can’t explain has happened. I need to study the situation further before coming to any conclusions.

A truly rational person must choose B. Even if he is not cleaver enough to find an explanation he has to keep choosing B or cease to approch the situation rationaly.

[David Sklansky]

A) Something impossible has happened God must exist.

B) Something I can’t explain has happened. I need to study the situation further before coming to any conclusions.

"A truly rational person must choose B. Even if he is not cleaver enough to find an explanation he has to keep choosing B or cease to approch the situation rationaly."

Nope. Not if it was sort of predicted beforehand. Not as long as you grant that God started out as having a minute possibility of existing and you change your word "must" to "probably".

(I'm going to stop saying this stuff if I don't get a little applause from BluffTHIS taxq007 et al.)

[BluffTHIS!]

I haven't been responding in this thread because it is more entertaining to watch taxq007 dig logical ditches for himself to fall into, while at the same time not addressing the faulty reasoning of others.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
A) Something impossible has happened God must exist.

B) Something I can’t explain has happened. I need to study the situation further before coming to any conclusions.

"A truly rational person must choose B. Even if he is not cleaver enough to find an explanation he has to keep choosing B or cease to approch the situation rationaly."

Nope. Not if it was sort of predicted beforehand. Not as long as you grant that God started out as having a minute possibility of existing and you change your word "must" to "probably".


[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get this. If I assume your right then if:

1) Someone is able to do something inexplicable by known science.

2) tells me in advance he intends to do it (but not how)
and

3) I accept there is the minutest possibility of a divine god

then I should believe a divine god probably exists.

The result seems too strong to be supported by the premises which are consistent with a non-divine power using a more advanced science.

chez

[kbfc]

This is all a red herring. As I mentioned further upthread, grant the OP the fact that the resurrection actually occurred in a supernatural fashion. This line of questioning our scientific knowledge, etc, is a diversion.

What about this? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3366770&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all a red herring. As I mentioned further upthread, grant the OP the fact that the resurrection actually occurred in a supernatural fashion. This line of questioning our scientific knowledge, etc, is a diversion.

What about this? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3366770&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst it doesn't logically follow that christianity is correct, once you have conceded the existence of a divine god who has a special relationship with Jesus then its hard to argue that christianity isn't on pretty solid ground.

I'd rather understand how DS gets as far as a divine god because known phyiscs has been violated following a prediction of the violation.

chez

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
Whilst it doesn't logically follow that christianity is correct, once you have conceded the existence of a divine god who has a special relationship with Jesus then its hard to argue that christianity isn't on pretty solid ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Even if this is the case, there is nothing inherent in this circumstance that proves the majority of christianity. Christianity would still be an unsurprising result of humanity's attempts at explanation and psychological fulfillment surrounding an extraordinary event. Note that I'm ceding that the resurrection happened, and that it happened at the hand of a divine being, no more, no less.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather understand how DS gets as far as a divine god because known phyiscs has been violated following a prediction of the violation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Piers]

My main problem is not with results but with methodology.

I am not saying that you could not isolate and incorporate into mainstream science aspects of Christian belief. Just such advancements would be the result of diligent study not just giving up.

While analysing video footage of an apparent miracle, you might discover the presence of an alien life that shows all the characteristics of an Angel. This might be confirmed by a follow up project. However attempts to capture the alien failed for inexplicable reasons.

The discovery of a yet unknown presence in the human mind whose purpose cannot be found. At the same time at the new Stellar Particle Accelerator, the isolation of a new ‘particle’ that has strange properties and appears to affect the ‘life aura’ in some way. A lot of dead and confused chimps later, the derivation of a set of field equation that show how the new aleph-8 particles can act as agents for transmutating the human life aura, giving us the first understanding of the mechanisms of life after death.

Then never to be forgotten those terrifying pictures from our first unmanned probe into hell.

[ QUOTE ]
Not as long as you grant that God started out as having a minute possibility of existing

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don’t. It’s not that I give God a zero percent chance of existing, it’s that the word God in isolation is meaningless to me. There are so many different definitions and opinions about God that the word just reeks confusion.

Start with small bite sized chunks and slowly build a complete picture, that’s the way of understanding complicated messes.

[David Sklansky]

He has to predict it and also say it was because of a divine god. Even then it would still make the specifics of most Christian religions probably wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
He has to predict it and also say it was because of a divine god. Even then it would still make the specifics of most Christian religions probably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have reason to believe the prediction was accurate but why do we believe he gave us the correct reason - is that an assumption or do you have some reason to belive its probable his telling the truth.

chez

[txag007]

"(I'm going to stop saying this stuff if I don't get a little applause from BluffTHIS taxq007 et al.)"

lol. You're exactly right. Keep it up.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
lol. You're exactly right. Keep it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's next to impossible to get someone to concede an argument on an internet messageboard. I suppose this will have to do. David, I accept.

[txag007]

What are you talking about?

[kbfc]

Exactly.

[ThinkQuick]

49-47, the believers take the statistically insignificant lead