U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2011, 02:02 PM
 
118 posts, read 94,015 times
Reputation: 32

Advertisements

That is hyperbole. Every society had its "efficient killing machines" -- including Rome, China, Japan, and Texas. You want to make Rome seem "efficient" in order to justify belief in your religious myth. The Romans were humans and they could botch a crucifixion, even though that is highly unlikely.

Agreed. I am not stating varying degrees of killing efficiency. I am simply saying the Romans knew how to kill.

No, they don't. The only source that attests to guards is Matthew, and the writer of Matthew was known to embellish and mythologize stories (people coming out of their graves at the crucifixion, darkness, etc.). None of the other gospels mention guards, and certainly none of the secular contemporary sources mention guards. The guards were probably a myth perpetuated by the anonymous writer of Matthew to make the resurrection story seem more plausible.

So if I talk to 3 witnesses that claim to have seen a murder, and two of them left out a detail that one of them included, I am to dismiss the entire case based on this difference? Variances in multiple sources are to be expected. Stating there are no guards simply because Matthew uses a certain literary style and is the only gospel to include the exceprt about guards is hardly conclusive... it is sheer speculation. I sincerely hope your postulation does not rely heavily on the "fabricated guards." That is quite a risk.


There were no guards, and any naturalistic explanation is better than an explanation that infers an impossible supernatural resurrection and a god for which there is no evidence.
Once again, you have tossed out a thoughtful response I made because of your speculation. If we are not willing to discuss possiblities, then there is no point in further dialogue.

Last edited by Baylorguy; 10-14-2011 at 02:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2011, 02:15 PM
 
118 posts, read 94,015 times
Reputation: 32
For me to accept this, you would first have to demonstrate that your god exists. Right now, there is no evidence outside of Christian apologetics circles that he exists. Remember, I used to be an evangelical Christian. I tried extremely hard to hold on to my faith before finally letting it go because there was no evidence to support it. I'm not some anti-Christian attacking "fundies," I'm someone who has left the religion of my upbringing because I have become convinced that it just isn't true.

The existence of god has nothing to do with acknowledging that there were many "christs" and that experience told the disciples that if the leader died, they stayed buried. They were not resurrected...

Further, the resurrection of Christ is independent of the existence of a god... it could be that although the resurrection is false, there is still a god... so your expectations of proof are muddled. We're talking resurrection... not proofs of God's existence.

Your statement of "no evidence" is simply not true. We'll save that for another time because it is a detractor from this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2011, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,215,291 times
Reputation: 3200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baylorguy View Post
Agreed. I am not stating varying degrees of killing efficiency. I am simply saying the Romans knew how to kill.
OK.

Quote:
So if I talk to 3 witnesses that claim to have seen a murder, and two of them left out a detail that one of them included, I am to dismiss the entire case based on this difference? Variances in multiple sources are to be expected. Stating there are no guards simply because Matthew uses a certain literary style and is the only gospel to include the exceprt about guards is hardly conclusive... it is sheer speculation. I sincerely hope your postulation does not rely heavily on the "fabricated guards." That is quite a risk.
I'm not suggesting we throw out the entire case based on the lack of guards. My main point is that it is historically unlikely for the Romans to assign soldiers to guard the tomb of some 'failed' Jewish Messiah, the likes of which came and went every few years. The Romans would have seen very little special about Jesus -- that's why we see very little about him in the Roman records (despite being an atheist-leaning agnostic, I don't buy the Christ myth theory). Also, the presence of tomb guards is not just some "minor detail" that someone would be likely to leave out. If there really were guards, all four gospels would report it, because it would have been a huge deal.

Also, Matthew is the least reliable of the gospels because the author of Matthew has been KNOWN to embellish his stories with fanciful accounts (look at Matthew 27, which reports saints coming out of their graves and darkness at noon at the time of Jesus' crucifixion). We know that those events didn't really happen, or they would have been reported in the other gospels, as well as in secular sources. Using your murder case analogy, would you base your case on the testimony of an unreliable witness with a penchant for lying? That's one excellent way to lose a case.

Yes, my case does rely heavily on the lack of tomb guards. If there were guards, my hypothesis becomes much more unlikely, although the thief could have stolen the body during the period before the Roman guards arrived.


Quote:
Once again, you have tossed out a thoughtful response I made because of your speculation. If we are not willing to discuss possiblities, then there is no point in further dialogue.
I apologize for tossing out your reply, it was disrespectful of me. I'll avoid it in the future, and for the sake of argument, I will be willing to discuss all possibilities, including supernatural ones.

