Is the New Testament historically accurate? (Antichrist, suicide, Kingdom, vain)
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.
I am afraid that you cannot appeal to supposed history that may have gone missing.
And you cannot appeal to history which probably was there and over thousands of years has gone missing.
Quote:
re-read #78. The point is that Luke is saying there are 11 there. That is all of them apart from Judas. That means it contradicts John who says Thomas was absent. I know we have discussed this before.
Two entirely different times the Lord met with them. This meeting occurred roughly 40 days prior to the Luke incident:
Act_1:3 to whom also He presents Himself alive after His suffering, with many tokens, during forty days,
being visualized to them and telling them that which concerns the kingdom of God."
John 20:1-26 Now, on one of the sabbaths, Miriam Magdalene is coming to the tomb in the morning, there being still darkness, and is observing the stone taken away from the door of the tomb." (2) She is racing, then, and is coming to Simon Peter and to the other disciple of whom Jesus was fond, and she is saying to them, "They take away the Lord out of the tomb and we are not aware where they place Him!" (3) Peter, then, and the other disciple came out, and they came to the tomb." (4) Now the two raced alike, and the other disciple runs more swiftly before Peter and came first to the tomb." (5) And, peering in, he is observing the swathings lying. Howbeit, he did not enter." (6) Simon Peter also, then, is coming, following him, and he entered into the tomb and he is beholding the swathings lying, (7) and the handkerchief which was on His head, not lying with the swathings, but folded up in one place apart." (8) The other disciple also, then, who came first to the tomb, then entered, and he perceived and believes, (9) for not as yet were they aware of the scripture that He must rise from among the dead. (10) The disciples, then, came away again to their own." (11) Now Mary stood outside at the tomb, lamenting. As, then, she lamented, she peers into the tomb" (12) and is beholding two messengers in white seated, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus was laid." (13) And they are saying to her, "Woman, why are you lamenting?And she is saying to them that "They take away my Lord, and I am not aware where they place Him!" (14) Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus." (15) Jesus is saying to her, "Woman, why are you lamenting? Whom are you seeking?She, supposing that He is the gardener, is saying to Him, "Lord, if you bear Him off, tell me where you place Him, and I will take Him away." (16) Jesus is saying to her, "Miriam!Now, being turned, she is saying to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (17) which is the term for "Teacher.Jesus is saying to her, "Do not touch Me, for not as yet have I ascended to My Father. Now go to My brethren, and say to them that I said, 'Lo! I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" (18) Miriam Magdalene is coming, reporting to the disciples that "I have seen the Lord!- and these things He said to her." (19) It being, then, the evening of that day, one of the sabbaths, and the doors having been locked where the disciples were gathered together, because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and is saying to them, "Peace to you!" (20) And saying this, He shows them His hands also, and His side. The disciples, then, rejoiced at perceiving the Lord." (21) Jesus, then, said to them again, "Peace to you! According as the Father has commissioned Me, I also am sending you." (22) And saying this, He exhales and is saying to them, "Get holy spirit!" (23) If you should be forgiving anyone's sins, they have been forgiven them. If anyone's you should be holding, they are held." (24) Now Thomas, one of the twelve, termed Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." (25) The other disciples, then, said to him, "We have seen the Lord!Yet he said to them, "Should I not perceive in His hands the print of the nails, and thrust my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will by no means be believing." (26) And after eight days His disciples were again within, and Thomas was with them. The doors having been locked, Jesus is coming and stood in the midst and said, "Peace to you!"
