Atheos

Once again the context makes this highly unlikely. In "Luke's" version the ladies tell the disciples (which includes Peter, who is specifically listed) about the angel, the message of Jesus being resurrected, etc., and "Luke" says their words seemed as idle tales to the disciples. Luke is quite clear that this very extrordinary information was presented to Peter before he ran to the tomb to investigate. That's a far cry from the more sedate "someone took the body and we don't know where they laid him." in "John".

... evidently nobody else did either. At least some people showed signs of being rational. So why should we believe it today when we can't even find the remotest piece of evidence that any of this extrordinary stuff ever happened? Honestly, which is more likely:

• Superstitious people developed oral legends about "Jesus" (that early apologist Justin Marter admitted looked very much like legends about various "Sons of Jupiter") that grew over time and were eventually collected into books that people came to venerate
• An incorporeal god impregnated a virgin woman who bore a male child; the child lived for 33 years without ever doing anything wrong; the child was offered as a human blood sacrifice in order to appease the most loving god imaginable so he could forgive imperfect human beings for nothing other than being imperfect human beings. Said "son of god" came back to life after being dead for 1.5 days and then floated off into the sky, promising to return later and toss all those who are skeptical that all this happened into a lake of fire.
• A group of green space aliens landed in my back yard last night, grabbed me and drug me kicking and screaming into their spaceship. They subjected me to anal probes and took samples of my hair, silava and urine. They then shoved me back down the ramp into my back yard and took off. Strangely, even the landing pads on their spaceship didn't leave any indentations on the grass. But I swear it happened...

Let me think about it for a nanosecond...

dr lazer blast

no it doesn't say anything actually. I tried to create a contradictory story, and I failed beacuse I didn't think it through well enough, and how my story with no contradictions in it, can be compared to the bible is an example of you flailing to prove a point.



those could be ANY guards, those could be guards that wern't even posted near but saw what happened at a distance, those could be guards that heard about what happened from different people and told the high priests, or the angel could've killed 2 of the guards, and the other guards ran away in fear and told the priests what happened. It doesn't say "the 2 guards that were killed went and told the watch" it just says "some of the watch came into the city" yet you're narrowing it down to 2 guards, and saying that 'some of the watch' is those 2 specific guards.




I haven't went to one apologetic site regarding my narraitive. I know what the bible says, I presented my narrative and all I am doing right now is ironing out the small details so people can understand it better.

I read the gospels and put them into an account that makes sense. As I said before, all I am doing is ironing out the details, I don't expect it to be perfect the first time I wrote it down.

"Luke" does, indeed, say they returned to Jerusalem, but he's also thoughtful enough to provide the exact location of where they are returning from. Read the two previous verses and you'll see that according to "Luke" he "led them out as far as to Bethany". Acts (most folks believe it was written by whoever wrote "Luke") clarifies that the distance was "about a Sabbath day's Journey" that took them back to Jerusalem. "Luke" is very specific and insists that the disciples did not go to Galilee between the day they first saw the ressurected Jesus and the time they were "endued with power from on high". I have no clue why the writer might have thought that to be an important detail but it would be difficult for the writer to have stated it any more clearly. And it clearly contradicts "Matthew" and "Mark's" claim that the disciples were to (and eventually did) go find Jesus in Galilee.

I've been criticized by fundies for "quote mining" the bible and lifting verses out of context many times. It seems odd that I'm on the other end trying to talk a fundamentalist into checking the context of a bible verse. [/QUOTE]

you seem to be making arguments from silence, you also seemed to ignore my previous post where I plugged in the verses from matthew into luke, and acts into luke.

He led them out as far as Bethany and lifted his hands up and blessed them. So basically its saying, He led them out as far as Bethany to bless them the first time, then He blessed them, then they continued on to Galilee. Once again, no contradictions there. Does it say "they stopped at Galilee"? no it doesn't, once again you're using arguments from silence. Saying that because Luke had no mention of Galilee, that it is impossible for them to travel to Galilee. Bethany was close to jerusalem, about 2 or 3 miles, so its not going to take them 7 days to walk 2 or 3 miles back to Jerusalem. However it does take them about 6-7 days to walk from Galilee to Jersualem. It also does not say they returned from Betheny. Like I said, read my previous post where I plugged in Matthew and Acts into the book of Luke. Ill even repost it.

Bolded is in Matthew 28.

Bolded is from the book of acts.

No contradictions. They went from betheny to Galilee, he brought them as far as betheney to bless them the first time, then they went to Galilee.

Amaleq13

I did but claiming that Mary didn't believe the angels is just as ridiculous and certainly doesn't lend credibility to this ridiculous apologetic. There is no doubt in Matthew's account. There is only fear, joy and acceptance of what they were told as being true.

I can handle all the nonsense you are willing to shovel, amigo. It is like shooting fish in a barrel.

No, wherever his body was but you are wrong (again) because the angel specifically did tell her where he was going:

And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. (Mt 28:7)

You can struggle and fight the obvious but the fact remains that the depiction given by Matthew is completely inconsistent with her being confused about the location of the body.

It still makes no sense for her to talk about the location of his body and only more so given she was specifically told he was headed for Galilee.

Thomas wasn't told anything by angels so that really isn't analogous or helpful to your cause.

Your example fails to support such a notion since, as the text clearly states, she had not risen until Jesus helped her up.

See? Sleeping rather than dead. Arisen rather than laying down.

