Adam

Strike-out! Apparently everyone accepts my call, as the dust has settled over this thread.

Kapyong

Seriously?

In fact no-one accepts your call - and have said so many times in several threads.


Kapyong

Chili

I don't even understand the argument. Is it about dating? or simply the fact that it was supernatural.

He went to hell, and does that still make it supernatural? and so did Matthew, and I really do not see why anybody would ever make Mark worth reading a second time.

Adam

My "pitch" in my Post #24 was that the Resurrection accounts are not contradictory after all, and though some here obviously disagree, no one has made a serious attempt to refute me or to refer me to someone who has.

Toto

Probably because the contradictions are so blatant

Dan Barker's Easter Challenge

Adam

Yes, I read this from Barker before, and I was impressed with the conflict between Jerusalem and Galilee for the first Resurrection appearance. Now I have worked through that one, which seems to me to be the only substantial conflict. The rest comes from different eyewitness perpectives (the blind man and the elephant analogy) and from faulty transmission to our extant texts. This is all good proof against inerrantism and Fundamentalism.
I don't believe that there was an earthquake over a wide area in the conventional sense. In general the text of Matthew is more removed than the others from the original report, not reading at all like a first-hand report. I would also concede that much of Matthew 27:51-54 did not happen as literally described.
This excerpt gets at the substantive issue, but my identification of Jesus's "biological" brothers gets us around this. Mt. 28:16 on the mountain was the first appearance to Jesus's brothers and most disciples, and it was in Galilee.

Barker's later long itemized list of discrepancies does indeed dispense with inerrantism, but let me know if you find any of these to be important contradictions that are not covered by my "Jesus's brothers" reconciliation.

Sheshbazzar

In other words just omit or discount any portion of these texts that do not conform to your personal preconceptions.

Adam

Not really. The methods of Lower Criticism can be applied to Higher Criticism as well. However, in the latter the convergence may be on two (or even three, I suppose) original accounts from a different source (as by differing reports from different women). It might leave only an educated guess as to the event being reported.

My own original predilection was for Resurrection not to mean a physical body, but a preference for a "ghost" who goes through walls and not someone able to eat physically. And where did the Body go? Wishing does not make it so. I was even willing to believe that the way God pulled off the Resurrection was to induce visions in the disciples. (By the principle of parsimony, I guess even now that might be so.) As of now I think Jesus appeared in a transcendent body between flesh and spirit, so we need not think of it as having a "place" now.

Chili

It is very simple: Jesus is the transition stage in metamorphosis wherein humans shed the ego be be left with the imago only. Jesus was like the pupa stage wherein the naked animal man gets exposed and then retrieves his attributes so that reason will prevail.

Notice that this happened to Joseph who stepped aside to let Jesus do the job, so the real question becomes: who was Jesus if Christ was born to Joseph.

Who was Mary is also a good question if she was without sin = not human.

Sheshbazzar

nWeird.

Sounds like a plot in a low budget B SyFy-Horror flick. like 'The Brain Eating Zombie From Beyond' or 'The THING That Wouldn't Die'.

Allowing that there ever was one, how do you think Gawd disposed of the physical carcass?

I recall there were old Jewish legends about Jee'bus having the head of a ass. Maybe like in 'The THING' his carcass got stuck while being part way transmogrified into a jackass.