Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2010, 04:33 PM

===============================================

This thread is split off from AMA (Ask Me Anything): My Beliefs have Changed (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1846).

Dan Barker has presented a challenge to Christians (http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone) as follows:
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.
Barker claims that no one has been able to meet this challenge. I think it would be excellent to test his assertion. Beck has already tried in another thread. I will repost his response in this thread.

Richard
===============================================

Here is Beck's first response (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24865&postcount=12) to the challenge:

Here is a possible harmony of the narratives of the resurrection of Christ and His post-resurrection appearances, in chronological order:

Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).

The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (Matthew 27:62-66).

At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).

An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4).

The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2).

The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).

The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8).

The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15).

Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10).

The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11).

Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10).

Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18).

Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).

Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13:32).

That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35).

Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25).

Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31).

I will begin my response in another post. I think this is an excellent exercise; I hope others join in.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2010, 05:09 PM

Hey Beck,

I see you copied and pasted your sequence from the Got Questions site (http://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-accounts.html), (or someone who copied them). That's OK, but you should post the source in the future.

Now the problem is that the folks at "Got Questions?" probably did not read Barker's precise challenge, so they didn't even try to answer it correctly. For example, the first obvious shortcoming is in the third point:
At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
They left out any mention of the fact that the body of Jesus had already been anointed before burial in John's account:
John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. 42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand. 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.
Here we have very significant variations and many details that the narrative you supplied did not include. This is why you probably won't be able to find a solution to Barker's challenge on the apologetic sites. They were not trying to answer Barker's challenge which demands only one thing - DON'T LEAVE OUT ANY DETAILS. John says that Nicodemus had anointed the body of Jesus with 100 pounds of spices before he was buried, and the next event in his record is Mary Magdalene coming to the grave with no mention of any spices or any other woman with her.

So the first thing that we need to do is to incorporate the details of all four Gospels concerning the events of the burial and anointing and discovery of the empty tomb.

All the best,

Richard

Beck

10-15-2010, 05:33 PM

Hey Beck,

I see you copied and pasted your sequence from the Got Questions site (http://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-accounts.html), (or someone who copied them). That's OK, but you should post the source in the future.

Right, sorry about that I've had that on my harddisk for sometime and forgot where that source where, so thanks.

Now the problem is that the folks at "Got Questions?" probably did not read Barker's precise challenge, so they didn't even try to answer it correctly. For example, the first obvious shortcoming is in the third point:
At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
They left out any mention of the fact that the body of Jesus had already been anointed before burial in John's account:
John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. 42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand. 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.
Here we have very significant variations and many details that the narrative you supplied did not include. This is why you probably won't be able to find a solution to Barker's challenge on the apologetic sites. They were not trying to answer Barker's challenge which demands only one thing - DON'T LEAVE OUT ANY DETAILS. John says that Nicodemus had anointed the body of Jesus with 100 pounds of spices before he was buried, and the next event in his record is Mary Magdalene coming to the grave with no mention of any spices or any other woman with her.So Barkers challenge is to have no variations? I would believe that John's account is the only one that has Nicodemus at the site, should we then discount the whole narrative. I'm just saying. That part of John's gospel wasn't in the predetermined scriptual challange because that is at the death not the resurrection John 19. Notices the deteremined chapters or from 20-21.

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.

So the first thing that we need to do is to incorporate the details of all four Gospels concerning the events of the burial and anointing and discovery of the empty tomb.

All the best,

Richard

Is that part of the challange? I took it to be the resurrection. Furthermore what is the challange?

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2010, 05:58 PM

Right, sorry about that I've had that on my harddisk for sometime and forgot where that source where, so thanks.

Understood. No worries! :thumb:

So Barkers challenge is to have no variations? I would believe that John's account is the only one that has Nicodemus at the site, should we then discount the whole narrative. I'm just saying. That part of John's gospel wasn't in the predetermined scriptual challange because that is at the death not the resurrection John 19. Notices the deteremined chapters or from 20-21.

No. Barker's challenge is very generous. He says that it's fine to make "educated guesses" and that 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." There is only one essential point. Whatever narrative you present must not leave out any details stated in Scripture. I think it is a very reasonable challenge. If I can not tell the story without leaving out things the Bible says, then I must ask "Why do I leave out and deny the truth of this verse and accept that verse?"

I do not believe that any Christian can maintain the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility in light of this challenge. But it does not have to destroy faith in Scripture. I think the solution for the Christian is to assert that the "Big Picture" that says Jesus was dead, buried, and resurrected is attested by all four Gospels, and so we can "believe" that without asserting that all the irreconcilable details are correct. But that's just a stopgap. As soon as we admit that we don't believe everything the Bible says, then we find ourselves having to justify why we pick and choose the parts we believe and the parts we reject. And that, my friend, marks the end of fundamentalism.

All the best,

Richard

Beck

10-15-2010, 06:18 PM

I do not believe that any Christian can maintain the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility in light of this challenge. But it does not have to destroy faith in Scripture. I think the solution for the Christian is to assert that the "Big Picture" that says Jesus was dead, buried, and resurrected is attested by all four Gospels, and so we can "believe" that without asserting that all the irreconcilable details are correct. But that's just a stopgap. As soon as we admit that we don't believe everything the Bible says, then we find ourselves having to justify why we pick and choose the parts we believe and the parts we reject. And that, my friend, marks the end of fundamentalism.

All the best,

Richard

So to this challange do we add John 19 to the equation?

Richard Amiel McGough

10-15-2010, 07:19 PM

So to this challange do we add John 19 to the equation?
I guess I misunderstood his challenge a bit. He was focusing only on the time between Resurrection morning and the ascension. He said "without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension." I included the burial. I think this is probably a good idea, since that also is where you started with your first answer.

So let's expand things slightly and see if we can "write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the burial and the ascension without omitting a single detail from the separate accounts."

Does that sound alright?

All the best,

Richard

Beck

10-16-2010, 07:12 AM

I guess I misunderstood his challenge a bit. He was focusing only on the time between Resurrection morning and the ascension. He said "without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension." I included the burial. I think this is probably a good idea, since that also is where you started with your first answer.

So let's expand things slightly and see if we can "write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the burial and the ascension without omitting a single detail from the separate accounts."

Does that sound alright?

All the best,

Richard

Yes, that's alright I just wanted to make sure what where the guide lines. I'll formulate mine and post later.

Rose

10-16-2010, 11:56 AM

So let's expand things slightly and see if we can "write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the burial and the ascension without omitting a single detail from the separate accounts."

Does that sound alright?

All the best,

Richard

Below is my paraphrase of the separate accounts in each of the Gospels starting at the first day of the week when the women went to the tomb of Jesus.

Matthew 28:
When the Sabbath ends and it’s beginning to dawn on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary go to the sepulcher where Jesus was laid. As they approach the tomb a great earthquake if felt and the angel of the Lord rolled back the stone that closed the tomb and sat beside it. The keepers (gardeners) shook in fear at the sight of this being whose countenance was like lightning. The angel spoke to the women and told them not to fear for Jesus was raised, and to look into the tomb and see. Then the angel told them to go quickly and tell the rest of the disciples that Jesus has risen and they will see Him shortly in Galilee. As the women were running to tell the disciples, they met Jesus along the way and fell at His feet in worship: He told them not to be afraid, but to go tell the brethren.

Mark 16:
When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought sweet spices and went to the Sepulcher of Jesus so they might anoint His body. It was very early in the morning, just as the sun was rising and they were talking amongst themselves wondering who would roll away the stone that covered the entrance to the tomb. When they approached they saw that the great stone was already rolled away, so they entered the tomb and saw a young man sitting on the right side clothed in a long white garment, and they were afraid. The man in white linen told them not to be frightened for the Jesus whom they were seeking was not here for He had risen. The man then told the women to go and tell the disciples and Peter, and that they would meet Jesus on their way there. They fled the sepulcher and spoke to no one as they were afraid. Jesus had risen early that morning and Mary Magdalene was the first person whom He appeared to. Mary Magdalene went and told the disciples what she had been told and had seen, but they did not believe her.

Luke 24:
On the first day of the week, early in the morning the women went to the sepulcher bringing with them the spices they had prepared. When they arrived they found the stone rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, they entered in and found the tomb empty. They were very perplexed and looking around saw two men in shinning garments: and they were afraid, bowing their heads to the ground. The two men said to them: why seek ye the living among the dead? Jesus is not here for He has risen as He said He would. Then the women remembered His words. The women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and others) left the sepulcher and went to tell the eleven disciples. The disciples did not believe the women and Peter ran to the sepulcher himself and found it empty with the linen grave clothes laid aside apart by themselves.

John 20:
On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the sepulcher early, while it was still dark and saw the stone was removed from the entrance.
Then she ran to tell Simon Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved (John) and said to them that the body of Jesus had been taken from the tomb and she did not know where it was laid. Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb of Jesus, the other disciple arrived at the tomb first and looked inside and saw the linen clothes lying on the floor, but he did not go inside. Peter arrived and went into the tomb and also saw the linen garments on the floor and the head napkin lying separately by itself. At that point they did not know the Scripture that said Jesus must rise from the dead. (paragraph in bold out of order)
Mary Magdalene stood outside the tomb weeping, she stooped down and looked in the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet of where Jesus had lain. The angel asked Mary why she was weeping. She answered and said it was because they had taken her Lord and she didn’t know where they had laid Him. She turned around and saw Jesus standing behind her, but she didn’t recognize Him. Jesus asked her why she was weeping. She thought He was the gardener and said to Him if he had taken her Lord to tell her and she would take His body. Jesus then spoke to her again and she immediately knew it was her Lord. Mary went and told the disciples the things Jesus had spoken to her.

The three synoptic Gospels are fairly consistent in their chronological account, differing only in how many beings in shinning clothing are seen (one or two)and where they are sitting, the listing of the women, the position of the stone when they arrived at the tomb, and whether or not spices are mentioned.

The huge problem arises in the Gospel of John. His narrative is out of chronological order from the other Gospels because it has Mary Magdalene running from the tomb at the first sight of the removed stone, to tell Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved, then both Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb and find it empty. It is only after Peter and the other disciple leave that Mary looks into the tomb and sees the two angels which ask her why she is weeping.

All the narratives have Mary Magdalene going to the tomb of Jesus early in the morning on the first day of the week.
All the narratives have at least one being in white shinning apparel who speaks with the women.
All the narratives mention the stone being rolled away.

All the narratives have at least Mary Magdalene telling the disciples that the tomb is empty.

Blessings,
Rose

Beck

10-17-2010, 05:12 PM

Thats a good post, Rose
I've compiled half of mine, I've has to spend time working of clients computers, but I will post mine soon.

Beck

10-20-2010, 08:29 AM

Jesus is Buried

Many women was there beholding afar off, among them was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses , mother of Zebedee’s children.(Matthew 27:56,) and Salome (Mark 15:40) and all his acquaintance , and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off.(Luke 23:49)Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.(John 19:25)

When even was come, Joseph went and begged for the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:28,)Now when even was come , Joseph went boldly unto Pilate for the body of Jesus.(Mark 15:42,43)This man went to Pilate and begged for the body of Jesus.(Luke 23:52)After this Joseph besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus.(John 19:38).

And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own tomb and rolled a great stone to the door and departed.(Matthew 27:60)he (Pilate) gave the body to Joseph and he bought fine linen , and take him down and wrapped him in linen, and laid him in a tomb and rolled a stone unto the door.(Mark 15:45,46)And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb.(Luke 23:53)and he came and therefore, and took the body of Jesus, * and there came also Nicodemus which …bought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds. Then taken the body of Jesus and wound it in linen clothes * with the spices * as the manner of the Jews is to bury. * Now in the garden where he was crucified a new tomb, there laid they Jesus. (notice Joseph has help here, but the other accounts omitted any help).(John 19:40-42)

And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the tomb (Matthew 27:61)And Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joses beheld where he was laid.(Mark 15:47)And the women also which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the tomb, *and how his body was laid.(Luke 23:55) ** Omitted by John.