As you can see, nobody referred to her as risen until she got up from her apparent deathbed.

Does anybody refer to him as risen from the dead before he walked out of the tomb? No.

Now try it will all the information as you are supposed to be doing.

So, Mary not seeing the body and hearing from the angels that he had risen from the dead and was going to Galilee ahead of the disciples, and running with joy to tell the disciples, wanted to know where the body is...

Surely, despite your faith, you can see the incoherence?

Kharakov

Well, anyways, to stop pulling lazer blast's chain, here's whats really going on:

The bible is about the hyperspatial occurrences that occurred in each of the individuals (Mark, Matt, Luke, John) prime dimensions. As each of them walked through their own dimension, which was unique and had slightly different events, and all of the apostles wrote their experiences down exactly, the perceived differences are actually very helpful for understanding the hyperspatial nature of the Universe: that some of us cross between different alternate universes due to various reasons.

Jesus learned of the hyperspatial nature of the universe, which lead to him being able to be "resurrected" for in one universe, he was dead, but in another he was alive. The alive Jesus stole his body from the universe in which he was dead, and the energy imbalance caused by transporting matter from one universe to another resulted in a minor earthquake which caused the rock to roll from his tomb.

Anytime an energy imbalance is created between dimensions, it creates a ripple effect through all dimensions: this is what happened when Jesus removed his dead body to con people into worshiping him in other dimensions (he may arrive soon, before hyperspatial physics exposes his trickery).

Anyways, all the contradictions in the bible, and fulfilled prophecies, are due to hyperspatial beings who travel through time and parallel dimensions bringing their stories to themselves. Some of them seek to rule all dimensions, via setting up a framework to conquer a dimension prior to that dimensions scientific knowledge encompassing hyperspatial physics ("which basically makes "resurrection", walking on water, and prophecy things people can do in the safety of their own homes" Popular Science, June 2236).

temporalillusion

This post is relevant to my interests, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

dr lazer blast

There is no acceptance, show me the scripture where it shows acceptance, however there is a lot of doubt, some doubted even when they saw Jesus.



Theres plenty of doubt, so it wouldn't suprise me if Mary Magdelene doubted that Jesus had rose from the dead.



Ok, so "I know now where they hath lain him" could easily be "I don't know where he has lain him, somewhere in Galilee"

Once again, no contradiction.



Wrong again. Let me show you the difference.

Now look and see how mary says it after she saw Jesus for herself.


So as you can see, there was a difference. When she saw Jesus for herself, she told the disciples that she had seen the Lord and had spoken things to her. A lot different then when she hadn't seen Jesus.


doubt is still doubt regardless of whether of who said what. Some people even doubted AFTER they saw Jesus.

so it doesn't really matter if its angels, men or Jesus, people still doubted.


The ponit of all that, is that the people that rose from the dead, were around the spot where their bodies were.



First off there was no specific location. If someone said "the body is in Los Angels" I'd probably be inclined to ask 'where in los angels?' and if they didn't give me any more information all I would have is "Los Angels" not very specific as L.A. is a big area, and a human body is a realitivly small thing, so I would know "L.A." but I don't know where in los angels, thus still 'not knowing where the body is'
secondly, she didn't run with 'just' joy, she ran with joy and fear.

so yes, the way you put it, it is incoherent, but the way it is put in the narrative, it is not incoherent.

crispy

Could be a fun computer game actually :>

Kharakov

Hypergoogle "Hyperspace Jesus". It's only available if you have hypernet access, it is not available through regular 4d spacetime ISPs due to various legal issues about introducing primitive cultures to advanced technology. Those in charge like to have 3rd universe realms in which they can create interesting scenarios.

temporalillusion

See, self righteous hyper-beings always holding us down...

Amaleq13

They clearly accepted the word of the angel when they went with joy (and fear) to relate it to the disciples.

You need something to support your claim that Mary doubted the angel. You haven't got it but there is plenty to deny it. Your lack of surprise that Mary "might" have doubted does not qualify.

Ah, the retreat begins. There is no justification for thinking a risen corpse who has gone on to Galilee ahead of the disciples where he will see them has been "lain" anywhere. The accounts simply do not match up on this point.

You haven't shown me to be wrong once, let alone "again".

In John's version, the angels don't tell Mary that he has risen. You've shown no difference that is relevant let alone that supports your ridiculous attempt at harmonization. You've only managed to highlight the difference.

Or been told that he had risen. You need to put more thought into your apologetics. Or, at least, reread the accounts before you reply. You keep forgetting you need to include everything. It makes no sense for the angels to tell Mary that Jesus has risen after Jesus has appeared to her and told her himself. And it continues to make no sense for Mary to wonder where the body of Jesus had been laid if, as the other accounts tell us, the angel informed her he had risen and would meet the disciples in Galilee.

No, the point is you are still ignoring that Mary was specifically told where Jesus had gone (or would be) and this continues to destroy your harmonization attempt.

How disingenuous of you! She was not just told that "the body" was in Galilee (though that, alone, would be sufficient to contradict her alleged confusion). She was told the location of Galilee (specific enough to deny your nonsense) and that he would see the disciples there. There simply is no rational justification for her to assume Jesus was still dead and his body's location unknown given what the angel tells her in the other accounts. They simply and clearly do not match up.

I never suggested otherwise and my point remains. There is no indication of doubt.

The way I put it is the way the story must read if we take them all together. Pretending otherwise does your credibility no good.