Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DoubtingDave · 12-04-2011, 03:37 PM

Rabbi Tovia Singer has prepared this interesting chart on his website, outreachjudaism. http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/cru-chart.html

I would like your opinions and feedback of it. Christians, I am interested in rebuttals especially.

OLDMAN · 12-04-2011, 04:00 PM

To me that fact that the story is not cleaned up the way one would expect it to be if it were just a fictional account.. This leads me to suspect there was an actual person from whom the stories enimated. Instead we have stories that seem to originate from several different sources as one would get from a mouth to mouth accounting

dockeen · 12-04-2011, 06:18 PM

That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being
fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it.

Of course, having these inconsistent oral traditions show up in what some people
want to believe is this perfectly accurate, inerrant book can be a bit of a problem.

Adam · 12-04-2011, 08:13 PM

I've been a life-long student of the gospels, and problems at the tomb early on undermined inerrantism. However, the discrepancies resolve somewhat on closer study, and I extracted three eyewitness testimonies in my Noesis article "Resurrection Sources". Basically Matthew and Mark agree (based on what the Apostle Matthew wrote) and Luke and John agree based on what came from Peter and John Mark. The Walk to Emmaus is a third eyewitness record from a Simon (not Peter).
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Resurrection

Sheshbazzar · 12-04-2011, 09:21 PM

Yeah, sure. and I can get you thirty present day and identifiable 'eyewitnesses' willing to attest to Benny Hinn's miracles,
or to all of the details their abduction and anal probe by aliens.

OLDMAN · 12-04-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being
fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it.

Of course, having these inconsistent oral traditions show up in what some people
want to believe is this perfectly accurate, inerrant book can be a bit of a problem.

This is true. I think when we also look at most of what is attributed to Jesus in parables rings true. However, when the authors refer to Jesus climbing a mountain alone and then refer to what happened to him while there, it starts to sound suspect. One really has to deconstruct the whole story x 3 to garner what and who was the one now refered to as Jesus.

Toto · 12-04-2011, 09:31 PM

I haven't read the link in the OP thoroughly, but it looks like a variant of Dan Barker's Easter Challenge.

Quote:

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

Chili · 12-04-2011, 10:45 PM

I am confident that the bible is inerrant with 'no -ism about it' and see the difference here as complimenting each other in the message that is conveyed to the reader. IOW there is a reason why Mary the mother of James was not there in John but was at the other three and why only Magdalene was at John's. I can also see why Luke would draw a crowd but not Matthew and Mark.

Then I also see why Luke and John 'lifted the stone' instead of 'rolled it away' in that 'to lift' it means to remove by comprehension while rolling it away speaks to have been crushed by it, . . . after all, Jews were stone throwers in those day to settle arguments and Peters keen insight was to be the rock on which Jesus promised to built that church he had in mind. So it is no secret that stones speak on behalf of truth and here then the deciding factor as to whether Jesus would go to heaven or back to Galilee is already evident in this 'stone message' that itself was predictable with Matthew and Mark's Jesus complaining already on the cross that 'God had forsaken him.' In Matthew the 'angel of Light' rolled the stone away and I think they call him Lucifer as well, and then in Mark he does not even exist for Mark and would not be able have it rolled away. Mark does not know about angles and just leaves is closed, and then, are we not always trying to lift the very stone we are standing on when we are wrong?

Magdalene would be there in all four as she is illuminated by the soul and so by the othe Mary or angels send by her, and since there was no birth in John the mother of James would not be there . . . which kind of makes the birth story an allegory that describes the 'incipience' of new life 'awareness' and hence Herod can easy do his thing in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke where the manger and the swaddling cloth showed precaution all around.

Doug Shaver · 12-04-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLDMAN

To me that fact that the story is not cleaned up the way one would expect it to be if it were just a fictional account.

You have just proved that the King Arthur stories are not fiction. I have seen several King Arthur movies, and each is inconsistent with the others in several specifics, some of them rather important.

Doug Shaver · 12-04-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dockeen

That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it.

Popular, yes. Accurate, no.

12-04-2011, 03:37 PM	#1
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Confusion at the tomb Rabbi Tovia Singer has prepared this interesting chart on his website, outreachjudaism. http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/cru-chart.html I would like your opinions and feedback of it. Christians, I am interested in rebuttals especially.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2011, 04:00 PM	#2
OLDMAN Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: look behind you... Posts: 2,107	To me that fact that the story is not cleaned up the way one would expect it to be if it were just a fictional account.. This leads me to suspect there was an actual person from whom the stories enimated. Instead we have stories that seem to originate from several different sources as one would get from a mouth to mouth accounting

12-04-2011, 06:18 PM	#3
dockeen Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Panhandle Posts: 9,176	That does seem to be one of the popular ways to look at this, i.e. if the story were being fabricated from whole cloth, they would have done a better job of it. Of course, having these inconsistent oral traditions show up in what some people want to believe is this perfectly accurate, inerrant book can be a bit of a problem.

12-04-2011, 08:13 PM	#4
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	I've been a life-long student of the gospels, and problems at the tomb early on undermined inerrantism. However, the discrepancies resolve somewhat on closer study, and I extracted three eyewitness testimonies in my Noesis article "Resurrection Sources". Basically Matthew and Mark agree (based on what the Apostle Matthew wrote) and Luke and John agree based on what came from Peter and John Mark. The Walk to Emmaus is a third eyewitness record from a Simon (not Peter). http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Resurrection

12-04-2011, 09:21 PM	#5
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Yeah, sure. and I can get you thirty present day and identifiable 'eyewitnesses' willing to attest to Benny Hinn's miracles, or to all of the details their abduction and anal probe by aliens.

12-04-2011, 10:45 PM	#8
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	I am confident that the bible is inerrant with 'no -ism about it' and see the difference here as complimenting each other in the message that is conveyed to the reader. IOW there is a reason why Mary the mother of James was not there in John but was at the other three and why only Magdalene was at John's. I can also see why Luke would draw a crowd but not Matthew and Mark. Then I also see why Luke and John 'lifted the stone' instead of 'rolled it away' in that 'to lift' it means to remove by comprehension while rolling it away speaks to have been crushed by it, . . . after all, Jews were stone throwers in those day to settle arguments and Peters keen insight was to be the rock on which Jesus promised to built that church he had in mind. So it is no secret that stones speak on behalf of truth and here then the deciding factor as to whether Jesus would go to heaven or back to Galilee is already evident in this 'stone message' that itself was predictable with Matthew and Mark's Jesus complaining already on the cross that 'God had forsaken him.' In Matthew the 'angel of Light' rolled the stone away and I think they call him Lucifer as well, and then in Mark he does not even exist for Mark and would not be able have it rolled away. Mark does not know about angles and just leaves is closed, and then, are we not always trying to lift the very stone we are standing on when we are wrong? Magdalene would be there in all four as she is illuminated by the soul and so by the othe Mary or angels send by her, and since there was no birth in John the mother of James would not be there . . . which kind of makes the birth story an allegory that describes the 'incipience' of new life 'awareness' and hence Herod can easy do his thing in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke where the manger and the swaddling cloth showed precaution all around.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.