Now the next day that followed the day of preparation, chief priest, Pharisees came together unto Pilate to set an watch.(Matthew 27:62-66)** Omitted by Mark. ** Omitted by Luke.** Omitted by John.

And they [women] returned,[home]and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.(Luke 23:56) ** Omitted by Matthew, ** Omitted by Mark, ** Omitted by John.

The empty tomb

In the end of the sabbath, as it begun dawn toward the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the tomb, and behold an great earthquake, and angel descended form heaven and came and rolled back the stone form the door , and sat upon it. He is not here :for he is risen, Come see the place where the Lord lay.(Matthew 28:1-2,6)And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary of James and *Salome had bought sweet spices, that they may anoint him, very early in the morning the first day of the week they came to the tomb at *the rising of the sun. And when they looked , they saw that the stone rolled away, and entered into the tomb, he said, be not affrighted, he is risen behold the place where they laid him.(Mark16:1-2,4-6) Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, bringing the spices which they had prepared and certain with them, and they founded the stone rolled away, and they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord.(Luke 24:1-3)The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early when it was still dark unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.(John 20:1)

And go quickly and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead, and they departed quickly from the tomb and did run to bring his disciples word.(Matthew 28:8)But go your way , tell his disciples and Peter, and they went out quickly and fled from the tomb. *They trembled and amazed, neither said any thing to any , for they were afraid.(Mark 16:7,8)And they returned from the tomb, and told all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest.(Luke 24:8-9)Then she [Mary Magdalene] runneth , and cometh to Simon Peter and the other disciples.

Comments: * I take that to mean that the women only told the disciples and keep it otherwise to themselves.

Appearance of Jesus to the women

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them. (Matthew 28:1,2) Now when Jesus was risen early in the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 16:9) **Omitted by Luke. And when she (Mary Magdalene) had thus said, she turned herself back and saw Jesus standing, and she knew not that it was Jesus. (John 20:14,15)

Comments: Matthew and Mark indicate that the women which Mary Magdalene was among went to tell the disciples and met Jesus and told his disciples that he was alive. Again John has a different view which we must consider to be a I witness of the empty tomb, so his account must take precedence.

* Addition infomation.
** Omitting infomation

Richard Amiel McGough

07-20-2012, 04:36 PM

Here is a table that compares the accounts of the resurrection found here (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm). A few of the prominent contradictions are highlighted red.

1 Cor.
Mark
Matthew
Luke
Acts
John

Day
third day after the Crucifixion
the first day of the week
the first day of the week
the first day of the week
-
the first day of the week

Time
-
very early, just after sunrise
dawn
very early in the morning
-
early, while it was still dark

Mentioned at the tomb
-
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them
-
Mary Magdalene

Number of women mentioned
-
3
2
> 3
-
1

Purpose of visit
-
brought spices to anoint the body
they went to look at the tomb
took the spices they had prepared
-
-

Conversation on the way
-
"Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
-
-
-
-

When was the stone rolled away?
-
The stone had been rolled away when they arrived.
After they arrived, an angel appeared, rolled the stone away and sat on it.
The stone had been rolled away when they arrived.
-
The stone had been rolled away when Mary arrived.

Mentions an earthquake
-
-
yes
-
-
-

Who is mentioned at the tomb
-
one young man
one angel
two men
-
two angels

Description of appearance
-
dressed in a white robe
appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow
in clothes that gleamed like lightning
-
in white

When appeared
-
waiting inside the tomb when the women entered
came down in front of them to roll away the stone after they arrived

after the women entered the tomb
-
waiting inside the tomb when Mary entered (but were not there earlier when Peter and John looked inside)

Where appeared
-
inside the tomb, on the right side
sitting on the stone door outside the tomb

"suddenly they stood beside them"
-
sitting inside the tomb, one at the head and one at the foot of where Jesus' body had been

What did he/they say?
-
"Don't be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."
"Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.'"
"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'"
-
They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

How did the women feel?
-
Trembling and bewildered
Afraid yet filled with joy
Frightened when the two men appeared
-
Mary thought the body had been stolen. She doesn't seem to be afraid.

What did the women do?
-
Fled from the tomb and said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid
hurried away and ran to tell the disciples
bowed with their faces on the ground upon seeing the men, then remembered what Jesus had said, then returned to tell the disciples
-
Stood weeping outside the tomb, then looked in and saw the angels. She told them, "they've taken my Lord away." Replied calmly to the angels.

What did the guards do?
-
-
They were terrified and shook like dead men. After the women left, they reported to the chief priests, who bribed them to say the disciples stole the body.
-
-
-

Male disciples' reaction to the story
-
-
They went to the mountain in Galilee as instructed.
They did not believe the women, because the story seemed like nonsense. But Peter ran to the tomb, saw empty linens, wondered what happened. Later, Jesus appeared to "Simon" and they believed.
-
Peter and the beloved disciple (presumably John) ran to the tomb and found empty linens. John "saw and believed."

1 Cor.
Mark
Matthew
Luke
Acts
John

First appearance mentioned
To Peter. (No mention of women at all.)
-
To the women shortly after they left the tomb. "Suddenly Jesus met them."
To two disciples (one named Cleopas) walking to Emmaus the same day.
-
At the empty tomb, right after Mary spoke to the angels. She turned around and saw him standing there.

Reaction
-
-
They ran to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him.
They did not recognize him until they broke bread with him at Emmaus.
-
She thought he was the gardener and asked if he had taken Jesus' body away. After he said, "Mary," she cried out "Teacher!"

Jesus' words
-
-
Do not be afraid. Tell "his brothers" to go see him in Galilee
He asked what they were discussing, then explained the prophecies about him. He disappeared as soon as they recognized him.
"After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive."
"Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
"Mary."
"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Second appearance mentioned
And then to the Twelve.
-
Mountain in Galilee
In Jerusalem, he appeared suddenly in a room where the disciples were assembled.
"He appeared to them over a period of forty days..."
That same evening, inside a locked room. He came and stood among them.

Reaction
-
-
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
They were startled, thinking they had seen a ghost.
-
The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Jesus' words
-
-
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
He showed them he had flesh and bones and he ate a piece of broiled fish. He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
"... and spoke about the kingdom of God."
"Peace be with you!" Then he showed them his hands and side. "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

More appearances mentioned
"After that, he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."
-
-
-
"He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."
(1) A week later, in the same locked room, to convince "Doubting Thomas." (2) Many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples. (3) Miraculous catch of fish on the Sea of Tiberias, reinstatement of Peter, and discussion of whether the beloved disciple would live until the Second Coming. (4) Jesus did many other things as well.

Ascension mentioned
-
-
-
"When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
"He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,' they said, 'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.'"
-

1 Cor.
Mark
Matthew
Luke
Acts
John

weeder

09-16-2012, 08:35 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2012, 09:13 PM

Ill have a little go at this.

We have different groups of disciples making their way to the tomb from different locations on ressurection morning.Mary Magdelene (MM) and 2 other woman approach the tomb. From a distance MM sees the stone rolled away and runs to tell Peter and John . The other woman stay at the tomb and see the Angels. They run away in possibly another direction to tell the other disciples.
Pete and John arrive at the tomb and go in and then leave.MM who followed P and J stays at the tomb crying, and sees the Angels and the Lord.
Jesus then appears to the other women as they are making there way back to the tomb from telling the other disciples, who said it was a nonsense....

The 4 accounts as they are only add weight to the story being true. None give a complete account.
If we had 4 identical accounts, then id be more suspicious that the story was fabricated.

All accounts end in the fact that he did rise again. None of them ran to the tomb in expectation of his resurrection, despite being told on numerous occasions that he would rise on the third day.:eek: I would have been camped outside the tomb from day one waiting for it, kettle on and some damper and fish cooking in the coals.. Only John and the Women were quick to believe it.

Why was it that Jesus only appeared to the women while this running back forth was going on ? why werent the Men treated equally?:D

Hey there weeder, :yo:

I'm glad you gave it a try. Let's see if it works.

Your scenario is as follows:

1) MM and the other Mary approach the tomb from one direction.

2) Other women approach the tomb from another direction, and at a different time? I don't follow your scenario. You will have to add a little more detail. But moving on ...

3) From a distance MM sees the stone rolled away and runs to tell Peter and John . The other woman stay at the tomb and see the Angels.

This directly contradicts the account. Matthew explicitly states that MM was at the tomb and went INTO THE TOMB and also saw the angels.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they [Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women] came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet 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 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

Those women told the 11 disciples. Peter was not with them. We see something similar (with significant differences) in Matthews account:
Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 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. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 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. 8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

I see you attempt to fit in John's account:
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. 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

OK - so you are saying that MM first went to the tomb with the other women (not mentioned by John) and then they stayed by the tomb while MM ran to get Peter? Sorry, that totally contradicts the accounts because Luke says that MM went into the tomb, and later went back to tell the 11 disciples, including Peter.

But please do try again! I would really like to know if any Christian can meet this challenge. Search the net! Do whatever it takes! This is the most important story in the Bible. If would be very significant if it were truly contradictory.

weeder

09-16-2012, 10:25 PM

David M

09-17-2012, 12:11 AM

Here is a table that compares the accounts of the resurrection found here (http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm). A few of the prominent contradictions are highlighted red.

Thanks for this table Richard. I will study it and see what answers I can come up with.

Is is just the parts in red that need explaining?
Have you tried to explain any of these away?
How many have you explained away to yourself?
Are there anymore passages that need explaining that are not marked up in red?

All the best

David

David M

09-17-2012, 01:54 AM

Hey Richard.
Lot of generalizations going on in all accounts, but they all come to the same point.
Yes it does seem probable that MM looked inside the tomb, but she went away to Peter and John believing that someone had taken his body and she didnt know where they had laid him.
In order to say that, one must believe that she didnt see the angels and hear that he had risen. Its clear that she only ran off to tell P+J, not the others.The other woman with MM see and hear and go and tell the other disciples that he had risen.They didnt believe it and never went to check it out...as far as we know. P+J on the other hand were dealing with a missing body and went to investigate.....Peter still wondering and John believing that he had risen.
MM follows them back to the tomb and stays behind weeping, still wondering what became of his body.
Its pretty safe to say imho, that the Gospel writers all knew each other, especially Matt and John. For them to then contradict each other doesnt make sense.They both testify to seeing him alive, and both are commisioned to tell the story to anyone who will listen in their own unique way.

Hello Weeder
While I am waiting for Richard's reply to see it there are anymore facts not shown in red that have to be answered, it has taken all of 5 to 10 miniutes to explain away the parts in red in the table. This appears to be another case of attempting to discredit the Bible in every way possible. Maybe there is an error not accounted for but certainly not the amount of problems as there first appears. I agree with what you say here and here are some notes I jotted dow below the table I copied to a word document I intended to study later but found that the parts in read could easily be explained in a few minutes.

Explanation of the apparent discrepancies
1. John - in the table it says; early while it was yet dark. The text actually states "cometh Mary" indicating that she had not arrived at the tomb when if would have been dawn and therefore daylight. Mary set out when it was dark, she was not in a hurry to get to a tomb which she expected to be sealed with the large stone. The sun rises and sets fast in the Middle East therefore, daylight (dawn) would come quickly and it would be light by the time she arrived. Matthew says;”it began to dawn” in other words it was still dark while she was on the way to the tomb.

2. Matthew - Mary Magdalene is the first on the scene. The word “and” does not mean MM was present with the other women at the time she came first. "And" is just signifying another fact. Matt 28:2 The rolling away of the stone is mentioned as a separate event and does not mean that it was rolled away after the women were on the scene. “And behold.... is just another fact like that of Mark where he uses the word “And” many times in ways that do not connect events. Richard has used this argument in the Olivet Discourse against Twospirits, so cannot rule it out here.

