Why Jesus was not needed for redemption! (belief, disciple, Holy Spirit)

[justbyfaith]

This is the testimony of the book of Acts,

Act 1:1, The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Act 1:2, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Act 1:3, To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

This is the testimony of the apostle Paul.

1Co 15:1, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2, By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3, For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5, And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Co 15:6, After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7, After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Co 15:8, And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

More testimony from the apostle Paul.

2Co 13:1, This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

I accept the longer version of Mark.

Great! Even though it was added later, by obvious believers who supposedly would not make stuff up, we will use it.

Mary Magdalene, who then told two other women, who told the disciples, near the tomb.

Matthew has Mary and 'the other Mary', Mark has Mary Mag., and John has Mary Mag. seeing Jesus first.

Luke infers Peter saw Jesus first (somewhere around the tomb after he visited it) and then has two disciples see Jesus before Mary.

This all takes place in and around Jerusalem on Sunday.

And where does it say that Mary Mag. told two other woman?

Paul has Peter and mentions no woman.

Probably more than once; while only one of those encounters may have been related in one or some gospels.

"Probably" - what drives you to say that? Reconcile the two tomb visits!

There is no mention of two and you know it. What drives you to use eisegesis is the very fact of the contradiction. Anyone can pull crap out of their 'you know what' and 'make it' all kosher. Sorry that's not proper exegesis and it's wholly credulous and it does not remove the difference that the TEXT (you know the source material used in evaluating historical claims) has right before your eyes.

Both mentions of Peter going to the tomb are on Sunday morning -you would have him go twice on Sunday morning () based on nothing but your imagination to get rid of a problem. See Luke 24:12-13 and John 20:1-14.

John has Mary Mag. see Jesus AFTER Peter and John go to the tomb.

The first Easter Sunday, the day that Jesus rose from the dead (John 20:19)...it is not mentioned where.

No, John tells you that there were only 10 on that Sunday at evening. Thomas was not there. And it was in Jerusalem - where else would they be on the Sunday of Jesus rising?

Now Matt., Mark, and Luke say otherwise.

Matt. tell us that the eleven left for Galilee after Mary Mag. came and told them because that is what Jesus told her to tell them since that is where he would reveal himself to them. It also says that Jesus already left to go to Galilee. The only way this can work is if this meeting in Galilee was a different meeting of the 10. Let's grant that but notice that the great commission was given on this occasion in Galilee. Also, notice that if this is another meeting of the risen Jesus some still doubted - 28:17. That's odd but we will overlook that.

Mark tells us the eleven must have meet also in Galilee where he gave them the commission and ascended.

Luke tells that on Monday the day after the Emmaus road experience which Jesus stayed with them after the evening on Sunday. They immediately rose that very hour after he vanished from them and went to the eleven where Jesus appeared again. This is all in Jerusalem.

So how can there be the first meeting on Sunday evening or early morning Monday of 10 and of 11? And certainly could not be in Galilee since that was a couple days journey away.

One...related in different words by different gospels...but which basically mean the same thing.

near Bethany (Luke 24:50).

Mark has the commission in Galilee when he ascends after the meeting with the eleven. Same with Matthew as noted above. So Luke has the Commission near Jerusalem - Bethany.

Again, this is not just adding the other info in the gospels to 'fill-in' the blanks and it certainly is not just making stuff up (like two visits by Peter to the tomb) that is nowhere to be found in any writings of the gospels driven by the obvious contradictions starring us in the face.

[justbyfaith]

Originally Posted by Jathro

Great! Even though it was added later, by obvious believers who supposedly would not make stuff up, we will use it.

Matthew has Mary and 'the other Mary', Mark has Mary Mag., and John has Mary Mag. seeing Jesus first.

There is no contradiction in believing that the other Mary also saw Jesus; it would simply be true that the other Mary is not mentioned in Mark as an oversight.

Luke infers Peter saw Jesus first (somewhere around the tomb after he visited it) and then has two disciples see Jesus before Mary.

chapter and verse, please.

This all takes place in and around Jerusalem on Sunday.

And where does it say that Mary Mag. told two other woman?

