by JosephAlward 67 Replies latest watchtower bible
These arguements about the 'historicity' of Christ Jesus, including the authenticity of the Gospels, are absolutely absurd!
Honestly, even if we could prove (to those who start such arguements) that Christ Jesus was in fact here on earth, we could NEVER EVER PROVE that he rose from the dead - that is something you would have had to witness first hand to know for fact!
Fellow believers, belief in Christ Jesus has always been and will always be a matter of faith.
Joseph,
You have a timing problem. In John, Mary is told these things after she talked to Peter. As I said, Matthew didn't include that portion, of the sequence, but that doesn't make the two versions inconsistent. In both, she is told by the angel where the body went and than she meets Jesus.
RWC,
Matthew said that after Mary fled the tomb, and before Mary met the disciples, she met the resurrected Jesus, who told her to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.
Thus, Matthew's Mary has no reason to believe that anyone took Jesus, for she had seem him with her own eyes, alone on the trail. And, Matthew's Mary obviously understood that Jesus had not been "put" somewhere.
However, John's Mary evidently doesn't know what Matthew's Mary knows, because after John's Mary fled the tomb she told the disciples that "they" had taken Jesus and she didn't know where he was!
Please answer these questions:
1. Why did John's Mary not tell Peter she had seen Jesus, and instead told him that "they" had taken Jesus, and that she didn't know where they had put him?
2. Do you not believe that Mary's choice of words to Peter would have led him to believe that someone took Jesus' body and put it somewhere?
3. How is it possible that Mary, who met Jesus on the road, thought Jesus had been "put" somewhere?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
Hi Joseph,
I already told you that these 3 Marys came to the tomb at three different specified times and with three different circumstances and that there just happened to be three women called "Mary Magdalene" which is likely a title for a "maid" in that custom. The gospels combine to give details on which each came to the tomb.
You're finding contradiction because you think these are all the same "Mary Magdalene"...which is your choice. But there is no contradiction when you accept there are 3 of them, which gives the gospel writers the benefit of the doubt of actually being able to relate the details of these events without self-contradiction, especially since you are very aware that they had access to some of these accounts and thus, especially John, had the opportunity to supplement these accounts. it's not likely they went out of their way to contradict each other.
Believe me, for Jews who don't believe in redundancy, just the opposite of the "goyim" gentiles who need everything repeated 5 times to get the picture most of the time, they would have clearly understood with the secific times and circumstances being given that the gospel writers were trying to tell us there were 3 Mary Magdalenes; they would not presume the Bible writers were unable to get their stories straight.
There are no contradictions here. Sorry to burst your bubble.
L.G.
Isn't it funny how many Christians will laugh at the story about how Joseph Smith came accross the tablets of gold, and transcribed them with the help of Moroni, thus producing the Book of Mormon, and dismiss it, and yet get really bent out of shape when people do the same thing to the New Testament? Despite the fact the only real difference between the Gospels' claim to provability and the Book of Mormon's claim to provability, other than doctrine, is two thousand years?
Larsguy;
The Bible is NOT in error, but it is playing games with you... the reason why this was presented is likely to trip up those who do not want to accept Bible truth... will present the truth in such a way that it can't be believed by an unbeliever even if it were explained in detail... So if you're confounded by the scriptures, you shouldn't presume it is unintentional...Look, jesus, or whatever you think you are, I'd like you to thank you for making me laugh. My personal reading is, that if any substancial portion of the Bible is true as regards god and stuff, then god is a sicko game player. I'm glad you agree.
Believe what you want, Josephus, but you can't PROVE that there were not three different Mary Magdalenes, which there were,Which you can't prove. Funny how the Gospel is well down on those who stumble their brothers, but how some Christians make the arguement from obscurity, which causes an unavoidable stumbling to those who require reasonable certainty rather than blind bleating faith. Oh, by the way, you are a liar whose portion will be in the lake of fire. I am Jesus.
logical; You ask "what do you expect from man, perfection?" No, I expect that from god. I have edited a newspaper. I know about the process. If god edited the Bible, then he was incompetant. Oh, and this was funny;
Have fun ripping the bible to pieces if it makes you happy, although its pointless cos any true believers already know it isIf the believers know the Bible is inaccurate, what do they believe in and how do they know what to believe? God speaking to you too? Man I feel left out, he hasn't rung me in ages. Or are you taking someone else's word for what to believe in? Like the Fitfull Deoderant Salve? Or Larsguy? Or Shelby? Or RexB13? Or Clash_City_Rock? Or anewperson? Or aCHristian? If the 'manual' you base your beliefs in is, by your own admission, inaccurate, and there is no agreement even in the small sample of Christian viewpoints I have mentioned above (all of who believe they are right), then
h o w d o y o u k n o w w h a t t o b e l i e v e ?
If all you have is a little gow inside, all you have is what some of the above claim to have, and I BET you don't agree with all of their views, so how do we know you are right.