Then later Jesus meets with them for the last time and then ascends into heaven:
Luke 24:1-53 Now in the early depths of one of the sabbaths, they, and certain others together with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they
make ready." (2) Now they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. (3) Now, entering also, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus." (4) And it
occurred, at their being perplexed concerning this, lo! two men stand by them in flashing attire." (5) Now at their becoming affrighted and inclining their faces to
the earth, they say to them, "Why are you seeking the living with the dead? (6) He is not here, but was roused. Be reminded how He speaks to you, being still in
Galilee, (7) saying that 'The Son of Mankind must be given up into the hands of men, sinners, and be crucified, and the third day rise.'" (8) And they are
reminded of His declarations. (9) And, returning from the tomb, they report all these things to the eleven and to all the rest." (10) Now there were the
Magdalene Mary and Joanna and Mary of James and the rest together with them, who told these things to the apostles." (11) And these declarations appear in
their sight as if nonsense, and they disbelieved them." (12) Yet Peter, rising, ran to the tomb, and peering in, is observing the swathings only. And he came away
marveling to himself at that which has occurred." (13) And lo! two of them in the same day were going into a village which is named Emmaus, sixty stadia away
from Jerusalem." (14) And they conversed with one another concerning all of these things which have befallen. (15) And it occurred, in their conversation and
discussion, Jesus Himself also, drawing near, went together with them." (16) Yet their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him. (17) Now He said to them,
"What words are these which you are bandying one with another while walking?And they stood with a sad countenance." (18) Now, answering, the one named
Cleopas said to Him, "You are sojourning alone in Jerusalem and did not know what things are occurring in her in these days? (19) And He said to them,
"Which?Now they say to Him, "Those concerning Jesus the Nazarean, a Man Who came to be a Prophet, powerful in work and in word, in front of God and the
entire people, (20) so that both our chief priests and chiefs give Him up to the judgment of death, and they crucify Him." (21) Yet we expected that He is the
One about to be redeeming Israel. But surely, together with all these things also, it is leading in this third day since these things occurred." (22) But some
also of our women amaze us. Coming to be at the tomb early (23) and not finding His body, they came saying that they have seen an apparition of messengers
also, who say that He is living." (24) And some of those with us came away to the tomb, and they found it thus, according as the women also said, yet Him they
did not perceive." (25) And He said to them, "O foolish and tardy of heart to be believing on all which the prophets speak!" (26) Must not the Christ be suffering
these things, and be entering into His glory? (27) And, beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He interprets to them, in all the scriptures, that which
concerns Himself." (28) And they draw near to the village where they went, and He does as though He were going further." (29) And they urge Him, saying,
"Remain with us, for it is toward dusk and the day has already declined.And He entered to remain together with them." (30) And it occurred, at His reclining at
table with them, taking the bread, He blesses it, and, breaking, He handed it to them." (31) Now their eyes were opened up, and they recognize Him. And He
became unapparent to them." (32) And they say to one another, "Was not our heart burning in us as He spoke to us on the road and as He opened up to us on
the road and as He opened up to us the scriptures? (33) And rising in the same hour, they return to Jerusalem and found the eleven convened together and
those with them, (34) who said that "Really roused was the Lord, and was seen by Simon!" (35) And they unfolded the events on the road, and how He is
known to them in the breaking of the bread." (36) Now at their speaking these things, Jesus Himself stood in their midst and is saying to them, "Peace to you!"
(37) Yet, being dismayed and becoming affrighted, they supposed they are beholding a spirit." (38) And He said to then, "Why are you disturbed? And wherefore
are reasonings coming up in your hearts? (39) Perceive My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and perceive, for a spirit has not flesh and bones
according as you behold Me having." (40) And saying this, He exhibits to them His hands and feet." (41) Now, at their still disbelieving from joy, and marveling,
He said to them, "Have you any food in this place? (42) Now they hand Him part of a broiled fish, (43) and, taking it, He ate before them." (44) Now He said to
them, "These are My words, which I speak to you, still being with you, for all must be fulfilled that is written in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms
concerning Me." (45) Then He opens up their mind to understand the scriptures, (46) and said to them that "Thus it is written, and thus must the Christ be
suffering and rise from among the dead the third day, (47) and there is to be heralded in His name repentance for the pardon of sins, to all the nations, beginning
from Jerusalem." (48) Now you shall be witnesses of these things. (49) And lo! I am delegating the promise of My Father on you. Now you be seated in the city
of Jerusalem till you should be putting on power from on high." (50) Now He led them out as far as to Bethany, and, lifting up His hands, He blesses them." (51)
And it occurred as He is blessing them, He put an interval between Himself and them, and He was carried up into heaven." (52) And they, worshiping Him,
return to Jerusalem with great joy." (53) And they were continually in the sanctuary, praising and blessing God. Amen!"