Luke 24:10.

Paul has Peter and mentions no woman.

"Probably" - what drives you to say that? Reconcile the two tomb visits!

If there was more than one visit by Peter to the tomb, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that one or more of the gospels would not mention second and third visits.

But I am interested in chapter and verse where you think Peter had a second visit to the tomb, also.

There is no mention of two and you know it. What drives you to use eisegesis is the very fact of the contradiction. Anyone can pull crap out of their 'you know what' and 'make it' all kosher. Sorry that's not proper exegesis and it's wholly credulous and it does not remove the difference that the TEXT (you know the source material used in evaluating historical claims) has right before your eyes.

Proper exegesis takes all of scripture into account and reconciles apparent contradictions.

Both mentions of Peter going to the tomb are on Sunday morning -you would have him go twice on Sunday morning () based on nothing but your imagination to get rid of a problem. See Luke 24:12-13 and John 20:1-14.

The gospel of Luke simply does not include the information that John was present. John's gospel does because it was written by John and John had that information. Luke got all of his information secondhand (Luke 1:1-4).

John has Mary Mag. see Jesus AFTER Peter and John go to the tomb.

Peter and John did not see Jesus at the tomb.

Now <fify>, John tells you that there were only 10 on that Sunday at evening. Thomas was not there. And it was in Jerusalem - where else would they be on the Sunday of Jesus rising?

Galilee, where He said He would meet them.

Now Matt., Mark, and Luke say otherwise.

Chapter and verse, please.

Matt. tell us that the eleven left for Galilee after Mary Mag. came and told them because that is what Jesus told her to tell them since that is where he would reveal himself to them. It also says that Jesus already left to go to Galilee. The only way this can work is if this meeting in Galilee was a different meeting of the 10.

Nope. You are assuming that the risen Jesus is bound by space and time.

Let's grant that but notice that the great commission was given on this occasion in Galilee. Also, notice that if this is another meeting of the risen Jesus some still doubted - 28:17. That's odd but we will overlook that.

That is not what the scripture teaches in John 20:19-23. What chapter and verse are you looking at?

Mark tells us the eleven must have meet also in Galilee where he gave them the commission and ascended.

Luke says He ascended near Bethany and Mark does not say that He ascended from Galilee.

Luke tells that on Monday the day after the Emmaus road experience which Jesus stayed with them after the evening on Sunday. They immediately rose that very hour after he vanished from them and went to the eleven where Jesus appeared again. This is all in Jerusalem.

I'm not certain that you are relating the scriptures correctly; so I need chapter and verse.

So how can there be the first meeting on Sunday evening or early morning Monday of 10 and of 11? And certainly could not be in Galilee since that was a couple days journey away.

So, you are saying that there was a meeting in Jerusalem and another in Galilee and that they were both supposed to be on Easter Sunday when Jesus rose. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not following you. I still don't see any contradiction here.

Mark has the commission in Galilee when he ascends after the meeting with the eleven. Same with Matthew as noted above. So Luke has the Commission near Jerusalem - Bethany.

Luke doesn't give the story of Jesus giving the Great Commission but does relate the ascension.

Matthew relates the Great Commission but not the ascension. Mark does not relate where Jesus was when He ascended.

Matthew relates the Great Commission as being in Galilee.

Luke relates the ascension as being near Bethany.

Again, this is not just adding the other info in the gospels to 'fill-in' the blanks and it certainly is not just making stuff up (like two visits by Peter to the tomb) that is nowhere to be found in any writings of the gospels driven by the obvious contradictions starring us in the face.

I still don't see where you have Peter visiting the tomb twice.

[justbyfaith]

Maybe you can just reference the scriptures that you think contradict one another...put them side-by-side so I can look them up and see for myself what the contradiction is.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

There is no contradiction in believing that the other Mary also saw Jesus; it would simply be true that the other Mary is not mentioned in Mark as an oversight.

chapter and verse, please.

The 'other Mary' is not even the issue. I just was stating what the other 3 had said in contrast to Luke.

Luke 24:34. This is after Peter went to the tomb after the woman had told him of the empty tomb.