Last edited by northstar22; 10-14-2011 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2011, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,951 posts, read 10,332,556 times
Reputation: 7232
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
Christians claim that the resurrection is "the best explanation for the rise of the early church." While I obviously don't believe that, you have to admit it is somewhat surprising that a religion was able to spring up claiming that Jesus was bodily resurrected, when it should have been easy to prove the contrary.

As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the earliest Christians did not believe in the resurrection. Additionally, I find the typical secular explanations (the "swoon" theory (Jesus wasn't really dead), the disciples stole the body, etc.) for the resurrection narratives to be pretty poor.

Of course, all this assumes Jesus was a historical person and he was actually buried in a tomb -- both huge unfounded assumptions, I know.

Still, let's assume hypothetically that Jesus and the tomb story are historical. Here's what I think may have happened:

1) Jesus was crucified, much as the gospels describe.

2) Jesus was buried in the tomb, much as the Bible says

3) The disciples were discouraged, much like what was listed in the gospel accounts.

4) Some Jewish zealot or activist with access to Jesus' tomb, someone who knew the Messiah hype surrounding Jesus and wanted to spark a Jewish independence revolution against the Roman Empire, stole the body of Jesus, hoping to spark resurrection rumors and nationalistic fervor.

5) The disciples return to the tomb a few days later, find it empty, and deduce that Jesus was resurrected.

6) They write the gospels, adding mythological elements to embellish the story.

I think this eliminates the problem of Jesus' disciples dying for something they knew to be a lie (assuming they stole the body), or the improbable event of the Romans botching a crucifixion. It also eliminates the supernatural explanation of Jesus actually rising from the dead (which I believe to be impossible).

What do you think about my idea?
What about mary seeing Jesus alive again? I kept waiting for that part of your post. Do you believe that what a fictional element?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2011, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,215,291 times
Reputation: 3200
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
What about mary seeing Jesus alive again? I kept waiting for that part of your post. Do you believe that what a fictional element?
Which Mary? There were three.

To answer the second part of your question, yes, it was fictional, or it could have been a hallucination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,215,291 times
Reputation: 3200
Default Sorry for bringing this thread back, but . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
Just as nonsensical as the other "explanations", in my opinion. Why would all of these people assume Jesus was resurrected just because his body was missing? One or two, I could perhaps buy, but all of them? And it still makes all of the post-resurrection appearances a lie on the apostles' part, meaning it doesn't remove the problem of them "dying for what they knew was a lie". Unless they were all hallucinations, but then you have the problem with that many people all hallucinating the same thing simultaneously.
You know what, after thinking about it and doing more research, I agree. The explanation I gave in the OP really isn't all that plausible. Even if the body was stolen, that still doesn't explain the resurrection appearances (assuming they actually happened). I'm still an atheist and an ontological naturalist, but I think many of the naturalistic explanations fall short in explaining the evidence that exists.

Also, before anyone says it, the Christ myth theory doesn't jibe with the evidence, which is why it is rejected by nearly all Biblical scholars (this is not an appeal to authority . . . scholars reject the theory BECAUSE there is strong evidence against it, the theory is not wrong because scholars are against it). There is too much evidence that Jesus WAS a historical person. Jesus Mythicism is basically the atheistic version of young-earth creationism -- an irrational belief based on an almost dogmatic dedication to a worldview .

Quote:
The way I see it, if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then the only logical explanation is that the Gospel writers, or their sources, were knowingly lying.
I agree. However, I'm not convinced that they weren't simply lying or "making things up." Christians today do it all the time . . . Benny Hinn, anyone?

Quote:
If they were lying, then they knew that Jesus was wrong and had nothing to offer them, but were willing to risk their lives for Jesus anyways. Again, I could perhaps buy it if we were talking about one or two people, but there had to have been a lot of people in a position to know that Jesus wasn't resurrected, but were still willing to die for him.
Is there any independent evidence that Jesus' disciples actually died martyrs' deaths? As far as I know, only church tradition references the death of the apostles. Maybe the apostles' martyrdoms are simply pious myths?

