Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb

by JosephAlward 67 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DanielHaase

  Sow me some writings that were actually written when Jesus was supposedly around. Then I might give a shit!

  "Brother, you better get down on your knees and pay...a thousand more fools are being born every f***ing day" -Bad Religion
• 

  expatbrit

  Speechless:

  BWAAAAAAHH!!! I hope the easter bunny brings you lots of nice choccy eggs!

  Expatbrit
• 

  expatbrit

  RWC:

  The definitions of "atheist" "theist" and "agnostic", like so many other terms, differ according to which school of thought is presenting those definitions.

  For myself, I describe my point of view of view as agnostic. I do not think that god exists because I see no convincing evidence for it. As yet there is no way of proving this to 100% certainty. But, lack of proof of non-existence is not a valid basis for belief in existence.

  The court of law analogy is interesting. Note that in your illustration the evidence for god's existence is required to be presented first, since that is the assertion under test. A court tries positive assertions (e.g. Jones stole my wallet), not the lack of assertion (e.g. if you cant prove Jones didn't steal my wallet, then he must be guilty). In the case of god, the positive assertion is "god exists", and this is what must be tried, rather than the lack of assertion "if you can't prove god doesn't exist, then he must exist."

  Once the evidence is presented, the prosecution will then examine it for flaws and inconsistencies, as Joseph does in these threads. The jury will make their decision based on the evidence they see and the examinations of that evidence.

  In fact the analogy is limited there, because in reality there is no prosecution or defense. We are all the jury having to make our decisions on the evidence available.

  The important point, though, is that the assertion to be tested is god's existence, not the lack of proof of his non-existence.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Abaddon

  speechless; I really don't know if you're serious, but will assume you are. Yes, my entire point is that if someone (look for the italics) makes something up (did you see them?), then there is no way you can disprove it, as (more italics) it doesn't exist, and therefore you cannot say, "look, see, it doesn't exist", as there is nothing to look and see.

  Now, if you want to take the fact I cannot prove something someone somewhen made up doesn't actually exist as a point in favour of believing in it just in case, fine, it's your life.

  The Great God Thermadore will destroy you for your foolishness; prove that he won't.

  RWC;

  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.

  I'm waiting... 8-)

  Eyewitness testimony from those who spoke with God: Moses, Abraham and Elijah for example.

  Sorry, inadmisable. Hearsay evidence is never admissable, and the records are nowhere near anything that could be accepted as documentary evidence, so cannot be regarded as admissable either

  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.

  Unacceptable for the same reasons. Prosecution will present expert testimony that extra-biblical correlation of the alleged events is scant, and that it is quite possible such as there is has been added by over-enthusiastic men of faith. As one of the events related to the alleged resurrection of Jesus involved the dead rising from their tombs and preaching to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the absence of corrobatory accounts is surprising. Prosecution will also provide reams of evidence that the main source book the defence is trying to use is riddled with errors, metaphors and fabrications, and as such is not in itself admissable either

  Circumstantial evidence: the creation itself- something from nothing and complex design (that has been discussed before);

  Circumstantial evidence and beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so.

  absolute moral truths that are beyond the need for survival and that cannot be explained by society evolution (which we have discussed before);

  Please give one specific example of such a thing that cannot be explained by the development of society; just saying there are such things will not satisfy the court.

  archeological evidence that validates the description of events in the Bible showing it is accurate;

  So, the Illead (the account of the seige of Troy), because it is historically accurate in places, means that the Greek gods are also real? Sorry, that doesn't work.

  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.

  Hearsay unless performed for the court, in which case the prosecution will dig up a non-Christian faith healer to do the same.

  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.

  I feel I have rebutted the evidence you are going to bring as unreliable, hearsay, conjecture, or similarly unsound. I think we have might have different ideas about 'beyond reasonable doubt', but look forward to your reply.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  Farkel

  speechless,

  : Are you so blind you cannot see YOUR arguement STARTS as a falicy; namely, you can not prove Jesus is not real.

  One cannot disprove a negative as other posters have pointed out. "Invisible fairies have told me the meaning of life. You can't prove me wrong."

  With regards to your statement on "belief" or "faith": If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

  Farkel

  "I didn't mean what I meant."
• 

  JosephAlward

  RWC,

  You haven’t explained why Matthew did not think it was important for his readers to know that Mary had rushed to tell Peter that “they” had taken Jesus’ body. While you’re pondering that problem, here are two more contradictions:

  Matthew and John contradict each other in the matter of Mary’s encounter with Jesus. Matthew thinks Mary encountered Jesus as she was running with joy from the tomb after hearing of Jesus’ resurrection from the angel.

  However, John thinks a very sad Mary, who thought Jesus’ body had been stolen, stood outside the tomb, crying her eyes out in sadness, when Jesus appeared. The relevant verses are below.