Luke 24:10.

Here is what it actually says: Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles.

Says nothing about them telling two other woman. But that is irrelevant to what Luke says in contrast to the other three. Neither here nor there even if they did.

If there was more than one visit by Peter to the tomb, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that one or more of the gospels would not mention second and third visits.

Again, your just making stuff up to rid the contrast here. That can be done to anything on any level esp. when dealing with people who believe in miracles. As is - it is a contradiction.

But I am interested in chapter and verse where you think Peter had a second visit to the tomb, also.

I don't think he did - that is the point - there is no where that tells us any such thing and it can't be worked into the narrative on a Sunday morning.

Proper exegesis takes all of scripture into account and reconciles apparent contradictions.

So where in Scripture does it say that Peter visited the tomb a second time on Sunday morning.

The gospel of Luke simply does not include the information that John was present. John's gospel does because it was written by John and John had that information. Luke got all of his information secondhand (Luke 1:1-4).

I can't believe this went over your head. Whether John is mention in Luke is not the point. Whether Peter went to the tomb twice, as you suggested, is.

Peter and John did not see Jesus at the tomb.

Correct! Luke tells you that Peter saw the Lord prior to the two men on the Emmaus Road. As I noted above in Luke 24:34.

Galilee, where He said He would meet them.

How could it be in Galilee on a Sunday? Galilee is a couple days journey from Jerusalem. Eight days later the eleven with Thomas was gathered together again. Only in Chapter 21 of John does it say afterwards he showed himself at the Sea of Tiberius.

Nope. You are assuming that the risen Jesus is bound by space and time.

I'm reading the text. You are not and adding stuff.

Where then did the eleven meet in Matt and Mark - Jerusalem or Galilee - you choose - it does not matter because anyone you do it will not line up with the meeting of the eleven or ten who are bound by flesh and blood time and space. Hello!

That is not what the scripture teaches in John 20:19-23. What chapter and verse are you looking at?

Not in John. Matthew 28:16-17. The eleven went away into Galilee and they saw him there were he gave them the Commission (the only given according to you). Was that Sunday or later? Choose wisely! Was it the first meeting of the eleven or one after - Choose wisely! I granted that it was another meeting since Galilee was a couple days journey from Jerusalem - but hey you choose?

Luke says He ascended near Bethany and Mark does not say that He ascended from Galilee.

Correct, so where does Mark's eleven meeting take place - Galilee or Jerusalem? You think Jerusalem (Bethany). Mark clearly lays out that that after he appeared to two disciples walking into the country (Emmaus in Luke) he appeared to the eleven and gave them the commission and ascended. So for you it must be Bethany. Ok, if so that would mean Matthew's must be Bethany as well. But Matthew says the eleven left to go to Galilee where he gave them the commission there. Remember there is only one commission.

I'm not certain that you are relating the scriptures correctly; so I need chapter and verse.

Luke 24 - read the whole chapter up v.36. Pay attention to the narrative timing verses. Verse 36 has to be on Monday. Sunday he appeared to the two on the road - that evening (Sun/Mon) he stayed with them to chat and eat then he disappeared, they left that very hour and went to the eleven where he appeared again. That is in Jerusalem - the eleven meeting. John has him meeting the 10 on Sunday and eight days later the 11 in Jerusalem. Matthew has the first meeting of the eleven in Galilee because as noted they left to go there (days away from Jerusalem) after the woman told then of the empty tomb on Sunday. Come on man!

So, you are saying that there was a meeting in Jerusalem and another in Galilee and that they were both supposed to be on Easter Sunday when Jesus rose. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not following you. I still don't see any contradiction here.

See above!

Luke doesn't give the story of Jesus giving the Great Commission but does relate the ascension.

Matthew relates the Great Commission but not the ascension. Mark does not relate where Jesus was when He ascended.

Matthew relates the Great Commission as being in Galilee.

Luke relates the ascension as being near Bethany.

Correct but still a problem.

Mark does relate the ascension with the great Commission and as you noted Matthew has the great commission in Galilee. Thus contradicting Luke's ascension near Bethany. Since there is only one commission and one ascension - how does that work?