Quote:
People talk about the resurrection being an "extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence", but the opposing theories, including this one, are also extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. The problem is, they have no evidence at all. Not even Jesus' opponents were claiming that any of these things happened.
I now agree with this statement. I don't want my lack of belief to interfere with my examination of the evidence, and there is no real evidence for any of the popular naturalistic explanations . . . especially the mass hallucinations, which are very improbable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 02:28 PM
 
34,702 posts, read 8,956,610 times
Reputation: 4806
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
This. You can even see the evolution of the stories in the gospels themselves. The oldest gospel Mark is both the shortest and the oldest versions end with the Marys finding an empty tomb - no resurrection or second coming. Later revisions of the story add Jesus returning after his death. The other synoptic gospels build on Mark and expand the theme. John is written even later and has a much more magical view of Jesus, implying the myth continued to grow up around him as the early Christian church developed for another generation.
I'm with this. I have given the gospels a lot of study and I am of the view that the original story was as in Mark - the tomb was found empty and that's where it ended. The resurrection accounts were added by the other three writers and that's why they differ so much.

Matthew's guard is very unlikely and is not mentioned by any of the others. Luke's business at Emmaeus is mentioned by none of the others and contradicts Matthew's claim that Jesus appeared to Mary before she reported back to the disciples.

In John the appearance to Mary is after the disciples have gone to check out the tomb. That's not even looking at the contradictions of the appearances that evening and afterwards and in Galilee and whatever. The conclusion is that the evangelists were writing their own contradictory accounts.

This is not too far from OP Northstar's idea. If he (she) would like to examine the matter further or read through my examination on AA (can give a link) perhaps we can see how well the 'embellishment' idea stacks up. If we just put ths idea of the gospels being by eyewitness followers of Jesus behind us (as they were not) then a lot of puzzles are answered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2011, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Southern Minnesota
5,990 posts, read 11,215,291 times
Reputation: 3200
I'd be interested in reading your examination, and I still hold to the embellishment theory, just not involving the hallucinations. I think the writers of the gospels simply made the resurrection accounts up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2011, 06:08 AM
 
34,702 posts, read 8,956,610 times
Reputation: 4806
I had trouble finding it! it indicates that there's a lot more posting in A/A than there used to be.

It's at this link
Show and Tell.

but I'll post the section on the resurrection here (with some tidying up ) so you can have a look easily.

Mind, this wasn't an exhaustive refutation of the gospels - there's a lot more than this to say - but the idea was to show that the synoptic gospels were all later Paulinist -christian re-writings of an original 'proto synoptic' gospel without the reappearances, and a lot of other stuff, too, including the nativity.


The resurrection including the contradiction of Emmaeus.


History suggests that neither the Holy Sepulchre nor the garden tomb could have been a 'new tomb' in which the crucified Jesus was placed. That area was already a suburb and the bones of the Hasmoneans had already been removed to the mount of Olives where the tomb - building of the time was going on.

Sunday first day of the week after passover.
John. 20. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, The stone was already removed. She ran to Peter and the 'other' disciple (surely after looking to see that the body was gone) to say 'They (for example the gardener, as we shall see) have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him." So there was at least one other (No doubt Mary, Jesus' mother) with her and she supposes some others had moved the body.

John. 20. Simon and the other have a look and see the cloths lying there. They then go 'back to their homes'. Mary stays by herself and has another look in the tomb and sees two 'angels'. She nevertheless isn't afraid of them or even surprised that they suddenly appeared on the scene and she talks to them and also to Jesus whom she first takes for the gardener and to whom she repeats "They have taken away my Lord and we do not know where they have laid him." This strains credulity. Why she thought that a jewish gardener would open a tomb and take away a body is beyond explaining.

Mary Magdalene goes and tells the disciples about her meeting with Jesus.

John 20.19. That evening, Jesus walks in through the shut door and shows his hands and side to the eleven disciples - sorry, ten, because Judas won't be here, of course, and because Thomas is away on some unexplained mission. The ten are glad to see Jesus.

When Thomas comes back he adopts the role of the doubter.
Eight days later, Jesus appears again and lets Thomas see the wounds. Well, how long does it take before Jesus ascends to the father and gets his New Incorruptible body without the holes in?

John 21. Peter, Andrew and James, together with Nathaniel and Tomas the twin, return to Galilee and Peter suggests going fishing. He had resumed his old job it seems, as it is the boat and net type of fishing rather than the hook and line pastime described in the Shekel eating fish of Matthew and attested by the Bible - proving fishhooks found in Capernaum excavations.