3. Matthew – the angel was already descended and had sat on the stone and gone away by the time the women arrived and had gone into the tomb, the angel returns to talk to them. “Came down in front of them” as stated in the table is incorrect and is a gross perversion of the actual text as it reads in the KJV; “And the angel answered the women” is a separate event started by the word “and”. This is after the guards had fled at the time the angels descended.

4. Matthew – it is obvious the angel(s) came down and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. The guards fled or had fled by the time the women arrive. The angel(s) had moved away from the tomb and was not seen by the women as they went into the tomb. The Angel returns to the tomb while the women are busy talking inside and have their backs to the entrance (maybe), hence the angel appears to be suddenly beside them, though there is no reason to doubt that the Angel(s) could just appear (materialize) just as Jesus was seen to walk through a closed door when he came to the disciples met together in a closed room.

5. 1 Corinthians – no mention of the women at all is not relevant to the truth that Jesus appeared to Cephas before appearing to the twelve (all together). It is not an error not to mention the women. Unless the text specifically states that no women were present, we cannot draw this conclusion from this text in 1 Cor. 15 The text does not say that Jesus first appeared to Cephas only that he appeared to Cephas and there lies a big difference.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2012, 10:20 AM

Thanks for this table Richard. I will study it and see what answers I can come up with.

Is is just the parts in red that need explaining?
Have you tried to explain any of these away?
How many have you explained away to yourself?
Are there anymore passages that need explaining that are not marked up in red?

All the best

David
Good morning David,

The table is just a guide to help you put together a coherent narrative. The text highlighted red only shows the more obvious difficulties. The table is not what "needs explaining." The Resurrection Challenge is to present a coherent narrative of the death and resurrection of Christ using every detail given in the Bible without leaving anything out. It would be very interesting if you could make an attempt, or even if you could find an attempt online that his not obviously flawed, since I have never seen a solution to this challenge.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2012, 10:24 AM

Hello Weeder
While I am waiting for Richard's reply to see it there are anymore facts not shown in red that have to be answered, it has taken all of 5 to 10 miniutes to explain away the parts in red in the table. This appears to be another case of attempting to discredit the Bible in every way possible. Maybe there is an error not accounted for but certainly not the amount of problems as there first appears. I agree with what you say here and here are some notes I jotted dow below the table I copied to a word document I intended to study later but found that the parts in read could easily be explained in a few minutes.

Explanation of the apparent discrepancies
1. John - in the table it says; early while it was yet dark. The text actually states "cometh Mary" indicating that she had not arrived at the tomb when if would have been dawn and therefore daylight. Mary set out when it was dark, she was not in a hurry to get to a tomb which she expected to be sealed with the large stone. The sun rises and sets fast in the Middle East therefore, daylight (dawn) would come quickly and it would be light by the time she arrived. Matthew says;”it began to dawn” in other words it was still dark while she was on the way to the tomb.

2. Matthew - Mary Magdalene is the first on the scene. The word “and” does not mean MM was present with the other women at the time she came first. "And" is just signifying another fact. Matt 28:2 The rolling away of the stone is mentioned as a separate event and does not mean that it was rolled away after the women were on the scene. “And behold.... is just another fact like that of Mark where he uses the word “And” many times in ways that do not connect events. Richard has used this argument in the Olivet Discourse against Twospirits, so cannot rule it out here.

3. Matthew – the angel was already descended and had sat on the stone and gone away by the time the women arrived and had gone into the tomb, the angel returns to talk to them. “Came down in front of them” as stated in the table is incorrect and is a gross perversion of the actual text as it reads in the KJV; “And the angel answered the women” is a separate event started by the word “and”. This is after the guards had fled at the time the angels descended.

4. Matthew – it is obvious the angel(s) came down and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. The guards fled or had fled by the time the women arrive. The angel(s) had moved away from the tomb and was not seen by the women as they went into the tomb. The Angel returns to the tomb while the women are busy talking inside and have their backs to the entrance (maybe), hence the angel appears to be suddenly beside them, though there is no reason to doubt that the Angel(s) could just appear (materialize) just as Jesus was seen to walk through a closed door when he came to the disciples met together in a closed room.

5. 1 Corinthians – no mention of the women at all is not relevant to the truth that Jesus appeared to Cephas before appearing to the twelve (all together). It is not an error not to mention the women. Unless the text specifically states that no women were present, we cannot draw this conclusion from this text in 1 Cor. 15 The text does not say that Jesus first appeared to Cephas only that he appeared to Cephas and there lies a big difference.

David

David,

It appears you have missed the point of the challenge. Your job is not to "explain away" individual contradictions with lots of words. Your job is to present a coherent narrative of what actually happened without leaving out a single detail recorded in the Bible. It should start like this:

Early on the morning after the sabbath, Mary Magdaline and the other Mary went to the tomb and ...

I hope that clears things up.

Richard

David M

09-17-2012, 06:08 PM

David,

It appears you have missed the point of the challenge. Your job is not to "explain away" individual contradictions with lots of words. Your job is to present a coherent narrative of what actually happened without leaving out a single detail recorded in the Bible. It should start like this:

Early on the morning after the sabbath, Mary Magdaline and the other Mary went to the tomb and ...

I hope that clears things up.

Richard

Richard
I have not missed the point, I know what has been asked and I did not want to write a long script at present. The table you put up, showed some apparent contradictions and I have showed by by answering those contradictions that I could write a script correcting those points. I would like to know what all the points are that need correcting. What script has been done that nearly meets the challenge, but might only have one or two facts not quite fitting in. It would be easier to work on that and to find a correction that will make it all fit. If I write a script How will I know if I have included every fact? It sounds like a lot of work for little benefit. Just put up all the sticking points and then try to answer them and then write a full script.

I will wait for all the problematic points to be raised before attempting to write such a script. Who is going to check it? If the person checking it notices the mistakes, why don' they write it themselves. Why doesn't Dan Barker show us how far he got and what he was not able to get to fit. That is what needs to be worked on unless he has made a number of errors in getting the parts together to fit as he says..

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2012, 08:35 PM

Richard
I have not missed the point, I know what has been asked and I did not want to write a long script at present. The table you put up, showed some apparent contradictions and I have showed by by answering those contradictions that I could write a script correcting those points. I would like to know what all the points are that need correcting. What script has been done that nearly meets the challenge, but might only have one or two facts not quite fitting in. It would be easier to work on that and to find a correction that will make it all fit. If I write a script How will I know if I have included every fact? It sounds like a lot of work for little benefit. Just put up all the sticking points and then try to answer them and then write a full script.

I will wait for all the problematic points to be raised before attempting to write such a script. Who is going to check it? If the person checking it notices the mistakes, why don' they write it themselves. Why doesn't Dan Barker show us how far he got and what he was not able to get to fit. That is what needs to be worked on unless he has made a number of errors in getting the parts together to fit as he says..

All the best

David
Hi David,

The table contains many contradictions that I did not mark because they are not in the same row. I was only pointing out the problems that exist on a given row of the table. If you try to simple say what actually happened you will discover the many contradictions.

It's easy to know if you include every fact. Just read the Scriptures. They are not very long. They contain only 165 verses. Here is how Barker stated the conditions of his challenge (from Post #1):
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.

That's the challenge. To see how ridiculously difficult it is, just start with the beginning parts of the story and put them in chronological order for me. I'm talking about these few verses:

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 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. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Mark 16:1 And 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. 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they [Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, Luke 24:10] came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

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. 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

Can you put those in chronological order in a way that makes sense? Shouldn't be too hard ... there's only 17 verses!

Here's a website that claims to have solved it: http://easteranswer.com. A brief one page PDF synopsis of his solution is found here (http://easteranswer.com/uploads/images/Easter%20Chart.pdf). Apparently you have to buy his $10.95 to get the full answer. From what I saw of his synopsis, he invents a very unbelievable timeline that won't work.

There are probably other attempts out there. So the best way to deal with this challenge is to spend a little time reviewing the existing attempts rather than reinventing the wheel. Then you can present the one you think actually works.

All the best,

Richard

David M

09-18-2012, 09:40 AM

So the best way to deal with this challenge is to spend a little time reviewing the existing attempts rather than reinventing the wheel. Then you can present the one you think actually works.

All the best,

Richard

That was what I was suggesting; to use and existing attempt. However, not having tried to look for one, I started from scratch and I think I have completed it. I have posted the answer as a separate study http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3360-Resurrection-to-Ascension-A-Unified-Timeline

All the best

David

sylvius

09-18-2012, 12:56 PM

The resurrected body is metaphysical,
even after 1 Corinthians 15:44,

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

So also the resurrection-stories are not historical, but metahistorical.

Dan Barker's challenge being just a meaningless enterprise.

According to the synoptici Jesus was laid in the grave at the end of the sixth day,

Mark 15:42-43,

And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

So Jesus was laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of sabbat, where in the first story of creation the name of God is hidden in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", "hashishi" being the 434th word from the beginning, and 434 being gematria of "delet"= door; the door of the grave on which Joseph of Armathea did roll a stone.

This sabbath being also the first day of the counting of the omer, counting of of the seven times seven days until the 50th day = pentecost.

The Gsopel of John has this last thing different. John has Jesus crucified on the day before pesach; and the holy ghost given on the first day of the counting of the omer (2nd day of pesach).

weeder

09-18-2012, 11:48 PM

:yo:

I honestly dont see anything wrong with the approach that i have taken. All accounts dont bother to give you all the details of what happened when...so...

Generalizations are made as they "cut a long story short".
What can we learn from the type of people the Gospel writers were ...in the Gospels they produced. Would they be stupid enough to contradict each other as some suggest, in their attempt of being the genuine ambassadors for Christ? Surely with what quality they produced they would have been intelligent enough to get their stories straight, in what was a unified effort towards worldwide evangelism of the story Of Jesus and the resurrection..

Where did Mark and luke get those details from? Who did Matthew and John get the rest of details from? John was only privy to MM, and Matt only heard it from the other Women. Was there anyone around hiding in the bushes that saw "everything" as it went down on that morning?.......no wonder they cut a long story short.
Were they meant to be sure of those unimportant details ?...why concentrate on that anyway?.....They all had a gist of what happened which is evident in all 4, but the point of their narrative is to testify to the fact that Jesus did actually rise from the dead...and is alive forevermore,... a beautiful morning it was and im left applauding at the outcome no matter which Gospel im reading.

If all 4 accounts were more or less exactly the same, then i could understand critics raising an eyebrow that the story was fabricated...and it would have been argued that we should expect to see 4 independant heartfelt and somewhat different perspectives of the events,........ that leads to the same outcome...which is what we have.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-31-2013, 08:53 AM

Well, it's Easter again, and as far as I know, no Christian has ever found a legitimate solution to Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge so it seemed like a good day to resurrect it. Here is how he states his challenge (http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone):
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.

Barker claims that no one has been able to meet this challenge. I think it would be excellent to test his assertion.

Now this is no trivial matter. Here is how Stephen Kingsley, who formulated a solution he calls The Easter Answer (http://easteranswer.com/), states the importance of this challenge:
The whole Bible rests on one claim. The resurrection of Jesus. It is the foundation of Christianity. It is the one thing every true Christian believes absolutely (See Romans 10:9 and 10). The resurrection of Jesus identifies him uniquely as the victor over sin and death, our representative and substitute, the Savior of mankind--the Lord. His resurrection is the sign he offers to the world of his identity, and his success in fulfilling his mission.
If the foundation is destroyed, what is left?

How should a believers deal with the fact that there is on foundation for their most fundamental beliefs?

Beck

04-01-2013, 04:01 PM

I consede :D I notice the Bible series left out alot. I guess they couldn't compile everything into one event.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-20-2014, 02:01 PM

Timmy

04-20-2014, 02:28 PM

Charisma

04-20-2014, 03:01 PM

Timmy

04-20-2014, 03:09 PM

What is missing?

They did not collaborate on their story.