  Mary Met Jesus as She Was Running with Joy from the Tomb

  So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." (Matthew 28:5-9)

  
  Mary Met Jesus While She Stood Crying Outside the Tomb

  Mary stood outside the tomb crying [because the tomb was empty]...she turned around and saw Jesus standing there... Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" (John 20:11-18)

  
  Which is it? Did a joyful Mary encounter Jesus as she ran from the tomb, or did a sad Mary encounter Jesus as she stood outside the tomb?

  ------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mark and John contradict each other in the matter of angels inside the tomb. Mark says that Mary saw a young man sitting on the right side, but John says nothing about a young man; he thinks Mary saw two angels.

  Here is the evidence:

  There Was a Young Man in the Tomb

  As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5)

  
  There Were Two Angels in the Tomb

  Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. (John 20:11-12)

  
  Who or what did Mary really see inside the tomb? Was it one young man, or two angels? Or, were there one young man and two angels?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  willy_think

  You are thinking about the expanding universe one night wile walking on train tracks. A sound cause you think about two effects, expanding universe and a train noise. You look up and down the track and see nothing in the darkness. "hum" you say two yourself "two effects without visible cause" as you step off the track.

  The Great and Powerful Oz:
  

  pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
• 

  PopeOfEruke

  I remember hearing about a VD germ walking along the train tracks. He heard a sound like a train coming and said "Looks like I'm a gonorrhea".

  The Pope
• 

  RWC

  Pope - That is funny!!

  Joseph, I do not know why Matthew chose to include some things and not others. He was writing to a different audience so maybe somethings were thought to be more important than others, such as the geneology for example. However, the fact that this is in John and not Matthew does not make one account wrong and the other right. One just includes more information.

  That goes for the other supposed contradictions you mention. The important fact is that Mary encountered Jesus at the tomb. You cannot refute that both accounts reflect that Mary encountered Jesus alive after he was dead. Why don't you find a "contradiction" in one Gospel where it says that Jesus did not arise from the dead and one says he did. That would be a contradiction.

  Let me give you an example of what you are arguing. Suppose
  I and a friend go on a trip. In recounting the story I say that we stopped at McDonald's before noon. My friend says that we stopped at McDonald's after noon. You would say that because of this "contradiction" that we never made the trip or stopped at McDonald's. That is not logical nor does it follow from the supposed contradiction. The supposed contradiction does not invalidate the trip.

  Abaddon,

  First, the evidence of God has developed over thousands of years. You cannot look at a snapshot in time today and say that it is hearsay. When Moses reported that he talked to God that would not be hearsay at the time he reported it. It was eyewitness testimony. The same goes for the disciples who stated it. If they were alive we would bring them before the court to testify on the stand. You have not given any reason why they should not be believed.

  Second, to say that the Illead maybe in part archeologically correct doesn't validate the Greek Gods, does not invalidate the Bible. The Illead will have to stand or fall on its own. We are hearing proving the case for God.

  Third, circumstantial evidence is used all of the time to prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, most criminal trials are prosecuted on circumstanital evidence.

  Fourth, we have discussed the existence of universal truths before. But I would present one here for an example, the Holocaust. Now even those who engaged in that behavior thought it was right when they were doing it, the world's population declared it wrong. The fact that one person thinks he is justified in his actions, does not mean that it is not univesially accepted that killing millions of people is wrong. Yet societies evolution could support the idea that inferior people should be killed to insure the survival of the most healthly race.

  God Bless
• 

  indireneed

  This is a pretty interesting argument that I've thought of myself. Looking at this from the point of view of someone who is not a Christian, this is my assessment.

  #1. The idea that there are three Mary Magdelene's is pretty funny. If so, maybe can I suggest there was more than one Jesus? One who thought he was god and one who didn't. Or perhaps a second and third John . . . there are three epistles of John. The Bible usually refers to a second person of same name by using another last name or 'the other', for example, the two Judas mentioned in the Bible. So, asserting that there were three, not identical Mary Magdelene's, is like trying to argue the Trinity. There are arguments for, there are arguments against, but in the end, it's an apology.

  #2. The ample existence of god is all around us. However, there is also ample existence of a god not from the Bible. One simply has to choose which they prefer to accept. Do you accept dinasours, geological time, cavemen and fossils? Or do you emphasize orderliness, existence, etc. The fact is, you can't disprove god and you can't prove god. Hell, it's hard enough to prove that we're alive (I think therefor I am . . .)

  #3. I think viewpoints are irrelevant. We're not talking about viewpoints here, we are talking about inspired scripture - i.e., infallible, in-your-face, given by god scripture. Thus, viewpoints should not cloud the vision. If women should not speak in meetings, then women should not speak in meetings. If Mary saw Jesus before Peter, than she saw Jesus before Peter. Different viewpoints are fine, as long as they do not conflict, the question is, do they really conflict?

  #4. My opinion: I think that these accounts do conflict. I believe that different men wrote different things at different times. Maybe Jesus was divine, maybe he was inspired, but the Bible is just a hollow image. It's got good points and bad points, but it is not 'alive'. It pisses me off that people take what they want literally and what they don't want figuratively. Oh, women just can't give talks . . . no, they shouldn't speak unless to their husband after the meeting. What a joke.