Sauron

But there are no outside bible sources that say that.

But they shouldn't contradict. Especially if they are divinely inspired.

Nobody is suggesting a conspiracy, however.

That isn't the most likely explanation.

We're only talking about the evidence here.

James Brown

That's fine, but what is your support for that assertion?

Good point, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that the four gospels are the result of a conspiracy, at least not in this thread. The very fact that the gospel writers can't get their stories straight is all the support I need to be confident that this isn't a conspiracy.

Earlier you mentioned that if the gospel writers had imitated each other word for word we would suspect collusion and plagiarism. There's two problems with this idea. First, there is plenty of word-for-word copying in the Synoptic gospels. It is quite clear that both Matthew and Luke had an open copy of Mark in front of them as they wrote, but nobody has suggested that this disqualifies their gospels as authentic. A bit more collaboration isn't going to make any difference.

Second, there is a world of difference between collaboration and consistency. To use your movie-review example, two people can watch a movie and write summaries without having to ensure they are word-for-word identical. Each viewer can even emphasize the points of the movie that they preferred or didn't care for. But if in their summaries they then reveal major contradictions in plot and character, then we are free to wonder if one or the other actually saw the movie. Suppose you and I both watched, say, Gone With The Wind. You might spend more time discussing the emotional turmoil between Scarlett, Rhett, and Ashley, where I might focus on how the War and Sherman's march--outside events beyond the control of the main characters--was the driving force behind their triumphs and downfalls. By no means would our reviews have to be identical. But if your review stated that Scarlett was a gentle woman who deferred to the men in her life, or if my review stated Rhett was just a simple country fellow who wanted nothing more than to raise chickens on a small farm, then a third party would be free to question if either of us actually saw the movie.

But even worse, if your review revealed that at movie's end Rhett walked out on Scarlett and in mine I said how pleased I was to see Rhett and Scarlett lived happily ever after--namely, if our reviews were contradictory--then anyone would be free to make their own conclusions.

And again, in the resurrection stories, the inconsistencies are not about the minor details. The gospel writers can't seem to get straight how many people arrived at the tomb, or the placement of the stone. They disagree about how many men/angels were there, the presence of guards, or whether there was an earthquake. Did the disciples check Mary's story? If so, how many? Why did Mary tell John that Jesus' body was missing when both an angel and Jesus himself tell her he was risen? Why did the angel tell Mary that Jesus will see them later in Galilee when Jesus was standing right behind her? Why did Jesus show himself to Mary but not Peter and John? Why didn't Peter and John see the two angels in the tomb but Mary did? Why did God send two angels in order for one of them to ask Mary a simple question, the same question asked by Jesus a minute later? Why did Mark say the women went home, where the other writers said they went to tell the disciples?

These are not mere stylistic differences in details--these are flat-out contradictions that make the entire account suspect. What, if anything, did these writers actually know?

But as we've stated before, there are other non-magical reasons for a tomb to be empty. Grave-robbers, for one. The presence of the grave clothes doesn't preclude that theory--they could have been left behind when the robbers partially unwrapped Jesus to confirm it was him before making off with his body; they could have been leftover from Joseph's burial; they could have been the grave-clothes of another corpse entirely. Another possibility is that Joseph took Jesus' body away before the women arrived--he had to bury Jesus quickly by sundown before the Sabbath, but on Sunday morning he was free to take Jesus' body to its final resting place. Or we could say that if the gospel writers could get so many other minor details wrong then perhaps they got the details about the grave clothes wrong, as well. After all, you've been arguing that the stories are bound to be incorrect due to all the hearsay and elapsed time--doesn't that disclaimer also apply to this one snippet about grave clothes?

If all we have to go on is that a tomb was empty, a supernatural explanation should be the last one we cling to. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if what evidence we do have is contradictory, that makes the claim more difficult to support, not less.

I think the one thing we can truly rely on is that we don't know. We don't know what happened that morning, and we likely never will. There's too little evidence for us to make a prudent, intelligent decision, and what evidence we do have is so contradictory as to make it unreliable. Who knows what evidence was destroyed during the fall of Jerusalem. But not knowing is okay. There are countless events in history in which we will never be able to fully understand due to lack of evidence. Until we learn more, this event, like all those others, is best left as "unproven."

aa5874

I don't understand what you are saying. So, if 50,000 spectators went to a baseball game, and all 50,000 say that a home run was hit in the 7th ining, then it is almost certain that no home run was hit, since all 50,000 stories are identical.

For statements about any event to be considered credible, statements about the event should be consistent and there should be some corroboration, if available, by external independent parties, that is parties who would not stand to benefit from the statements.

The NT has failed in both respect. The NT claimed Jesus had thousands of followers and was extremely popuplar while alive, yet there is no credible statement from any independent source in the 1st century about his resurrection. Secondly, the statements about his resurrection are not credible and cannot be verified. A real human cannot walk through a sealed tomb, that is, no person can go through solid rock.