Each one wrote what he was aware had happened, but may not have mentioned every possible detail like you would consciously, in a police report.

Does this mean you are able to make sense of the linear construct?

Take the challenge,too.

John records if everything were written of Yeshua, he supposes all the books in this age could not contain them.

Are you saying some of them were telling things (written) :that are not true?

Rose

04-20-2014, 03:13 PM

What is missing?

They did not collaborate on their story.

Each one wrote what he was aware had happened, but may not have mentioned every possible detail like you would consciously, in a police report.

If the Biblegod were real he would never leave such a fundamental and important story like the resurrection up to the chance recall of fallible witnesses ... especially when many points of their stories contradict each other!

Richard Amiel McGough

04-20-2014, 03:15 PM

What is missing?

They did not collaborate on their story.

Each one wrote what he was aware had happened, but may not have mentioned every possible detail like you would consciously, in a police report.
The differences are not merely in details that are found in one and lacking in another. If that were the case, then there would be no problem.

The problem is that they cannot all be true because they contradict each other. The proof is that no Christian has ever been able to write a coherent believable account of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. They've had two thousand years to try so it's seems pretty likely that it is impossible which implies that not everything recorded in the Bible is true. Are you conceding this point? Do you agree that not everything in the Bible is true?

David M

04-20-2014, 03:33 PM

Before beginning, one must recognise it is not just the narrative that must be accounted for, but the teachings it supports: what led up to it and everything following. So, the issue is not merely the narrative alone.

I have already found things that do not seem to cohere studying this before...so what is missing?

This is why this is being taken up.

It might not be a case of what is missing, but a case of what has been added that should not be there, or is out of place.

It is said that Luke 24:12 is an irreconcilable contradiction Luke 24:12 is not found in older Greek texts. I quote;
According to Lachman, Tregelles, and Tishendorf, the entire phrase should be omitted. The phrase is contrary to all of the chronological information that is recorded by the other Gospel authors and obviously a late scribal addition to the text.

David M

04-20-2014, 03:45 PM

Hello Rose

If the Biblegod were real he would never leave such a fundamental and important story like the resurrection up to the chance recall of fallible witnesses ... especially when many points of their stories contradict each other!
There are no contradictions. My table shows the correspondence between the 4 Gospel records. Luke 24:12 as I have just written about does seem out of place would have happened after Mary M. had run back to tell Peter.

The fact that we have one scribal mistake/addition does not affect the overall integrity of the events that took place.

David

Richard Amiel McGough

04-20-2014, 04:11 PM

It might not be a case of what is missing, but a case of what has been added that should not be there, or is out of place.

It is said that Luke 24:12 is an irreconcilable contradiction Luke 24:12 is not found in older Greek texts. I quote;

According to Lachman, Tregelles, and Tishendorf, the entire phrase should be omitted. The phrase is contrary to all of the chronological information that is recorded by the other Gospel authors and obviously a late scribal addition to the text.

Where did you get that quote? When quoting, you really need to give the name of the source, and a link if you have it.

I agree it's very important to check the integrity of the biblical text, to compare different ancient manuscripts, to establish what was in the original vs. what was added later. But if you want the TRUTH, then you need to review all the different opinions, and as it turns out, not all scholars agree with your anonymous quote. For example, it contradicts the conclusion of the committee that produced one of the most important versions of the Greek New Testament that takes account of all the textual variations. Here is what they said (source: page 158, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger, the late Princeton Theological Seminary professor):

Although ver. 12 is sometimes thought to be an interpolation (see the Note following 24.53) derived from Jn 20.3, 5, 6, 10, a majority of the Committee regarded the passage as a natural antecedent to ver. 24, and was inclined to explain the similarity with the verses in John as due to the likelihood that both evangelists had drawn upon a common tradition.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-20-2014, 04:20 PM

That was what I was suggesting; to use and existing attempt. However, not having tried to look for one, I started from scratch and I think I have completed it. I have posted the answer as a separate study http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3360-Resurrection-to-Ascension-A-Unified-Timeline

All the best

David
For folks interested in the solution David has offered, here is the link to the thread he started.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-20-2014, 04:26 PM

Hello Rose

There are no contradictions. My table shows the correspondence between the 4 Gospel records. Luke 24:12 as I have just written about does seem out of place would have happened after Mary M. had run back to tell Peter.

The fact that we have one scribal mistake/addition does not affect the overall integrity of the events that took place.

David
There are contradictions. Your table does not prove anything one way or the other. The challenge is to produce a NARRATIVE of what happened. There are only 165 verses that need to be included in the narrative. It should be a very simple task if the Bible is true. The fact that no one can answer such a simple challenge is strong evidence that the Bible cannot be trusted in its most central claim.

Charisma

04-20-2014, 05:19 PM

To all who asked a question of me, or quoted my post,

I am not suggesting, or conceding, that anything in the gospel accounts is 'not true' although I take David's comment that things could have been added, as valid.

In general, I believe the so-called contradictions probably have an explanation, and the whole Bible, such as it is - which is not to minimise it in any way - is 'true', and to be believed.

Blessings.

duxrow

04-20-2014, 05:26 PM

Timmy

04-20-2014, 08:14 PM

If the Biblegod were real he would never leave such a fundamental and important story like the resurrection up to the chance recall of fallible witnesses ... especially when many points of their stories contradict each other!Maybe the purpose could be for us to focus on eternality rather than beginnings and endings...i mean, that IS what the resurrection is meant to be all about...hunh?

David M

04-21-2014, 01:22 AM

In general, I believe the so-called contradictions probably have an explanation, and the whole Bible, such as it is - which is not to minimise it in any way - is 'true', and to be believed.

There are those who want to capitalize on the errors and false additions in the Bible, because that is the only way they can build their case against the truth that is in the Bible. An explanation to resolve any apparent contradiction in the Bible is not accepted by non-believers and skeptics, so it is futile continuing to have a discussion on this, or any other subject in the Bible.

It is difficult enough having a rational discussion with believers, who sincerely have come to their conviction, which is set in concrete, even though all the evidence might not have been considered. There should be no fear in taking every possible legitimate interpretation of every verse (except the verses which should not be there (and they are few)) to get to the overall truth of the Bible.

It is futile to continue a discussion, when evidence is put forward as a possible alternative, which simply gets dismissed without reason.

Since there is always going to be someone who can find a reason to object to anything in the Bible, the objection is latched onto by skeptics and non-believers to support their case.

If we believe a set of doctrines held by the masses (the majority of the population), we have a personal problem. Jesus says; few will find the narrow gate, or the narrow way that leads to life. The masses are going along the broad way that leads to eternal destruction. Why could Jesus say that? Who are the few? What do the few have to do, by which they are saved?

If we believe the same as the masses believe, which is not the truth contained in the Bible, we shall be going along the broad way. The way that leads to life is not going to be found in what the masses believe. It is a case of; "the blind leading the blind". The truth is going to be found in what a minority of Bible believers understand and teach. The problem is; we have a number of minority faiths to choose from. Our personal challenge is; to eliminate those minorities that are incorrect. The minorities that are so far adrift from the core doctrines, that the majority of minorities accept, can also be rejected. Was Jesus a heretic for being a minority of one? "No". Jesus was teaching the people the same as they had been told in their scriptures. Jesus came proclaiming the same Gospel that Abraham believed.

It is up to those who are part of a minority group, who agree core doctrines like John 3:16; ( For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life) to talk with other believers of John 3:16 and try to settle their difference in understanding of other aspects of God's word.

Charisma, is correct, "so-called contradictions" in the Bible have explanations. The challenge to all believers is; to face those contradictions and not be afraid to say; "I do not know how to explain it at this moment, but I am working on it". This is why we have to know what the competing explanations to resolve the apparent paradoxes are, before we can begin the process of elimination. Hopefully, we can find a fit for most of the pieces that will satisfy the majority of the minorities. A total fit for every piece will probably not happen until Christ returns and he shows us where we have all gone wrong in our various ways. Hence, until all is correctly revealed to us, we are all in the club of not knowing everything perfectly.

David M

04-21-2014, 01:32 AM

Maybe the purpose could be for us to focus on eternality rather than beginnings and endings...i mean, that IS what the resurrection is meant to be all about...hunh?

As long as we keep talking about the word of God and the difference in understanding that it generates, we shall not be forgetting the word of God and the eternal life that is on offer.

(Luke 12:32)Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The kingdom includes eternal life.

David M

04-21-2014, 02:11 AM

Where did you get that quote? When quoting, you really need to give the name of the source, and a link if you have it.

I agree it's very important to check the integrity of the biblical text, to compare different ancient manuscripts, to establish what was in the original vs. what was added later. But if you want the TRUTH, then you need to review all the different opinions, and as it turns out, not all scholars agree with your anonymous quote. For example, it contradicts the conclusion of the committee that produced one of the most important versions of the Greek New Testament that takes account of all the textual variations. Here is what they said (source: page 158, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger, the late Princeton Theological Seminary professor):

Although ver. 12 is sometimes thought to be an interpolation (see the Note following 24.53) derived from Jn 20.3, 5, 6, 10, a majority of the Committee regarded the passage as a natural antecedent to ver. 24, and was inclined to explain the similarity with the verses in John as due to the likelihood that both evangelists had drawn upon a common tradition.

Thank you for the reference you cite. Just because some committee decides something, does not mean the decision is correct. Your quote says; "a majority of the Committee", so this could have been in the ration of 51% for and 49% against. If you have been on committees, you will know that majority decisions are not always the best decision. I have been on committees and I do know. So we have to take the reference you cite into account, along with all the other references we can find. Then we have to begin a process of elimination to get to the possible correct answer.

I left off the source of the quote deliberately (which I cannot link to), because I know you would pick up on this. I did so, knowing how biased you are and will attack the person by character assassination instead of consider the facts of the argument. I expect you can find the works of Lachman, Tregelles, and Tishendorf easier than I can find them, and when we do, we will probably find the same result as in the quote I gave. I expect you might know of those men cited and their works.

Just "Googling" the name Tregelles came up with this Wikipedia link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Prideaux_Tregelles

Here is an extract from the page which shows Tregelles' connection with the other two gentleman.
Works

Discovering that the textus receptus did not rest on ancient authority, Tregelles decided to publish a new version of the Greek text of the New Testament based on ancient manuscripts and the citations of the early church fathers, his work paralleling that of German philologist and textual critic, Karl Lachmann. Tregelles first became generally known through his Book of Revelation in Greek Edited from Ancient Authorities (1844), which contained the announcement of his intention to prepare the new Greek New Testament. In 1845 he went to Rome intending to collate the codex belonging to the Vatican. Although he was not allowed to copy the manuscript, he did note important readings.[3] From Rome he went to Florence, Modena, Venice, Munich, and Basel, reading and collating manuscripts. He returned to England in November 1846, continuing to collate manuscripts in the British Museum. Tregelles also visited Paris, Hamburg, Berlin (where he met Lachmann), and Leipzig (where he collaborated with Constantin von Tischendorf), Dresden, Wolfenbüttel, and Utrecht.

Most of his numerous publications had reference to his great critical edition of the New Testament (1857-1872). They include an Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (1854), a new edition of T. H. Horne's Introduction (1860), and Canon Muratorianus: Earliest Catalogue of Books of the New Testament (1868). Tregelles was a member of the English revision committee overseeing the preparation of the Bible translation known as the Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of which the New Testament was published in 1881, six years after his death.