The contradictions in the resurrection are mainly chronological and it is needful to consider them in detail, as the claim that the dead Jesus reappeared, leaving the tomb empty is fundamental to Christian claim. As Paul said:

"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) Though the logic of the argument that since they are all fools if it isn't true and they don't want to be fools, so of course it must be true, is rather questionable, he is on the money re. the importance of this event. I'd say that it shows up, better than any comment of mine, the basis that the Bible is - not has, but IS, to Christianity. If the resurrection is not true or is even open to serious doubt, then the Christian Faith is based only on Faith, not on sound reason or evidence, which is all I have ever argued.

After the women go to the tomb first thing Sunday, they find Jesus gone and an angel saying that he has risen. After that the stories seriously diverge.

Matthew. The women return to tell the disciples and it seems that, on the way, they run into Jesus himself. He tells them to tell the 'brethren' (that is the disciples) to go to Galilee, where they will see him. Well, that is what the angel already told them to say. There is the business about the guards and the story, current in Matthew's day, apparently, that the disciples stole the body out of the tomb. That said, the eleven go to Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had directed them (he had said nothing about any mountain) and even when he was standing there telling them to go out and convert all the other nations, some still doubted.

Luke. The bevy of women return and tell the disciples about this event but are not believed. We then see Cleophas and a companion on the way to Emmaeus, a few miles west of Jerusalem. They meet Jesus on the way and return to Jerusalem to tell the disciples - who say that Jesus has already appeared to Simon. While Cleophas is telling how Jesus appeared to him, Jesus himself appears, shows his appendix scar and has a fish dinner with them. Jesus tells them to stay put and, after they ask Jesus about restoring the kingdom, he parts from them at Bethany, ascending into the sky (Acts) whereupon an angel comes and asks them what they are gawping at. They then stay in Jerusalem praising God in the temple (Luke 24.53).

John differs from the synoptics in that Mary finds the tomb open and rushes back to report without seeing men, angels or Jesus and only sees them after Peter and the other have gone to have a look, Jesus shows up in the evening, when the disciples are all together.

Mark's gospel ends here, with the women running away. Two endings, missing from the earlier manuscripts, were added at a later date, the shorter reading:

"But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." and the longer, version cobbled together from the appearance at Emmaeus and the appearance to all of them together.

"9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it. 12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. 14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” 19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."

The question has always been whether Mark's ending has got lost or he simply decided not to write it. But, in view of all we have seen so far, I think the question ought to be asked: is that how original gospel source or sources ended? Is is possible that Matthew, John and Luke each added their own suitable ending? And, if so, is why they are so discrepant?

Let us look at the Synoptic endings. The common text derived (I have argued all the way) from the synoptic original 'proto - Matthew' text. (synoptic matter in italics. Matter common to all 4 gospels underlined)

Mark1. 1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4aAnd when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is arisen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7But 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. 8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Matthew 28 1 1
1 After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, 2 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 3 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, approached, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing was white as snow. 4 The guards were shaken with fear of him and became like dead men.
5 Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.
7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead,
and he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him.' Behold, I have told you." 8 Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce 5 this to his disciples.

Luke 24 1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3 Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it happened, as they were greatly[b] perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5 Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, 7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’8 And they remembered His words. 9 Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. ”

We already know from John that there were ten, not eleven, and Thomas wasn't there, but this puts paid to the idea that 'the twelve' was the generic name for the disciples, like a boy band, no matter how many were actually present. Luke, we already saw, has to alter the text because the disciples do not go to Galilee to see Jesus and Matthew makes his man in white a definite and rather absurd angel in order to get the guards he'd concocted out of the way. That said, as you can see, the elements are all traceable back to a common Synoptic text. But, as we saw, Luke and Matthew contradict each other, as they do in the nativity and the narratives of Judas' death. Is it not likely, then, that Matthew and Luke each devised their own ending to an original text which actually had no appearance of the risen Jesus, just as in Mark?.

John, remarkably, also has something like the start of the synoptic gospel.

John 20:1 "The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,"

Apart from the non - appearance of the angel, it is very similar, with Mary coming early on the first of the week to the tomb and finding the stone rolled away. She then runs to the disciples. But there is no angelic appearance. Therefore, I would suggest that the Synoptic 'proto Matthew' had added a young man in white explaining the empty tomb to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

So the original empty tomb story was the original ending with the synoptics adding in the angel, but that was all that Mark, Luke, John and Matthew originally had. Mark added nothing more to his version but the others, feeling that Jesus should put in an appearance to silence any doubts about the resurrection claim, put together some contradictory stories.