So three days after the crucifixion up to Him being carried up into heaven was around 40 days elapsed.
The pre -Pauline tradition is not denied. What is open to question is whether those pre pauline traditions of a resurrection were of a bodily one or a spiritual one. The evidence of what Paul says is that it is a spiritual one. That means that apostolic resurrection belief was of a spiritual one.
Appeal to traditions is not helping to refute that at all. The evidence is in comparing Paul's account of the sightings of Jesus with the gospels accounts and seeing that they do not match. What we do get is that Luke, reading that Paul says that Jesus appeared first to Peter, fiddles that into his gospel at 24.34 but gives no description of this remarkable occurrence, and nor do the other gospels. The conclusion is that Luke had to adapt the later bodily resurrection traditions that had grown up in Christian circles to fit in the the actual Pauline/apostolic tradition of a spiritual resurrection.
P.s btw I am busy on the argument that a literal reading of the resurrection account indicates that the disciples took the body rather than it got up and walked. I hope to post later today.
The claim that the apostolic view of the resurrection is that it was a spiritual one is absolutely false, and I have already addressed that. Neither Paul or the other apostles claimed that Jesus' resurrection was a spiritual one, which would not have even been a resurrection at all. Resurrection always refers to a physical bodily resurrection. Resurrection refers to the body being raised from a state of physical death. It is the body that physically dies, and it is the body that is physically raised. Jesus' body was not in the tomb because it had been physically resurrected.
As stated in Luke 24, when the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples they thought they were seeing a spirit. To prove that He was not a spirit, Jesus told the disciples to touch Him. For as Jesus told them, ''a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.'' (Luke 24:39). He then asked for something to eat which further demonstrated that He was not a spirit.
John records the fact that the risen Jesus told Mary to stop clinging to Him for He had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17). You can't cling to a spirit.
And again, Acts 2:22-32 and 13:34-37 show the resurrection to be physical. Christ's flesh did not suffer decay, but was raised up again (2:31-32;13:34).
As for Paul, his use of the word 'soma' in 1 Cor. 15:35 refers to a fleshly body. A physical body. Yes, Paul did distinguish between a natural body and a spiritual body, but by spiritual body he did not mean a non-corporeal, non-physical body, but rather, a glorified body of incorruptibility and immortality. It is the physical body which is raised imperishable and immortal, and it is physical death which is defeated by a physical resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15:52:55).
As for the argument you are working on to prove that the disciples took the body and therefore committed fraud in claiming that Jesus was resurrected when in fact they knew He hadn't been, that is a popular argument among skeptics, and it was a charge made by the non-believing Jews as stated by Justin Martyr. In 'Dialogue With Trypo, he writes;
CHAPTER CVII -- THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST DID NOT CONVERT THE JEWS. BUT THROUGH THE WHOLE WORLD THEY HAVE SENT MEN TO ACCUSE CHRIST. [That should actually be CVIII which is chapter 108]
"And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.
But a charge of fraud in which the disciples stole the body doesn't explain why both James, the brother of Christ who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah during His ministry, became a believer after His resurrection, or why Paul converted. The accusation of fraud on the part of the disciples doesn't explain the risen Jesus' appearance to Paul who converted because he saw the risen Jesus.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-22-2015 at 08:24 AM..
I assume the intent of your question is to cast doubt on the accuracy of our manuscript copies. I'll let the experts in textual criticism answer you.
The textual purity of the New Testament is rarely questioned in scholarship. It is well established and agreed among almost all who have seriously studied the ancient texts that the text is virtually the same as what was originally written, Even critical scholars question very few words in the New Testament, and those words in question do not affect doctrinal issues. [Gary Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 85]
F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the most highly regarded scholars of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He commented...