Tregelles also wrote Heads of Hebrew Grammar (1852), translated Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon (1846, 1857) from Latin, and was the author of a little work on the Jansenists (1851) and of various works in exposition of his special eschatological views including Remarks on the Prophetic Visions of Daniel (1852, new ed., 1864) and The Hope of Christ's Second Coming (1864).[4] Like his cousin by marriage, Benjamin Wills Newton, who was instrumental in Tregelles's conversion and who helped finance publication of his books, Tregelles was a post tribulationist.[5]

An acquaintance said of Tregelles that he was "able to shed a light upon any topic that might be introduced," but that to ask him a question was dangerous because "doing so was like reaching to take a book and having the whole shelf-full precipitated upon your head."[6] Despite his erudition, Tregelles was also a warm-hearted evangelical who wrote many hymns, now largely forgotten, the earliest of which were published in the Plymouth Brethren's Hymns for the Poor of the Flock (1838).[7]

David M

04-21-2014, 02:56 AM

Sounds good to me, Charisma. "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison, (investigative reporter), should be big help in pursuing the events of The Resurrection morning. Still available in Christian bookstores, I think. Helped me immeasurably in Biblical exegesis.. Sometimes referred to as "Who Rolled Away the Stone". :yo:

Hello Dux

Your recommendation does not get any approval from Richard. You can expect Richard's condemnation of the author.

At the risk of copyright infringement, I will have to scan a page and post it later. The page gives explanation of the consequences for the Sanhedrin who bribed the guards and told them to tell lies. The death penalty was later (much later) overturned. As we know, the trial, which took place at night to condemn Jesus to death, was an illegal trial, because it was held at night, which meant they broke their own laws. They did so in more ways than one.

Here is a link to an article giving 12 reasons why the trial of Jesus was illegal; http://rcg.org/pillar/0902pp-trjtwi.html

All the best
David

Charisma

04-21-2014, 04:52 AM

Maybe the purpose could be for us to focus on eternality rather than beginnings and endings...i mean, that IS what the resurrection is meant to be all about...hunh?

Hi Timmy,

I think Paul nailed it here (emboldened):

Acts 13:8 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of several prophecies, of which David's words in Psalm 2:7, are but one.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

David M

04-21-2014, 06:28 AM

Hi Timmy,

I think Paul nailed it here (emboldened):

Acts 13:8 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of several prophecies, of which David's words in Psalm 2:7, are but one.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Hello Charisma
Though you have replied to Timmy and I await his reply to you, I have to say I agree with your choice of verses. I would have used exactly the same verses to show that God raised up Jesus from the dead as proclaimed by Peter in Acts 2.

There is still confusion as to the nature of Jesus and the status of Jesus. Jesus flummoxed his opponents by quoting Psalm 110. because they could not determine who he was.

This is what Jesus says (Mark 12:34); How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?

(Psalm 110:1) A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Compare with Hebrews 10:12: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

And so again, we come to 1 Cor 15:28 and for connection I will include the few verses before;

24 Then cometh the end, when he (the man Jesus) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he (Jesus) must reign, till he (God) hath put all enemies under his (Jesus) feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (Jesus) saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all.

God bless
David

Rose

04-21-2014, 09:36 AM

There are those who want to capitalize on the errors and false additions in the Bible, because that is the only way they can build their case against the truth that is in the Bible. An explanation to resolve any apparent contradiction in the Bible is not accepted by non-believers and skeptics, so it is futile continuing to have a discussion on this, or any other subject in the Bible.

Hello David

Doesn't the scientific method demand a solid explanation for false reports? If the Bible is shown to have contradictions, errors and falsehoods, why would anyone dogmatically claim that it is true? Explanations must be grounded in evidence and not merely be justifications because you want to believe something is true. Just because primitive men made claims about a god does not make those claims true. Why do Christians think the claims of the Bible are true but not the Koran? There are around a billion Muslims who think that the Koran is the word of Allah ... what makes them wrong and you right?

Charisma, is correct, "so-called contradictions" in the Bible have explanations. The challenge to all believers is; to face those contradictions and not be afraid to say; "I do not know how to explain it at this moment, but I am working on it". This is why we have to know what the competing explanations to resolve the apparent paradoxes are, before we can begin the process of elimination. Hopefully, we can find a fit for most of the pieces that will satisfy the majority of the minorities. A total fit for every piece will probably not happen until Christ returns and he shows us where we have all gone wrong in our various ways. Hence, until all is correctly revealed to us, we are all in the club of not knowing everything perfectly.

Saying that the contradictions, errors and falsehoods have explanations is merely an assertion with no evidence to back it up. For two thousand years believers have been dogmatically claiming that the Bible is true, yet have failed to show any solid evidence as to why we should believe that. Over, and over again we are told to have faith and believe the things that are not seen, yet the errors still remain.

Take care,
Rose

Timmy

04-21-2014, 10:22 AM

Hi Timmy,

I think Paul nailed it here (emboldened):

Acts 13:8 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of several prophecies, of which David's words in Psalm 2:7, are but one.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Hay thair C:icon_hello:

David is completely misunderstanding that greek word for "begotten"...used also in relation to "firstborn". A clear proof that he does not understand what it actually means (that it is not an actual occurance of beginning, but rather rights of the father passed re:the "firstborn" and thusly "begotten...such as the "double portion" (which itself is not an actual double of all the father possesses).

This is the Biblical meaning of firstborn and (first) begotten.

There are several reference proving this, however if one just goes to the Septuagint and reads about Yakov in relation to what is now being borne out in this post, that very word is used in reference to him, though he is the second born. If the term was a word in reference to time and actual sequence, then it could not be used for him...as well as in direct relation to this very fact(or) in all other instances in the Greek Tanakh.

People must at least understand our cuture if they are going to actually understand a whole lot of what the Bible is actually revealing...and this is one main reason the notion of a rapture is completely off base compared to theactual parabolics: it does not even fit and is completely foreign to all oriental thought (...and not only the Yisraeli).

Anyway, i am not really questioning anything. There is no clear explanation as to sequence in these accounts, so how does anyone think they know one way or another? David has forewarded the most plausible graph and that is where Timmy begins (again again). NTL, as previously alluded, "He (Jesus, and at that point in actuality then resurrected Christ/Messiah) who fills all in all, once again not bound to the parameters of space and time (John 1.2; 17.1-5) could easily enough have done what is given in all the accounts. That is the plain and simple of it all...so i call it a novelty of an activity proving nothing really...even if one does come to a cogent linear narrative--is that the actual intent of the written record? The accounts hardly relate everything occuring in the 40 days after Jesus reunited with the body and arose.

I will be checking the Syriac ms. comparative to other more accepted mss. like the T R and the Byzantine. I think that is relative to what David says about Luke 24.12. Cross reading different mss., it has been clearly seen already there are variations in John and Mark.

...and a man cannot be God after the resurrection if he were not God before the resurrection because God never changes!

Charisma

04-21-2014, 11:41 AM

Hi Timmy,

Your musings above are appreciated.

...and a man cannot be God after the resurrection if he were not God before the resurrection because God never changes!

Indeed.

God made man. God became man.

These two are compatible.

man became God?

That's paganism.

David M

04-21-2014, 02:00 PM

Hello Timmy

Hay thair C:icon_hello:

David is completely misunderstanding that greek word for "begotten"...used also in relation to "firstborn". A clear proof that he does not understand what it actually means (that it is not an actual occurance of beginning, but rather rights of the father passed re:the "firstborn" and thusly "begotten...such as the "double portion" (which itself is not an actual double of all the father possesses).

This is the Biblical meaning of firstborn and (first) begotten.

There are several reference proving this, however if one just goes to the Septuagint and reads about Yakov in relation to what is now being borne out in this post, that very word is used in reference to him, though he is the second born. If the term was a word in reference to time and actual sequence, then it could not be used for him...as well as in direct relation to this very fact(or) in all other instances in the Greek Tanakh.

People must at least understand our cuture if they are going to actually understand a whole lot of what the Bible is actually revealing...and this is one main reason the notion of a rapture is completely off base compared to theactual parabolics: it does not even fit and is completely foreign to all oriental thought (...and not only the Yisraeli).

When are you going to give me any information that I can study and digest? What are the Hebrew and Greeks words for beget, begat, and begotten and what meanings are you applying. If I am misunderstanding the words because of the English meaning and the way others have understood what those words mean, you have to give me the definitions you say the Hebrew and Greek words mean.

Please give me something I can get to grips with, if you want to persuade me to your way of thinking.

Shalom

David

Timmy

04-21-2014, 04:24 PM

Hi David.

Words and definitions do not help a personwho already has fixated upon a contray concept.

Tthis is why, here a little and there a little, first all the reasons you think the way you do must be annulled...or any reference to specificswill be limited by such misconceptions. You may not even realize howtrue this fact affects you. Others can see (some of us more clearly than another) how irrationality is isinterrupting your personal progress toward seeing any differently than what you already propose.

Until these barriers are broken down, no headway can be made by you, and those thinking they might "convert" you are fighting a losing battle...even less successful than you yourself being able to think about another perspective more clear. Paul relates this to being the act of pulling down edifaces and everything that exalts itself against God.

That is why the quipt was given now relative to Jesus specifically: Because God does not change, Jesus must be God before the resurrection since He is God after the resurrection.

All your reasons why you don't understand why Jesus is God are based on reasons opposed to the most basic logic and so you cannot recieve what Scripture reveals.

Ya' know what? The Hebrew way is to consider the whole context of one passage and never drawing determinations about what the Bible says because of on word or verse or phrase. This is what Paul refers to as "cutting straight" (KJV, the synonyms used are "rightly dividing"). When Paul gives a phrae or verse to consider from the Tanakh, be is referring to the whole discourse relative to that brief quote and not just the quote itself. As well, all associate (principles or associated sections are also added to the equation.

It is extremely disrespectful to God to think one might contain what He says in a certain word or phrase when these are words from the Limitless Almighty Father of Eternity who sees all and has covered all associated details in other places...and then to base these misunderstanding on rationalizations that are contrary to what God reveals elsewhere.

I am not against you. Your errors will be continually exposed though: according to your writing here.

I see the root misconceptions and their results. These shall be broken down bit by bit and piece by piece until the root problem is absolved...as you continue reading when i write...throw up whatever you wish to debate from what is said...but i am not playing in compliance with human rational.

It is not about debate with me David. You will be debating against what the Bible reveals...so have at it.

As for what i am talking about? When thereis reference to sources, they are what they are as revealed. The rest is all from living it and learning from Experts who live it too.

Check the Septuiagint like i said, as there are no other reference sources i could give because they are very seldom, if ever used..like this is understod reading the Masoretic Manuscript parallel with the Septuagint.

When you mocked the info given via Pm on forum as nonsense, it was an attempt to bwgin showing you the Hebrew way of learning Bible as that info was Drash meant to begin you studying letters...and you sloughed it off saying nonsense.

Go figure, but you did not offend me. You are your own worst enemy...and the next time you think i ama poser, look in a mirror as you type that.

David M

04-21-2014, 04:41 PM

Hello Rose

Hello David

Doesn't the scientific method demand a solid explanation for false reports? Can you think of an example of a false report? False scientific reports will eventually be exposed, just as false books like the Book of Enoch have been exposed and rejected. Who is responsible for producing the Book of Enoch in the form it has become? I do not suppose anyone knows.

If the Bible is shown to have contradictions, errors and falsehoods, why would anyone dogmatically claim that it is true? You say "if" the Bible is shown... I can say; if all the so-called errors and contradictions can be resolved, then there are no errors and contradictions. You are not trying to resolve the errors, otherwise you have no argument. I have gone past the stage of worrying about so-called errors. There are no errors remaining that are worth worrying about. The only real error is that of different understanding; the fact that verses can be understood in different ways. When there is only one way a verse of passage is to be understood, then it has to be decided with version of understanding to reject.

Explanations must be grounded in evidence and not merely be justifications because you want to believe something is true. That is what I am doing. I am showing that words can have different meanings or that the translators could have used different words when they have had a choice. Just because a committee make a decision, does not mean the committee is correct. What about those on the committee that were overruled; there choice could be the right choice. When words have different meanings, that is a fact to be accepted. When prepositions have not been used and the translators insert what they think is best, they do not always make the best choice. This is human fallibility creeping in. These are facts and have to be accepted as facts.