The resurrection, as described in the NT, is a biological and physical impossibility.

gracebkr

I am sorry for the confusion on this point. I have said on this board that the Bible was inspired by God, written by man. I also use outside Bible sources if I am trying to make a point. So I don't follow only the Bible for my beliefs, for me it is good enough, but for you I need more then that. Sometimes for me too.


If you think this was made up, then it would be a conspiracy. If they knew Jesus died and hid the body and lied about His resurrection, it can only be that. Even if the body was stolen and they made up His resurrection, it would be a conspiracy.

The things they wrote that were synoptic, were Jesus' words. They traveled with Him and heard His stories repeatedly. Think about your parents and the stories they retold so many times when you were a kid and you can recite them word for word. Two different types of memories here. One is viewing and drawing a conclusion from what you thought you witnessed and another from repetition of the same old sayings.


Right. Doesn't mean we didn't though. Doesn't mean we lied.

This would be the end, of course if we got the ending wrong people might be confused. But if the ending was the same and the middle was mixed, same idea of stuff, but not exact, then what?

Perhaps they should get Mary Magdalene's account in the Bible. You know this is just an example of how men don't think women are good enough. Obviously they are important, because Jesus appeared to the women first Their first person account is the most important.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
These are not mere stylistic differences in details--these are flat-out contradictions that make the entire account suspect. What, if anything, did these writers actually know?

This is the next topic. We can discuss later if you wish or now, I don't know if you want to jump all around.



It will always be unproven. Unless God Himself comes down here and say it is true right? From a historical standpoint, with my religion out, anything is possible. Everything you suggest is possible. What is the probability? The probability that Jesus did not exist? The probability that the story is a conspiracy? The probability the the disciples who refused Him would then risk their lives to teach about Him? The probability the tomb was robbed?

gracebkr

I think I explained this in my last post to James. Even though I know you know the difference.

Jesus was a poor man who preached. Are any reporters now a days gonna go find poor men who preach? His was insignificant to the majority of people. Many times in that era when preachers started to become popular the were executed. The Romans did the same to Jesus, but unlike the other preachers, His preaching turned into a religion. The others legacies died with them, Jesus became more.

Why are they not credible? Is God resurrected considered a real human? Even if you don't believe the story, does that make sense?

Aren't people currently trying to freeze themselves or something to be brought back later? Why don't you see that if My God (I know you are an atheist and don't believe in God, but you want to assume things about the God I believe in, this is a simple correction, not an attack or anything like that) created all life, He surely is further advanced scientifically then anyone on this planet. We can discuss evidence for science in the Bible too in another thread if you wish.

Sven

This is news to me. Got any references to back this up?

Please do so. Be aware that I'll counter it with "science" from the Quran and from Epicurus - both did much better than the bible.

spamandham

If, all four Gospels are later legendary stories from different churches based on a single prior story, then there is no conspiracy, and we would expect to find both widespread similarities, as well as some degree of differences (depending on how isolated they were from eachother). If that original prior work was a work of fiction (or at least highly fictionalized), all is explained, without the need to appeal to anything extraordinary.

(nevermind that conspiracies do actually happen sometimes, so even that idea is not outlandish).

This thread started early on with parallels to prophecy and Jesus being buried in a rich man's tomb. This fits just fine with the FJ position, as it helps to demonstrate that Mark (/pre-Mark) intended for his story to show the fulfillment of prophecy.

If the only evidence we have for the fulfillment of a prophecy are writings written later by people who would be expected to be familiar with that prophecy, then this is not evidence of a fulfilled prophecy at all.

Purported fulfillment of prophecy works AGAINST your position unless such fulfillment can be independently strongly verifed, as the simpler explanation is that someone just made the story up to show fulfillment of prophecy.

gracebkr

The last thing you said insinuates a conspiracy.

This thread was started on the resurrection, not on Isaiah's prophesies. I threw it in there, but not to change the subject. I do understand what you are saying about the prophesies, but what you are suggesting is a conspiracy then. If they threw it in there knowing it was false either at the beginning or 200 years later, it is a conspiracy. It would be a known lie they all agreed upon to fool people.

gracebkr

I heard a scholar on a special say that, in order to be a scholar you have to have an extensive amount of knowledge on a certain subject, I am sure you know. I don't even know what to google to get what I am looking for specifically. I found this however which suggests what I said. I will keep looking though.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...us/arrest.html

aa5874

Jesus, as described in the NT, was definitely not an insignificant figure. In the Gospels, Jesus was followed by great multitudes. Matthew 13:2, And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went unto a ship, and sat: and the whole multitude stood on the shore."

And it was not the Romans, according to the NT, who wanted Jesus dead it was the chief priest, scibes and elders. Matthew 26:3-4, 'Then assembled the together the chief priest, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.
And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill him."

Yuo have no evidence for your God. And are claiming that the body of Jesus was removed the tomb and placed on ice or some type of cooling system for the last 2000 years?