Let us combine them chronologically and see how poorly they fit together.

Early morning, Mary Magdalene (John) with another Mary, Mary mother of James and Salome (Matthew) plus a number of other women (Luke) came to the tomb.
They find the stone moved away. Matthew has his earthquake and descending angel who frightens off the guard and then rolls away the stone. The women don't see anyone but find the tomb empty and run to tell Peter (John) but the synoptic version has a youth in a white robe (Mark) or and angel in white (Matthew) or two men in dazzling white (Luke) and they then run in great joy to tell the disciples (Matthew and Luke) or in terror run off and tell no - one (Mark).
They then run into Jesus (Matthew) and presumably tell the disciples about meeting Jesus, or (Luke) they report about meeting the two angels and are not believed, though the disciples all go and look and find the tomb empty (24.24) or (John) they simply say that the body of Jesus has been taken away and Peter and the other run to look.

After this, Cleophas and the other set out for Emmaeus, since they tell Jesus when they meet him on the way that the women came with a tale of an empty tomb and a vision of angels. The disciples had gone to look and found the tomb empty, but him (Jesus) they did not see. They must have come back to tell this to Cleophas before he set out or how could he know? But then if Matthew is right, the women must have said that they met with Jesus on the way to report. It is inconceivable that Cleophas would then say that they did not see him or that the women had claimed to see Jesus but the men going to look at the tomb did not.

It will not do to say that Cleophas would regard the womens' tale of meeting Jesus as unworthy of report since their report of seeing angels is recounted. There is no escape. Luke's 'Him they did not see' roundly contradicts Matthew's tale of the women running into Jesus.

John complicates matters by reporting that, after Peter and the other had looked at the tomb and gone home, the two angels then appear for the first time to Mary Magdalene and then she sees Jesus. After that, he apparently appears to Simon since, when Cleophas returns to say he has met Jesus, he is told that he has appeared to Simon. It is surprising that Luke (let alone any of the other evangelists) does not give an account of this. Surely if it was true, Simon Peter, one of the prominent apostles, would have recounted the event to be recorded. In fact Matthew and John do not even mention it, and it must be considered highly dubious.

In the evening, after Cleophas has returned to Jerusalem, Jesus walks in through the solid door. Surprisingly, since Jesus has already appeared to Cleophas and to Simon, they were all alarmed and thought they were seeing a ghost. John also has Jesus appearing and there is the exhibiting of wounds. In John they are convinced and joyful but in Luke still confused and wondering until Jesus sits down for a bite to eat.

Matthew has the disciples leaving for Galilee to see Jesus - remember, in Matthew only the women have seen Jesus. Matthew thus contradicts the appearance to Simon and the other eight, (since Thomas is not there) and they must surely wait a week for him to return and be convinced by Jesus appearing yet again. And Luke of course states that they all stayed in Jerusalem praising God in the Temple and there is no mention of then going to Galilee.

It must surely be clear that the resurrection accounts are totally contradictory and cannot reasonably be believed.

Since that passing mention, found only in Luke, of Jesus appearing to Simon is very odd, I though about it a lot, and I suggest that it came about because Luke knew Paul's remarks about the appearances of Jesus.

1st Corinthians 15.."3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

After stating that Paul learned - undoubtedly from those followers of Jesus - that Jesus' death was atonement for man's 'original' sin, we read that Jesus was raised and appeared to Cephas (Simon) then to the twelve.
Finally he appeared to Paul. But the appearance to Paul was in his own head. He no-where describes Jesus in a solid body appearing to him. Jesus speaks to him in the spirit. Thus I also see the appearances to Cephas and the others as in their heads. But Luke, writing his account of a solid Jesus with the marks of crucifixion, takes Paul's Jesus -appearances' as solid body appearances and, indeed, I imagine most believers do. Thus he has to fit Jesus appearing to Simon in somewhere before he appears to the 'twelve', Therefore he has no choice but to preface the appearance of Jesus to the disciples after Cleophas returns from Emmaeus with the mention that Jesus is risen and has appeared to Simon. Since, for all Luke knew, there was an account out there somewhere of the appearance to Simon which Paul just mentions, he dare not undermine it by writing a speculative account, so he leaves it at that.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2011 at 06:50 AM.. Reason: Really needed to corect typing and make it more readable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top