Just because primitive men made claims about a god does not make those claims true. Why do Christians think the claims of the Bible are true but not the Koran? There are around a billion Muslims who think that the Koran is the word of Allah ... what makes them wrong and you right? The Bible is not written by primitive man. If the Bible were written by primitive man, I would agree with you, but the ancient Hebrew scriptures were written under inspiration. You do not appreciate the finer points of the Bible that would make it impossible for primitive men to write over centuries and in different places and have the consistent message that it does. The harmony of scripture is what makes it a divine work, and you do not appreciate that, and I think you will remain blind to it because of your attitude to the Bible. I know there is nothing I can say that will shift your opinion on anything in the Bible.

As for choosing between the ancient Hebrew scriptures and the Koran, then I am looking at both as an outsider. The two are not compatible, therefore only one can be true. The Hebrew scriptures give us a clear plan and purpose of God and explanation of how life on the earth came about and what the destiny of the earth and mankind upon it is. The Koran has the stamp of man upon it, whereas the Bible has the stamp of God upon it. God and Allah are not the same, even the Muslims say that Allah is greater. The Muslims want to eradicate Israel, and Israel has no desire to eradicate the Muslims and only want to be left to live in their land in peace. The fact that Israel are in that position today, is by the hand of God. The Koran does not give prophecy like the Bible does and I accept the prophecies that have been fulfilled and I accept the prophecies that are still being played out. These are the reasons why I accept the Bible as God's word over the Koran.

Here is a link where you can read why Judaism and Christianity reject the Koran; http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/912421-why-judaism-christianity-reject-koran.html I do not hold the exact same Christianity reasons that teaches the Trinity, but there is sufficient reason concerning Christ to reject the Koran.

Saying that the contradictions, errors and falsehoods have explanations is merely an assertion with no evidence to back it up. That is not true. Verses have come to light that are not in the older texts. Once those verses are spotted, they can be eliminated and what was puzzling by those verses, is no longer a puzzle. I have given my exposition of Jude 6 to show who the angels referred to are. No-one has come forward to explain in such detail why it is assumed the angels referred to are God's Angels. The Trinity is a falsehood of the 4th century and the Jewish scriptures are monotheistic.

For two thousand years believers have been dogmatically claiming that the Bible is true, yet have failed to show any solid evidence as to why we should believe that. Over, and over again we are told to have faith and believe the things that are not seen, yet the errors still remain. Who could have written what was going to happen to Jesus when he was crucified and have it happen right on cue? It was not coincidental that Jesus was killed as the lamb of God at the very time, the High Priest was killing the passover lamb in the Temple. When you look at all the prophecies relating to Jesus in the Old Testament and how they came to pass in the time of the New Testament, those prophecies could not have been written by primitive men.
Prophecy, is the only proof for the existence of God. You can choose to ignore prophecy and not believe it, but I see prophecy fulfilled and only God can tell us things that will happen in the future. We have the evidence of things unseen that give the believers faith in the future. Jesus said to Thomas; "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". We have secular evidence to confirm the existence of Jesus, so all the things written about him in the New Testament of which some authors we read, say they were eye witnesses. The evidence is there, but if you choose to deny it or want to ignore it, then it does not alter the fact that we have the evidence recorded.

All the best
David

David M

04-21-2014, 06:20 PM

Hello Timmy

Hi David.

Words and definitions do not help a personwho already has fixated upon a contray concept.

Tthis is why, here a little and there a little, first all the reasons you think the way you do must be annulled...or any reference to specificswill be limited by such misconceptions. You may not even realize howtrue this fact affects you. Others can see (some of us more clearly than another) how irrationality is isinterrupting your personal progress toward seeing any differently than what you already propose.

Until these barriers are broken down, no headway can be made by you, and those thinking they might "convert" you are fighting a losing battle...even less successful than you yourself being able to think about another perspective more clear. Paul relates this to being the act of pulling down edifaces and everything that exalts itself against God. You are not helping me to break down the barriers you say are hindering me. Unless you can explain and show me, how can I learn anything from you. I am giving my explanations all the time of what I believe, yet I get no response. There are lots of verses that say to me, Jesus is not God, yet you do not explain those verses to me. This is what is so frustrating, I am accused of twisting words, yet I see twisted logic in supporting the Trinity and per-existence of Jesus.

That is why the quipt was given now relative to Jesus specifically: Because God does not change, Jesus must be God before the resurrection since He is God after the resurrection. That is not logical. You are just as fixed in your thinking as you accuse me. Unless you reason these things out with me, you should not expect me to change my thinking.
God does not change. Therefore, God cannot morph into Jesus. God cannot put on flesh and blood. Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom. That would mean God could not inherit his own kingdom.
We are told Jesus was given an incorruptible body. I Corinthians 15 is a very important chapter in understanding the nature and role of Jesus.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The resurrected will be given the same incorruptible body that Jesus was given after his resurrection. They will be the same as Jesus. Jesus did change in body, but not in mind and purpose. Jesus was not God, because as you say, God does not change.

There are many false teachings. Not only do I have to argue against the Trinity, I have to argue against those that teach the immortal soul. As I was reminded last Sunday, if Jesus knew he had an immortal soul, why did he agonize in prayer before his arrest and trial. Jesus resigned to do the will of God, there was no choice if mankind was to be saved. God sticks to his principles. In that respect, God does not change. Why was Jesus so fearful of what he was going to experience. You diminish the achievement of Jesus to fudge the situation and say that Jesus was God. God could not have been in the place of Jesus.

All your reasons why you don't understand why Jesus is God are based on reasons opposed to the most basic logic and so you cannot recieve what Scripture reveals.Unless you explain to me what is the most basic logic, how do you expect me to see your point of view. The basic logic tells me that Jesus was conceived by God, was born a man with no added supernatural substance that was God. Jesus grew and developed as every other male child grows up to be an adult. Jesus did have God watching his every move and Jesus knew from the age of around 12 that his mission was to do his Heavenly Father's business. Jesus took 28 years to grow in wisdom and come to understand the Jewish scriptures that he had memorized and was written in his heart. That stood in good stead to combat the temptations that came his way. Jesus gave his life in sacrifice and he was raise to life by God and given an incorruptible body. For the purpose of God in establishing his Kingdom, Jesus the Christ when he returns will have all the power of God available to him and God has given him all judgement and rulership. Jesus will be acting as for God in the millennial reign. This is all very logical to me and is what I understand from reading the Bible.

Ya' know what? The Hebrew way is to consider the whole context of one passage and never drawing determinations about what the Bible says because of on word or verse or phrase. This is what Paul refers to as "cutting straight" (KJV, the synonyms used are "rightly dividing"). When Paul gives a phrae or verse to consider from the Tanakh, be is referring to the whole discourse relative to that brief quote and not just the quote itself. As well, all associate (principles or associated sections are also added to the equation. I do not disagree. Context is important, that is why when someone quotes a verse, I look at the verses before and after. Sometimes we have to read the whole chapter to understand the context. I do not skip the importance of context.

It is extremely disrespectful to God to think one might contain what He says in a certain word or phrase when these are words from the Limitless Almighty Father of Eternity who sees all and has covered all associated details in other places...and then to base these misunderstanding on rationalizations that are contrary to what God reveals elsewhere. Again, you say nothing I disagree with. Just as I refute the verses you say tell us that Jesus is God, you have to explain to me, all the verses that tell me Jesus is not God. You could do this by explaining 1 Cor 15:28. That tells me the authority of Jesus is less than the authority of God. How do you explain this?

I am not against you. Your errors will be continually exposed though: according to your writing here.As long as you refrai from personal insults, I do not take it personally. Expose my errors by quoting scripture and explaining scripture. You tell me I am in error and do not help me in any way.

I see the root misconceptions and their results. These shall be broken down bit by bit and piece by piece until the root problem is absolved...as you continue reading when i write...throw up whatever you wish to debate from what is said...but i am not playing in compliance with human rational. I am certainly not playing in compliance with man-made ideas such as the Trinity, the immortal soul and Satan as a fallen Angel of God. Please break things down and present them so I can study, learn and reply.

It is not about debate with me David. You will be debating against what the Bible reveals...so have at it. I understand that. That is why you have to respond to what I think the Bible reveals. We are defending our positions by quoting the Bible. The fact that we can both quote the same verses and understand them differently shows that we have have different perspectives. We have to get to the root of why we believe what we do.

As for what i am talking about? When thereis reference to sources, they are what they are as revealed. The rest is all from living it and learning from Experts who live it too. Who are the experts you are referring to? Whatever we personally think is the nature of Jesus, it should not affect our compliance with his teaching. We have personal responsibility to follow God's instruction, as the Bible tells us, in these last days, God has spoken to us by his son. We are to hear the message of Jesus and obey. That is our individual responsibility and some find it easier than others.

Check the Septuiagint like i said, as there are no other reference sources i could give because they are very seldom, if ever used..like this is understod reading the Masoretic Manuscript parallel with the Septuagint. I refer to an online Septuagint Bible when I need to. I cannot read the Greek directly, so I am reading the English translation. I did so recently and the word "begotten" is used in the context of God procreating Jesus using Mary as the virgin. I know there are a few other examples of the word "begotten" like where Paul regarded the Corinthian ecclesia as his begotten. I look at the context and the word beget, begat, begotten is in the main to do with procreation and offspring.

When you mocked the info given via Pm on forum as nonsense, it was an attempt to bwgin showing you the Hebrew way of learning Bible as that info was Drash meant to begin you studying letters...and you sloughed it off saying nonsense. I need reminding. I am not aware of anything you wrote in a PM to me that I was expected to consider. I have looked at the three emails from you and I find nothing that you should have taken offense at. That is why I was so surprised to find you being so different in your posts to me in the forum.

Go figure, but you did not offend me. You are your own worst enemy...and the next time you think i ama poser, look in a mirror as you type that.I did not mean to imply you were a poser. I perhaps could have used a different word. When I said posturing, it is because you are presenting me with statements that are not backed up with anything that is factual. How can I reason with you when you make unsubstantiated claims. I am receiving the flack form people on this forum who do not know me, and are making wild assumptions about me.

There has been nothing in my posts in which I am reasoning from scripture that in any way does not hallow the name of God. That is what Jesus began his model prayer with. God is the sole creator of the heavens and the earth and life upon the earth including man and Jesus is his son and is the greatest man to ever live in that he has lived a sinless life and been elevated to sit at the right hand of God. I do not see how anything I say, could dishonor God or Jesus.

I appreciate you are living the Hebrew life and that is your culture, but following tradition is not necessarily doing what God requires. The Jews did not accept Jesus as the son of God and they still have the spiritual veil over their eyes. They still expect the Messiah to come and still believe God is one. If you believe in Jesus as the son of God, you are not believing the same as other Jews. Jesus broke the Pharisaical law and called the Pharisees; hyprocrites. Jesus was not agreeing to their man-made rules and interpretations of the law. That is why there is no merit in following anything that is written in the Talmud. I have not read it all, and from what I have been told of some of the things written in the Talmud, as a Jew, I would be ashamed of the Talmud.

Sylvius refers to Rashi and whilst some of the things written are informative, Rashi says things that are not supported by Scripture. I read commentaries that might give me a better understanding of God's word, and I am very aware that these works are works of men who have different agendas. Unfortunately, there is a lot of dross that has to be filtered out and is a waste of time. If you have good material, I will read it, but the moment it is obvious that the teaching is departing from the Scriptures, I consider it a waste of my time to continue to read/watch to the end. Time is better spent reading the Bible and getting more insight into the stories recorded, which are there for our learning.

All the best
David

Timmy

04-22-2014, 06:05 AM

Hello Timmy

You are not helping me to break down the barriers you say are hindering me. Unless you can explain and show me, how can I learn anything from you. I am giving my explanations all the time of what I believe, yet I get no response. There are lots of verses that say to me, Jesus is not God, yet you do not explain those verses to me. This is what is so frustrating, I am accused of twisting words, yet I see twisted logic in supporting the Trinity and per-existence of Jesus. Do you recognize you are asking me to help you do things the way you have alway done them: "Why don't you spoon feed me the info you want me to know so that I can reason and rationalize it into my own undestanding to lean on?"