But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament , whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. [The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 230]
Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]
Even Bart D. Ehrman who puts a skeptical spin on things when writing for the general public made the following statement in a college textbook as quoted by Dan Wallace in 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' on pg. 24...
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
In an article by Dan Wallace, he wrote...
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
Trained scholars who study and address the issue of the textual reliability of the manuscript copies with the goal of getting back to the content of the original New Testament documents assert that while we don't have the original New Testament autographs, we do for the most part, over 99 percent, have the content of the original New Testament autographs within the vast number of extant manuscript copies. Within that vast number of manuscript copies exists for the most part, the original reading.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-22-2015 at 08:22 AM..
But a charge of fraud in which the disciples stole the body doesn't explain why both James, the brother of Christ who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah during His ministry, became a believer after His resurrection, or why Paul converted. The accusation of fraud on the part of the disciples doesn't explain the risen Jesus' appearance to Paul who converted because he saw the risen Jesus.
Exactly. Paul was on the road to arrest Christians and drag them back to Jerusalem. He was intercepted by Jesus Christ and Paul was a changed man.
And you cannot appeal to history which probably was there and over thousands of years has gone missing.
I'm not. You are. I am 'appealing' to the data, writing and and evidence we have.
Quote:
Two entirely different times the Lord met with them. This meeting occurred roughly 40 days prior to the Luke incident:
Act_1:3 to whom also He presents Himself alive after His suffering, with many tokens, during forty days,
being visualized to them and telling them that which concerns the kingdom of God."
John 20:1-26 N.. forgiving anyone's sins, they have been forgiven them. If anyone's you should be holding, they are held." (24) Now Thomas, one of the twelve, termed Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." (25) The other disciples, then, said to him, "We have seen the Lord!Yet he said to them, "Should I not perceive in His hands the print of the nails, and thrust my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will by no means be believing." (26) And after eight days His disciples were again within, and Thomas was with them. The doors having been locked, Jesus is coming and stood in the midst and said, "Peace to you!"
Then later Jesus meets with them for the last time and then ascends into heaven:
...pointless quotepasting cut for the sake of everyone's sanity
Quote:
So three days after the crucifixion up to Him being carried up into heaven was around 40 days elapsed.
No contradiction.
Don't be absurd old son. Nobody with the ability to read could fail to see that it doesn't even address the contradiction.
Now to make use of an otherwise wasted post...here it is
Enjoy.
So in showing how the gospels -taken as reliable – show that the disciples taking the body from the tomb is more probable than a resurrection, Let’s recount the combined story. While I don’t rely on these accounts, let’s suppose that they are accurate, give or take a bit of natural eyewitness discrepancy, and regard them as complimentary, rather than contradictory. And so it isn’t what I say, but what the gospels say. I only point up what they say.
So we get Jesus taken out to Golgotha (9 a. m) where he is crucified, a malefactor on each side.
And the first thing they do is offer Jesus wine. It has Myrrh or gall mixed in according to Matthew so when Jesus had tasted it, he wouldn’t drink it. Luke also records this and it may be the same occasion or the offering of the wine later on. In which case it seems that Jesus again refuses it.
So they set Jesus up with the inscription with the charge of being King of the Jews. The soldiers cast lots for the clothing. There are insults and jeers from the watchers, the priests, the soldiers and the two malefactors. (give or take one repentant one).
It is getting towards noon and the darkness begins. About now Jesus hands his mother over to the disciple that Jesus loved and who took her into his home. Not just yet, because Jesus’ mother stays watching until dark (as I shall show).
Now Jesus calls out quoting Psalms to the effect that God (Eli) has forsaken him (that’s what it says – don’t blame me)
Now we do have a discrepancy that needs resolving
“When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen (Mark) , he’s calling Elijah.” Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge (Matthew), filled a sponge with wine vinegar (Mark) put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
John “Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips.