I still don't see where you have Peter visiting the tomb twice.

I don't never said it - you did! "Probably more than once; while only one of those encounters may have been related in one or some gospels."

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

Maybe you can just reference the scriptures that you think contradict one another...put them side-by-side so I can look them up and see for myself what the contradiction is.

Maybe that is why you are have trouble seeing it - it not just individual verse - it is the narrative details throughout the chapters. It is not that hard to read the whole chapter or part of it. Context matters.

[justbyfaith]

If you are looking to not have faith then I believe that the Lord will give you ample reason to not have faith...He is not the kind to force faith on somebody who doesn't want it.

(see 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

I don't see any contradictions in the scriptures in question...

They can all be explained by the reality that certain things may have been omitted from some accounts even though those things did occur and were recorded in other accounts.

I have said to you before that there are actual contradictions concerning detail in the gospels because they are accounted by different witnesses...and that this substantiates the authenticity of the gospels. It shows that there was no collaboration when they sat down to write the gospels.

But I don't see the contradictions that you see in the gospel accounts.

Maybe I don't want to see them. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

But I have better ways to spend my time than to search for information in the Bible that might destroy my faith. I rather like having faith in Jesus Christ; I don't fear death because of that faith. Do you fear death?

One thing that there is no contradiction about in holy scripture...the doctrine of salvation.

If there were, then God would be contradicting Himself on an issue that He is trying His best to give an accurate message over.

However, there is absolute harmony in scripture concerning this doctrine...which shows that the Lord delivers on the thing that really matters.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

I don't see any contradictions in the scriptures in question...

They can all be explained by the reality that certain things may have been omitted from some accounts even though those things did occur and were recorded in other accounts.

As I noted everything and anything can be 'explained' when you make stuff-up.

I have showed you the problems with who saw the risen lord first, Mary or Peter/the two disciples, the meeting of the eleven and the ten - when and where, and the ascension and the commission - where.

I have said to you before that there are actual contradictions concerning detail in the gospels because they are accounted by different witnesses...and that this substantiates the authenticity of the gospels. It shows that there was no collaboration when they sat down to write the gospels.

Never heard this one before - now contradictions actual substantiate the gospels. That's funny! I'm curious if you understand how they came to be - you do know that they were written at different times to different audiences. It is clear that they copied each other in many parts and then made there own stories around these borrowings. Some of these are the exact same word structure and vocabulary. A clear sign not of collaboration but copying.

But I don't see the contradictions that you see in the gospel accounts.

Maybe I don't want to see them. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

But I have better ways to spend my time than to search for information in the Bible that might destroy my faith. I rather like having faith in Jesus Christ; I don't fear death because of that faith. Do you fear death?

No I don't fear death, but you go on with your faith I'm not here to cause you any angst. Some people are better off with their useful fictions and like comfort rather than truth/reality.

One thing that there is no contradiction about in holy scripture...the doctrine of salvation.

That's why I chose the post resurrection account, because it is the very heart of salvation. As Paul said If he is not risen then your faith is in vain. And as I have claimed there is no good evidence to believe he actually did and have also shown you the problems win the text itself.

If there were, then God would be contradicting Himself on an issue that He is trying His best to give an accurate message over.

However, there is absolute harmony in scripture concerning this doctrine...which shows that the Lord delivers on the thing that really matters.

As noted there is no harmony not even in other mundane things that you think are irrelevant because they are not salvific doctrines. But even those you would think God, who is inspiring the text through their authors, would care but obviously he did not - I guess according to you.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Jathro

No I don't fear death, but you go on with your faith I'm not here to cause you any angst. Some people are better off with their useful fictions and like comfort rather than truth/reality.

And you feel like you know the truth?

Originally Posted by jimmiej

And you feel like you know the truth?

I don't think of it as The Truth - I believe I know certain things to be true. I have always been a person that valued reality over comfort - social or mental. I try to to employ methodologies that reduce error and bias but no one is perfect. I'll I can do is offer reason, evidence, arguments but if people can't or won't see or understand and want comfort over reality then there is nothing else to offer.