Such is the wicked way leading down the path of unrighteousness thinking when dealing with any of the written word of Hashem:

Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

You will not be told by Timmy to reason anything out for yourself concerning the Bible. That is not right.

p.s. the dogma of trinity is a human construct invented in the third century to ward off heretic infidels against being able to introduce other false doctrines to Roman Catholics. To believe that rubbish isto cut yourself off from understanding the true nature of God, and thus the full Biblical revelation beyond the peshat<--the simple exegetical knowledge.

I do not say Jesus is not a man;and though you cannot understand how, rationalizing to deny Jesus is God is what first cuts you off from experiencing His salvation in the here and now.

The Bible is it's own interpretation.

Instead of thinking in terms of fighting what men say because you have rationalized otherwise, why not instead search the scriptures disgarding preconceived notion asking God to instruct you.

The choice is clear: either you would choose to think and do as is human tendency: to trust our own mental constructs (and misconstrue both message and meaning ...or you can be trusting what God alone says about what He says thinking only in those terms.

No, you are right. I am not helping you do what should not be done.

That is not logical. You are just as fixed in your thinking as you accuse me. Unless you reason these things out with me, you should not expect me to change my thinking.
God does not change. Therefore, God cannot morph into Jesus. God cannot put on flesh and blood. Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom. That would mean God could not inherit his own kingdom.unless of course Jesus is the Word of God always creating and changing all that we comprehend.

We are told Jesus was given an incorruptible body. I Corinthians 15 is a very important chapter in understanding the nature and role of Jesus.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus revealed time and again--through what he both did and said that He was, is, and always will be incurruptible.

The resurrected will be given the same incorruptible body that Jesus was given after his resurrection. They will be the same as Jesus. Jesus did change in body, but not in mind and purpose. Jesus was not God, because as you say, God does not change.Becoming "like" Jesus is not being the same as Jesus.

There are many false teachings. Not only do I have to argue against the Trinity, I have to argue against those that teach the immortal soul. As I was reminded last Sunday, if Jesus knew he had an immortal soul, why did he agonize in prayer before his arrest and trial. Jesus resigned to do the will of God, there was no choice if mankind was to be saved. God sticks to his principles. In that respect, God does not change. Why was Jesus so fearful of what he was going to experience. You diminish the achievement of Jesus to fudge the situation and say that Jesus was God. God could not have been in the place of Jesus.He agonized because of God's cup of wrath to be poured on Him, not because of anything about some sort of immortal soul.[/quote]There is a huge difference between being distrought and fearful. So show any place where Jesus was afraid of anyone or anything. The rationalizations you are presenting contradict Isaiah 53.

Jesus chose to experience everything he experienced completely understanding the end from the beginning.

Unless you explain to me what is the most basic logic, how do you expect me to see your point of view.Start by learning the Law of Noncontradiction and keep it in mind always. SIMPLY PUT: you=you and God=God, so you is not God, and shall never be(come) God.

The basic logic tells me that Jesus was conceived by God, was born a man with no added supernatural substance that was God.Where does the Bible say "supernatural is substance?
Jesus grew and developed as every other male child grows up to be an adult. Jesus did have God watching his every move and Jesus knew from the age of around 12 that his mission was to do his Heavenly Father's business. Jesus took 28 years to grow in wisdom and come to understand the Jewish scriptures that he had memorized and was written in his heart. That stood in good stead to combat the temptations that came his way. Jesus gave his life in sacrifice and he was raise to life by God and given an incorruptible body. For the purpose of God in establishing his Kingdom, Jesus the Christ when he returns will have all the power of God available to him and God has given him all judgement and rulership. Jesus will be acting as for God in the millennial reign. This is all very logical to me and is what I understand from reading the Bible. Sort through all the above statements and erradicate everything that is not written.

I do not disagree. Context is important, that is why when someone quotes a verse, I look at the verses before and after. Sometimes we have to read the whole chapter to understand the context. I do not skip the importance of context.…a verse before and after verse seldom, if ever, gives the context...and what about other sections related with the whole section where you misinterpret three verses located in it?

Again, you say nothing I disagree with. Just as I refute the verses you say tell us that Jesus is God, you have to explain to me, all the verses that tell me Jesus is not God. You could do this by explaining 1 Cor 15:28. That tells me the authority of Jesus is less than the authority of God. How do you explain this?That is more of your own irationality right there.

I have already matured; but, my dad tells me to do a certain thing, and i honor him. I submit to my dad because we are one in purpose. What i see him do, i do the same. Everything that is his purpose is my purpose also.

How does this make me non-human having less authority than him?

As long as you refrai from personal insults, I do not take it personally. Expose my errors by quoting scripture and explaining scripture. You tell me I am in error and do not help me in any way.

I am certainly not playing in compliance with man-made ideas such as the Trinity, the immortal soul and Satan as a fallen Angel of God. Please break things down and present them so I can study, learn and reply.…ask instead of insist and we can forgo the dissonance.

I understand that. That is why you have to respond to what I think the Bible reveals. We are defending our positions by quoting the Bible. The fact that we can both quote the same verses and understand them differently shows that we have have different perspectives. We have to get to the root of why we believe what we do.NO NO NO NO NO! It is never about what you or i think the Bible reveals. If there is a difference, then either both of us or one of us does not understand...and i always prefer to think in terms of the first possibility, as has been proven the case several times.

I am a piece of work and you are too.

Now, we need remain mindful of this fact concerning everything from the scriptures. If we can live the Bible knowledge, when we do, we actually just begin to learn it. Understanding comes when we show ourselves approved by God alone, where what is written becomes habitual activity and understanding grows into wisdom seeing how from God's perspective things become as He desires.

Who are the experts you are referring to? Whatever we personally think is the nature of Jesus, it should not affect our compliance with his teaching. We have personal responsibility to follow God's instruction, as the Bible tells us, in these last days, God has spoken to us by his son. We are to hear the message of Jesus and obey. That is our individual responsibility and some find it easier than others.Friends who were once only admired are these experts. What is name dropping going to prove? They all follow Jesus in diffeent aspects that were seen right from the scriptures and walking beside them following Jesus we all have learned from one another. This began at age 16. Some of them now sleep, but we all remain of one heart.

I refer to an online Septuagint Bible when I need to. I cannot read the Greek directly, so I am reading the English translation. I did so recently and the word "begotten" is used in the context of God procreating Jesus using Mary as the virgin. I know there are a few other examples of the word "begotten" like where Paul regarded the Corinthian ecclesia as his begotten. I look at the context and the word beget, begat, begotten is in the main to do with procreation and offspring. WOW...you are getting there...DOING IT YOURSELF. (This has seldom been seen of you in the past, and when you have done it, you seem to stop looking after you have assumed something to be plausible by how you already think insteadof continuing seking elsewhere further. You need to keeponseeking further even if you may think you have the right answer, and come to realize that the more you understand, theless you know.)

OFFSPRING YES; but not neccessarily procreation. Keep searching it out.:yo:

I need reminding. I am not aware of anything you wrote in a PM to me that I was expected to consider. I have looked at the three emails from you and I find nothing that you should have taken offense at. That is why I was so surprised to find you being so different in your posts to me in the forum.Different aspects, same person. Different realizations, different attitude...that is all.

Ok, so you do not see it. When you do figure what is referred to, maybe that might be the time to continue...i mustpray about all that first and find out.

I did not mean to imply you were a poser. I perhaps could have used a different word. When I said posturing, it is because you are presenting me with statements that are not backed up with anything that is factual. How can I reason with you when you make unsubstantiated claims. I am receiving the flack form people on this forum who do not know me, and are making wild assumptions about me.

There has been nothing in my posts in which I am reasoning from scripture that in any way does not hallow the name of God. That is what Jesus began his model prayer with. God is the sole creator of the heavens and the earth and life upon the earth including man and Jesus is his son and is the greatest man to ever live in that he has lived a sinless life and been elevated to sit at the right hand of God. I do not see how anything I say, could dishonor God or Jesus. You did use a diffe re nt word: posturing.

There is a megalithic diferent in reasoning from the scriptures compared with the scriptures being the reason...without any additional rationalizations that arenot cogent in respect to what scripture reveals elsewhere: context!

Is it reasoning of the scriptures or is it reasoning from or about the scriptures???

I appreciate you are living the Hebrew life and that is your culture, but following tradition is not necessarily doing what God requires. The Jews did not accept Jesus as the son of God and they still have the spiritual veil over their eyes. They still expect the Messiah to come and still believe God is one. If you believe in Jesus as the son of God, you are not believing the same as other Jews. Jesus broke the Pharisaical law and called the Pharisees; hyprocrites. Jesus was not agreeing to their man-made rules and interpretations of the law. That is why there is no merit in following anything that is written in the Talmud. I have not read it all, and from what I have been told of some of the things written in the Talmud, as a Jew, I would be ashamed of the Talmud.Discernment...accept the good and bury the bad. You are saying what is say here in general.

Sylvius refers to Rashi and whilst some of the things written are informative, Rashi says things that are not supported by Scripture. I read commentaries that might give me a better understanding of God's word, and I am very aware that these works are works of men who have different agendas. Unfortunately, there is a lot of dross that has to be filtered out and is a waste of time. If you have good material, I will read it, but the moment it is obvious that the teaching is departing from the Scriptures, I consider it a waste of my time to continue to read/watch to the end. Time is better spent reading the Bible and getting more insight into the stories recorded, which are there for our learning.

All the best
David

Always said here is that without a good foundation, there is nothing firm to build upon. He who does not know Torah does not understand Jesus and the heart of the matter hidden in the pages. As well, all that is written following that, understanding will inevitably be skewd. It is always good to begin at the beginning and look at everything in reference related to that...or one will truly not understand the intent and purpose for the Bible.

It is not primarily about us.

Gotta get to work.

Peace out!:sunny:

David M

04-22-2014, 08:54 AM

Thank you Timmy

Do you recognize you are asking me to help you do things the way you have alway done them: "Why don't you spoon feed me the info you want me to know so that I can reason and rationalize it into my own undestanding to lean on?"

Such is the wicked way leading down the path of unrighteousness thinking when dealing with any of the written word of Hashem:

Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

You will not be told by Timmy to reason anything out for yourself concerning the Bible. That is not right. There is only one difference in our thinking and that is the nature of Jesus. We can cite the same verses and we are mainly agreed with what those verses tell us. Even this thread is going off topic, so I will not say much here.

p.s. the dogma of trinity is a human construct invented in the third century to ward off heretic infidels against being able to introduce other false doctrines to Roman Catholics. To believe that rubbish isto cut yourself off from understanding the true nature of God, and thus the full Biblical revelation beyond the peshat<--the simple exegetical knowledge. We are agreed on that.

I do not say Jesus is not a man;and though you cannot understand how, rationalizing to deny Jesus is God is what first cuts you off from experiencing His salvation in the here and now. I think we both know the saving power of Jesus. It is only his nature that we differ on. Jesus was born as flesh and blood and is the Son of God. That is what I believe. To say more as you do, is as equally unfounded as anything you think I say is unfounded.

The Bible is it's own interpretation. That is a principle I agree with.

Instead of thinking in terms of fighting what men say because you have rationalized otherwise, why not instead search the scriptures disgarding preconceived notion asking God to instruct you.

The choice is clear: either you would choose to think and do as is human tendency: to trust our own mental constructs (and misconstrue both message and meaning ...or you can be trusting what God alone says about what He says thinking only in those terms. Maybe the fact that we have this difference of opinion should make us both do what you suggest. It is not going to change what God has in store for those that love him. If we are agreed on what the plan of God is, that should be sufficient not to fall out because we have a different perception of the nature of Jesus. You accept Jesus was a man, and he was flesh and blood. That will do for me.