So the running towards Jesus, presumably when he says he is thirsty is after someone remarks that he is calling on Elijah. He can hardly have mistaken Eli for Elijah and nor would any of the others as they would know the Psalm and know that it referred to God, not Elijah. Luke doesn’t mention the episode at all, so is no help in resolving this. But John makes it clear that the wine was offered because Jesus said he was thirsty. Thus the wine is not now repugnant to him and he takes it.
“Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” the person (or the others) said.
It won’t do that this person is one of the soldiers. He runs forward to the wine already standing there and with the sponge he has brought along or the one the soldiers had ready to enable it to be given to the victim (I don’t mind which option you prefer) he takes it on himself to offer the wine.
That strongly implies that the soldiers were not there to do it. They were off breaking the legs of the robbers. No wonder Jesus asks for the wine, because having tasted it the first time, he knows that it will cause him to ‘breath his last’ and that is why he refused it at that time.
The believers will now be screaming conspiracy theory. But they have to then come up with a better explanation than:
Wine offered and refused, because Jesus wants to survive on the cross until Eli saves him or he knows that it isn’t going to happen.
When the leg breaking starts, he knows the game is up. And asks for the wine which ‘someone’ offers him and he conks out.
If anyone has a better explanation based on what the gospel accounts say, I should love to hear it.
John “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.( Mark/Matthew ) Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”(also a Psalm -quote 31:5) When he had said this, he breathed his last.(Luke)
The we get the tearing of the temple veil and and (according to Matthew) earthquake and tombs opening, And the centurion saying that Jesus was surely the Son of God or righteous/innocent.
When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.(Luke)
John doesn’t trouble to mention any of that. He records that the soldiers were breaking the legs of the malefactors to ensure that they would not be on the crosses into the Passover Sabbath.
Now I may doubt this story, but I am taking the gospels as reliable for the purposes of this argument. Putting together the confused accounts of the giving of the wine and Jesus dying all together, we have at least Matthew saying that it was offered at the start of the crucifixion. Why? Not because it was done in mockery, because it was just the normal soldier’s wine. Not because something was put in it to make it undrinkable, because Jesus asks for it later on. There was something in it ‘Gall’ or (improbably) myrrh that Jesus recognized when he tasted the wine. He thus refuses it but asks for it later on.
That is several hours later when Jesus cries out. It is generally agreed that someone soaked the wine into a sponge, held it up on some kind of stick and let Jesus drink. Then give or take loud cries, or last word, Jesus ‘breaths his last/or gives up the spirit’.
Mark has Pilate remark on Jesus having died so soon. So it was a surprise to him. It was a surprise to everyone because a crucified victim can last for days on the nails. The two malefactors had to have their legs broken to finish them off quickly and they were going to do it to Jesus too, until they saw that he was dead.
John “33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.”
Since the conspiracy supposes that the plan was to get Jesus off the cross alive by playing dead, this was not part of the plan at all. But it was too late. A spear had been stuck in Jesus’ side and there was nothing to be done but cover him in the sheet and shove him into the nearby tomb.
Of course it is Arimathea masterminding all this. He has his tomb nearby (there are good reason why this has to be on the mount of Olives, but that can wait to another discussion) he asks for the body and sees to the burial, even Jesus’ mother was there and she should have had the body and seen to the burial. But the Sanhedrin member and secret disciples sees to everything.
So the text demands that the person who offered the wine was Arimathea or possibly Nicodemus, though he is probably off collecting his sack of spices.
(Mark). So as evening approached, there came ….a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph (Matthew) of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, …, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action (Luke) ..who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, and who had himself become a disciple of Jesus (Matthew) but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders (John)
Now, watched by “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses,” This is of course the mother of Jesus, since Matthew 13 .55 and Mark 6.3 says “the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses”
Joseph of Arimathea takes down the body or takes it when the soldiers have taken it down. The implication is that he goes to Pilate at that time and asks for the body and then has to procure a shroud and Nicodemus with his “mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds” according to John. It is more likely that he secured the agreement and wherewithal beforehand, but it is not too significant.