A loving god would not allow such a dreadful state of confusion and termoil; people wasting lives sincerely believing in something by accident of birth or happen-chance that is WRONG.
This alone, bar the lack of proof of god, bar the evidence that the Bible is just a book, uninspired, is clear evidence to the fact that god is either not loving or not there.
speechless; Let me paraphrase what you said;
"If it is possible that the Easter Bunny is real, then it is also possible that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real, and hence all fairy stories may be truth."
If that's your standard of belief, good luck to you. I hope you stay well away from people selling MLM schemes.
RWC; hello again. You say;
Are you saying that an atheist will say that since I can't prove that any particular God exists, but I can't say that no God exists, that I will simply choose not to believe in any God, even though there may be one? And you call that logic and reasoning? You spend all your efforts attempting to destory all religions and than say that I am not saying that no God exists, just that all of you are wrong. I say again, nonsense.Let's try that from the other point of view;
"Are you saying that a theist will say that since I can't prove that any particular god exists, or indeed prove that any gods exist, that I will simply choose to believe in any god, even though there may not be one? And you call that logic and reasoning? You spend all your efforts attempting to defend your religion and yet have no proof that god exists, just that anyone who says that god doesn't exist is wrong. I say again, nonsense."
You skate around Pascal's wager, do a triple loop over the moral decrepititude of the arguement of obscurity Christians are soooooooo fond of, and then come out with unsubstansiated assertions;
Of course you start with the presumption that there is no evidence of God. There is ample of evidence if you accept it. The problem is that atheist do not accept the evidence that God exists.1/ Give one piece of evidence (as in, stand up in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt evidence) to support this assertion. Remember my invisable 12' purple bunny wouldn't stand-up as provable in a court of law, and gods tend to suffer from the same problem, so I look forward to your response.
2/ Stop making it the atheists problem that there is no evidence that god exists. We didn't allegedly make the Univesre in such a way that leaves no proof. We didn't allegedly inspire a book that contains scientific inaccuracies and internal contradictions. We didn't hide ourselves from the world in such a way that there is more proof for the most profindly esoteric theories of physics involving the first 1x10>34 seconds of this Universe and before than there is for god. It is not our fault there is no evidence for god that would stand-up in a court of law. It is god's fault (if fault can be assigned to a mythical being), and any arguement that this is deliberate is morally and logically reprehensible.
Love and kisses to everyone
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Abaddon -
Life is nothing but double-edged reality!
You asserted my claim to be similar to the arguement:
"If it is possible that the Easter Bunny is real, then it is also possible that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real, and hence all fairy stories may be truth."
The truth of the matter is, you CANNOT prove that the Easter Bunny is NOT real. I dare you to try it.
Such was my logic as I presented Christ, the Gospels, and the Bible to quite possibly BE true.
Now, if YOU were God, would you not also use logic (intelligence) rather than ridiculous "human" historical artifacts, to prove your existence?
speechless: If you would apply your OWN logic just a little bitty wit more, you would see why you should forget about god, bible, easter bunnies, and get yourself a good LIFE.
Joseph,
Again I tell you that you have a timing problem. To answer your question, Mary told Peter what she did because she had not yet been told what happened to Jesus, nor had she seen him.
The sequence of events as described by both Gospels is that Mary went to the tomb, the stone was rolled away, without going in she runs back to Peter to tell him Jesus has been taken away, Peter runs to the tomb sees the wrappings and leaves, Mary stays behind ans talks to the angel and then sees Jesus, and then goes to tell the disciples what she has learned.
Abaddon,
Greetings. I am not asking atheists to prove there is no God and when they can't thus there must be one. I was responding to the argument that even atheists will say there might be a God, only not the God from any established religion. See Expatbrits post.
But, to answer your questions: Evidence that there is a God that could be presented in a court of law: First, to make it relevent the evidence will be presented as gathered over time. Second, direct and circumstantial evidence will be presented.
Eyewitness testimony from those who spoke with God: Moses, Abraham and Elijah for example.
Eyewitness testimony from those who heard from Jesus that he was God, said he would die and be raised again and then saw him after his death.
Circumstantial evidence: the creation itself- something from nothing and complex design (that has been discussed before); absolute moral truths that are beyond the need for survival and that cannot be explained by society evolution (which we have discussed before);archeological evidence that validates the description of events in the Bible showing it is accurate; miracles performed by individuals who attribute the power to do them to God such as Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in front of a crowd of people..etc.
I could go on but you get the point. Now in a court of law you would get the opportunity to rebut this evidence but you cannot do that by simply saying you don't believe it. You must show that the eyewitnesses are lying for example. I look forward to your response.
God Bless
speechless: did you just christ is as likely to be real as the easter bunny? whose argument are you making again?? youve totally lost me.
mox
I thought that atheists who say that their might be a god were actually agnostics.