No, you are right. I am not helping you do what should not be done.
unless of course Jesus is the Word of God always creating and changing all that we comprehend.
Jesus revealed time and again--through what he both did and said that He was, is, and always will be incurruptible.Unlike Lazarus, who was in the grave four days and his body began to stink, the body of Jesus was only in the grave three days and nights and it did not see corruption. Jesus body would have corrupted if God had not raised him from the dead.

Becoming "like" Jesus is not being the same as Jesus. I accept the teaching of Paul and that Christ as the firstfruits begotten from the dead, that we in the set order will be transformed and put on incorruption (1 Cor 15:42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
(1 John 3:2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

He agonized because of God's cup of wrath to be poured on Him, not because of anything about some sort of immortal soul.There is a huge difference between being distrought and fearful. So show any place where Jesus was afraid of anyone or anything. The rationalizations you are presenting contradict Isaiah 53. The agonizing of Jesus was his natural human reaction. Jesus had confidence in the resurrection. The immortal soul is not a concept that Jesus had, but that is what the churches teach as though to make people feel comfortable that they are saved. If the immortal soul was automatic, all I was saying that if Jesus believed that, there was no need to fear or have faith in the resurrection.

Jesus chose to experience everything he experienced completely understanding the end from the beginning.Jesus chose to do the will of God. I will leave it at that.

Start by learning the Law of Noncontradiction and keep it in mind always. SIMPLY PUT: you=you and God=God, so you is not God, and shall never be(come) God. Just as you say; "you is not God", why do you not say; Jesus is not God. By the same logic, you should add; Jesus=Jesus. I understand the law of non-contradiction and by use of the same logic, you should come to the conclusion that Jesus is not God.

Where does the Bible say "supernatural is substance? Sort through all the above statements and erradicate everything that is not written.OK, supernatural is not in the Bible. The substance of God is not detectable by science, that is why I regard the substance of God as being supernatural. God made everything in the Universe including the atoms that make up humans the same as Jesus. You are asking me to believe that the substance of God was also inside Jesus for Jesus to be fully God. I do not think a human body can fully contain God that made that body in the first place. For God to be flesh and blood, makes God less than he is. I understand how Jesus represents God, and as the perfect righteous man, in the image of God, is the closest we come to seeing God. God is a Spirit (John 4:24); I will leave it at that.

…a verse before and after verse seldom, if ever, gives the context...and what about other sections related with the whole section where you misinterpret three verses located in it? I qualified what I said and yes, we have to take whole chapters and sections into account to see the context when necessary.

That is more of your own irationality right there.

I have already matured; but, my dad tells me to do a certain thing, and i honor him. I submit to my dad because we are one in purpose. What i see him do, i do the same. Everything that is his purpose is my purpose also.

How does this make me non-human having less authority than him?You claim I have irrationality, yet you have just exposed your irrationality. You are human as your father, and you have authority which is not necessarily the same authority as your father. Your father is the head of the household and has to be respected. I know we are comparing human with human, whereas with Jesus and God, we are comparing human with Spirit.
On the human level, God tells us to honor our parents as one of the Ten Commandments. It is understood that in terms of hierarchy in the household, the father has a higher status by way of authority. That is the same in our relationship with Jesus and God. God is the head, Jesus is the Son, and by association with Jesus, we also become the sons of God. If you do not accept that, then just accept the words of Paul (1 Cor 11:3); But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

…ask instead of insist and we can forgo the dissonance. Sorry! I ask you to explain these things to me.

NO NO NO NO NO! It is never about what you or i think the Bible reveals. If there is a difference, then either both of us or one of us does not understand...and i always prefer to think in terms of the first possibility, as has been proven the case several times.

I am a piece of work and you are too. We have to trust God will forgive us our lack of understanding. I know we have knowledge these days that was not available at the time of Jesus. For all the scientific knowledge we have, it does not affect the understanding we have of God's word. Jesus taught that we are expected to receive others as children. Children do not have the full knowledge that they acquire later. A child will know that babies are born, without knowing the process. A child can understand that Mary gave birth to a son and that son grew up as any other child. I will leave it at that.

Now, we need remain mindful of this fact concerning everything from the scriptures. If we can live the Bible knowledge, when we do, we actually just begin to learn it. Understanding comes when we show ourselves approved by God alone, where what is written becomes habitual activity and understanding grows into wisdom seeing how from God's perspective things become as He desires.Whilst I agree with that, though we need not worry about the future of the world and what it is coming to, nevertheless, God has left on record his plan for the future that has not come about yet. It is important we live the life God requires us to lead, but the fact that God has left on record his plan and has said many things that have still to be fulfilled gives us the reason to keep reading and gradually seeing how God's plan is playing out. All we have is our lifetime in which to get our hearts right with God. We all make plans, but we have to realize that our plans might not extend beyond the next day.

Friends who were once only admired are these experts. What is name dropping going to prove? They all follow Jesus in diffeent aspects that were seen right from the scriptures and walking beside them following Jesus we all have learned from one another. This began at age 16. Some of them now sleep, but we all remain of one heart. I have many friends that are brethren-in-Christ and who I can regard in the same way as you do your "experts".

WOW...you are getting there...DOING IT YOURSELF. (This has seldom been seen of you in the past, and when you have done it, you seem to stop looking after you have assumed something to be plausible by how you already think insteadof continuing seking elsewhere further. You need to keeponseeking further even if you may think you have the right answer, and come to realize that the more you understand, theless you know.) I have been researching things as necessary. That is why I have been arguing with Richard and I do not find things as others want to tell me the Bible says this or that.

OFFSPRING YES; but not neccessarily procreation. Keep searching it out.:yo:I do not believe the birth of Jesus was anything other than a natural birth and that Jesus was as any other child. I do not see how God can fully infuse himself into the body of Jesus and remain fully God. This is human imagination. The conception that took place inside a virgin, is the miraculous process. That is my simple view, and I a prepared to leave it at that.

Different aspects, same person. Different realizations, different attitude...that is all.

Ok, so you do not see it. When you do figure what is referred to, maybe that might be the time to continue...i mustpray about all that first and find out.It is not that important and I shall let it go. If you have writings that you think I should read, then I will do so, but with the proviso that if it is material not supported by scripture, I reserve the right to stop wasting my time. I am open to new thoughts, but to reread old hashed arguments is not productive.

You did use a diffe re nt word: posturing.And I said that I could have found a better word to use and I explained what I meant by that word, even if it was not the best word to use.

There is a megalithic diferent in reasoning from the scriptures compared with the scriptures being the reason...without any additional rationalizations that arenot cogent in respect to what scripture reveals elsewhere: context!

Is it reasoning of the scriptures or is it reasoning from or about the scriptures???

Discernment...accept the good and bury the bad. You are saying what is say here in general.I will reason from the scriptures and as you have said; let the Bible answer itself where possible. We have to accept the fact that errors have crept in and that the translators had a choice of words to select from and might not have made the best choice. As long as we agree those facts, then we have scope to reason more from what the scriptures are really telling us. We should be suspicious of man-mistakes. I accept God does not make mistakes in his word as it was inspired.

Always said here is that without a good foundation, there is nothing firm to build upon. He who does not know Torah does not understand Jesus and the heart of the matter hidden in the pages. As well, all that is written following that, understanding will inevitably be skewd. It is always good to begin at the beginning and look at everything in reference related to that...or one will truly not understand the intent and purpose for the Bible.

It is not primarily about us. Christ can be seen throughout the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures) pointing forward to the time Jesus would be born and beyond. There is nothing in the OT that tells me, Jesus pre-existed before his birth. Jesus said (John 5:39); Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

I am glad we are discussing rationally again.

Shalom

David

Rose

04-22-2014, 09:51 AM

Hello Rose
Can you think of an example of a false report? False scientific reports will eventually be exposed, just as false books like the Book of Enoch have been exposed and rejected. Who is responsible for producing the Book of Enoch in the form it has become? I do not suppose anyone knows.

Hello David

Well, for starters what about the first chapter of Genesis? The whole creation story is false on many counts if you take it literally, and people who take the story symbolically do so to explain away the errors.

You say "if" the Bible is shown... I can say; if all the so-called errors and contradictions can be resolved, then there are no errors and contradictions. You are not trying to resolve the errors, otherwise you have no argument. I have gone past the stage of worrying about so-called errors. There are no errors remaining that are worth worrying about. The only real error is that of different understanding; the fact that verses can be understood in different ways. When there is only one way a verse of passage is to be understood, then it has to be decided with version of understanding to reject.

I don't have to worry about the errors in the Bible either. :p Once a person realizes that the Biblegod is made up from the minds of men, then errors are to be expected.

The Bible is not written by primitive man. If the Bible were written by primitive man, I would agree with you, but the ancient Hebrew scriptures were written under inspiration. You do not appreciate the finer points of the Bible that would make it impossible for primitive men to write over centuries and in different places and have the consistent message that it does. The harmony of scripture is what makes it a divine work, and you do not appreciate that, and I think you will remain blind to it because of your attitude to the Bible. I know there is nothing I can say that will shift your opinion on anything in the Bible.

Of course the Bible was written by primitive men, even if you think it was written under inspiration. Much of what we read in the Bible is a perfect reflection of the male mindset of the time period.

As for choosing between the ancient Hebrew scriptures and the Koran, then I am looking at both as an outsider. The two are not compatible, therefore only one can be true. The Hebrew scriptures give us a clear plan and purpose of God and explanation of how life on the earth came about and what the destiny of the earth and mankind upon it is. The Koran has the stamp of man upon it, whereas the Bible has the stamp of God upon it. God and Allah are not the same, even the Muslims say that Allah is greater. The Muslims want to eradicate Israel, and Israel has no desire to eradicate the Muslims and only want to be left to live in their land in peace. The fact that Israel are in that position today, is by the hand of God. The Koran does not give prophecy like the Bible does and I accept the prophecies that have been fulfilled and I accept the prophecies that are still being played out. These are the reasons why I accept the Bible as God's word over the Koran.

Here is a link where you can read why Judaism and Christianity reject the Koran; http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/912421-why-judaism-christianity-reject-koran.html I do not hold the exact same Christianity reasons that teaches the Trinity, but there is sufficient reason concerning Christ to reject the Koran.

Actually, it doesn't have to be one or the other ... neither one has to be true.

That is not true. Verses have come to light that are not in the older texts. Once those verses are spotted, they can be eliminated and what was puzzling by those verses, is no longer a puzzle. I have given my exposition of Jude 6 to show who the angels referred to are. No-one has come forward to explain in such detail why it is assumed the angels referred to are God's Angels. The Trinity is a falsehood of the 4th century and the Jewish scriptures are monotheistic.

Who could have written what was going to happen to Jesus when he was crucified and have it happen right on cue? It was not coincidental that Jesus was killed as the lamb of God at the very time, the High Priest was killing the passover lamb in the Temple. When you look at all the prophecies relating to Jesus in the Old Testament and how they came to pass in the time of the New Testament, those prophecies could not have been written by primitive men.
Prophecy, is the only proof for the existence of God. You can choose to ignore prophecy and not believe it, but I see prophecy fulfilled and only God can tell us things that will happen in the future. We have the evidence of things unseen that give the believers faith in the future. Jesus said to Thomas; "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". We have secular evidence to confirm the existence of Jesus, so all the things written about him in the New Testament of which some authors we read, say they were eye witnesses. The evidence is there, but if you choose to deny it or want to ignore it, then it does not alter the fact that we have the evidence recorded.

All the best
David

All the prophecies in the Old Testament that supposedly relate to Jesus, are very ambiguous and can be interpreted in many different ways.

There is nothing "blessed" about having blind faith, in fact it is the sign of a gullible fool not a critical thinker. At best the only "secular" evidence that we have for Jesus is that he may have existed as a man in the first century. There is no evidence whatsoever for any of the divinity or miracle claims that the Bible makes.

Take care,
Rose