So darkness falls, the place is deserted and the Passover Sabbath has begun. And the door is rolled back and two figures slip into the the tomb and out again with Jesus in a rather bad way. Which disciples? Why the ones who had put him there, of course! Despite the need for haste, they roll the door back. If as they hope, Jesus can survive the spear thrust, they do not want to telegraph that he is gone.
Does he survive and go secretly back to Galilee, because he now knows he is not the Messiah? Or does he die and the disciples know this and are in despair. until Peter/Cephas gets the idea that Jesus as the messiah would have gone back to heaven in the spirit at least.
He ‘sees’ this spirit Jesus and tells the others who yell ‘By God, yes of course, he is in heaven and will return to finish the job!” and he ‘appears to the twelve (Paul Cor 1.15.6) and in due course to a large number of unidentified people. And then finally canny James signs up to the resurrected Jesus idea just to keep the Nazorene party going, and then to ‘all the apostles’ last of all (before the spiritual appearance to Paul that is.
However, let us return to the empty tomb and the approach of the Tomb guard. Maybe later that night or more likely next morning or later if the Chief priests spend the morning asking Pilate for a guard. They seal the rock door and set a watch – on an empty tomb.
But wouldn’t they open it up to make sure he was still there? Perhaps, but they wouldn’t look too closely at the bundle or even person lying there (because Arimathea though his cover as a secret disciple was blown he still has contacts – one whom can smuggle Peter into the High priests house at need. Tipped off that a guard is gong to be set, he can arrange for them to see what they expect. And don't forget, Pilate is shown in the gospels as on Jesus' side, rather than that of the Chief priests, and thereby hangs a whole other tale)
but even if they did find the tomb empty, it makes no difference to what they reportedly did even if they found it empty. Run to the priests who would bribe them to say the disciples stole the body, which is why everyone said so – as Matthew reports.
Now I can already hear the protests about tall stories and conspiracy theories. But this fits the story. A genuine unfiddled crucifixion and burial does not. And I have yet to hear a taller story than the dead body rising and walking still with the holes in to prove it’s him. Don’t car –crash victims get a better body when they resurrect or was Jesus a one –off?
Let them come up with a story that fits the facts better, not just dismiss or cherry pick them, and I am willing to be convinced.
Of course, though I would love this to be true, I don’t accept the accounts as reliable. Some are clearly very discrepant. So I am not constrained by regarding the accounts as reliable. The Bible apologists are.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-22-2015 at 09:48 AM..
Exactly. Paul was on the road to arrest Christians and drag them back to Jerusalem. He was intercepted by Jesus Christ and Paul was a changed man.
Yes. And a point which many seem not to recognize is that Paul's encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road could not have been an hallucination because while Jesus appeared only to Paul, the men who were with him saw the light which accompanied the vision, and heard a noise. What they perceived only as a noise was Jesus talking to Paul. Paul also states that everyone fell to the ground. So there was a real event which took place.
I don't myself argue from misscopying. My line is to take that as pretty much as written. But what is written is what I argue about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Yes. And a point which many seem not to recognize is that Paul's encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road could not have been an hallucination because while Jesus appeared only to Paul, the men who were with him saw the light which accompanied the vision, and heard a noise. What they perceived only as a noise was Jesus talking to Paul. Paul also states that everyone fell to the ground. So there was a real event which took place.
Remind me. Who says so? What does Paul say about this event? After all a writer who lies about why Paul had to escape from Damascus, gets his history back to front, mangles Amos as recited by James in order to turn it into a prophecy can hardly be considered reliable, and his Peter speech and James letter do not inspire much confidence either.
And as I recall, Luke (Acts) changes the story of the conversion when Paul supposedly recounts it later on. Anyone like to check that?
Exactly. Paul was on the road to arrest Christians and drag them back to Jerusalem. He was intercepted by Jesus Christ and Paul was a changed man.
RESPONSE:
Yes. There are three contradictory versions of this story in Acts of the Apostles.
But, curiously, its nowhere found in Paul's Epistles.
Might it be that Paul died (64AD) before anyone could think these stories up for Acts of the Apostles(c 80 AD)?
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.
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.
