Roland

So are you saying that "eleven" doesn't really mean eleven? This is exactly why no "contradiction" will ever be conceded by an inerrantist because he or she will just stretch the meanings of words until they have no meaning. Maybe Luke meant that all eleven disciples really were present and that either he was unaware that Thomas was absent or Thomas was really there and John made up Thomas' absent to make a theological point about faith.

Wayne Delia

That's a very interesting apologetic, and it's a textbook example of "smokescreening and handwaving," employed to create an obfuscation (intentional confusion) of the argument.

The problem here is that the author of Luke reports an incident in which Jesus appears to "the eleven" surviving disciples. There's a contradictory story of the same incident in the Book of John, where the author writes in that Thomas was absent in order to set up the "Doubting Thomas" story to communicate the point that it's good for people to have faith without asking for evidence.

So, in a nutshell, here's the argument, and here's your essential response:

1) Author of John asserts that Jesus appeared to only ten disciples. Thomas was not present, leaving ten disciples.
2) Author of Luke asserts that Jesus appeared to all eleven disciples at one time.
3) The contradiction, obviously, is that the number of disciples Jesus appeared to does not match between the Book of Luke and the Book of John.
4) Your explanation answers the problem of why there wasn't twelve disciples: Judas committed suicide by one of several methods, and was later replaced by Matthias.

The explanation is a red herring. The total number of disciples after Judas whacked himself isn't the problem. The problem is that Jesus is reported to have appeared before all eleven disciples in one book, and in the same incident reported in another book, one disciple is intentionally missing.

The only plausible explanation is that the Bible doesn't mean what it says in certain verses - when it says "appeared to the eleven" in Luke, it doesn't actually mean "eleven", but some other number.

Makes ya wonder how much of the rest of the Bible is intentionally deceptive.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Actually, as I have demonstrated on other threads, I can logically disprove the existence of the Christian God. It requires an assumption, a premise that the Bible is inerrant when speaking about God's character. Combine 1 John 4:8 ("God is love"), 1 Corinthians 13:4 ("Love is not jealous"), and Exodus 20:5 ("I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God"), and such a God is not logically possible. An explanation of "God is above logic" renders any coherent statement about God, positive or negative, completely meaningless. Many translations of the Bible use "envious" in place of "jealous" in 1 Corinthians 13:4, but "envious" is the operating definition and primary synonym of "jealous". Insisting on the existence of God refutes (by "argumentum ad absurdem") the premise that the Bible is inerrant when discussing God's character - and that opens up a whole Pandora's Box of problems.

So, how's your "little experiment" going now?

WMD

Roland

As to the Mary Magdalene question, check out Farrell Till's brilliant analysis of this contradiction in the thread he started. He says it far better than I ever could. Suffice it to say that just saying that both an angel and Jesus told Mary about his resurrection doesn't carry water because if the angel had told her (as in Matthew's account) she wouldn't have run to the disciples saying the body had been stolen.

Finally, the resurrection appearance in Matthew would have to have been the FOURTH such sighting of Jesus by the apostles since John 21:14 specifically identifies Jesus' appearance to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias as the THIRD.

So let's count:

1st sighting: in a room in Jerusalem (Thomas present in Luke, absent in John)

2nd sighting: a week later with Thomas present

3rd sighting: at the Sea of Tiberias

That means that the sighting portrayed by Matthew would have to be at least the fourth appearance recorded. Yet, Matthew still states that, upon seeing Jesus, "some doubted." Still? After four appearances? Yet, John makes it seem like Thomas is the only doubter even after the first appearance. This narrative just doesn't hold together.

ggazoo

The debates against God would take us to naturalism, in which the universe has no purpose or meaning to it. So, therefore, we should logically not be here.

The fact that we're even here at all should suggest that we're not here by accident. So why are we here then?

GenesisNemesis

Tell me, if there's no purpose to life, why do Atheists still live? This is one of the worst arguments for a God.

Amaleq13

Neither your conclusion nor your question logically follows from the facts (ie non sequiturs) but, more importantly, this is a discussion best held in a different forum (eg Philosophy or EoG).

ggazoo

Or is it that you don't like that I answered?

Well, all I can say is there are four separate accounts from four different writers, and they are all pretty much consistent. It's kind of like when four different people witness an accident or a crime... they are simply telling the resurrection their own way.

Again, everything has to be taken into context. Who's to say that she didn't run to the disiples BEFORE the angel came? Don't quote me on that though, I can't say for sure... I don't have the verses in front of me right now.

ggazoo

Of course there is purpose in life. Atheists sometimes say that Christians accuse them of not having morals either. The misunderstanding is that (most) Christians know that everyone has a morals, and everyone has a purpose, just as atheists do, but Christians believe that they come from God, that's all.

EarlOfLade

So, he was only seen once? Is that what you are saying?

If that is the case, why the different locations if all the 4 writers were present?