Ebonmuse

The interesting thing about the gospel accounts is that, after the resurrection, the discrepancy rate suddenly goes completely wild - they have no events in common. If something similar was true of witnesses in a criminal case, I'd conclude that they collaborated to produce their testimony up to a certain point, but when questioned beyond that point, they had forgotten to work out those details ahead of time and had to invent them independently. It's like the classic case of the students who miss a test and tell their professor their car got a flat, and so he puts each of them in separate rooms and gives them a test paper with just one question: "Which tire?"

I would wager you've never had a case where your witnesses claimed to be inspired by a perfect God or to be conveying information necessary for eternal salvation. When the stakes are that high, I'd expect a little more than ordinary faulty human memory.

gagster

I'll have to confess that I don't understand why people ask this question. The answer is right at the front of the debate:

So, the answer is Jason Gastrich. :banghead:


Greg

ten to the eleventh

One thing that has not been mentioned in this particular debate is the well-known post-resurrection account in Matthew wherein the many long-dead saints rise from the grave and go into Jerusalem and are seen by everyone. Jason is, of course, right that some (just a couple) details of the apparently contradictory accounts of the gospels can be reconciled by a claim of simple omission, but this explanation can only reasonably be applied to minor details.

The saints story cannot possibly be explained away in this fashion. I think it is the most extraordinary claim in all four of the gospels; greater than the virgin-birth, greater than the guiding star, greater than turning water into wine, and certainly greater that the "resurrection" of a very freshly "dead" Jesus (these were long-dead rotted corpses).

Isn't this the most glaring contradiction of the post-resurrection accounts? Why hasn't Sean used this? I'm sure there is a reason; I just cannot imagine it. Any help?



And, could somebody please tell me why my homepage link below links to a teen-porn website? Did Satan do that?

Doctor X

Few people know that the intended sequel to The Passion is Dawn of the Dead. . . .

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I assume you are referring to the soon-to-be-released remake of the original? Does that make the black guy who got shot at the end of Night of the Living Dead a Christ figure?

Doctor X

Of course, and the director is the one actually doing the shooting to demonstrate that we are ALL responsible for killing brain devouring zombies. . . .

Hopefully, the film will lay to rest the propaganda of atheists who contend, despite all of the clear textual evidence, that a historical zombie does not exist.

--J.D.

CX

As strong as the temptation might be to take pot shots at the personalities involved (okay one particular personality) lets avoid discussion of individuals and stick to discussion of their arguments (and in some cases I realize one must use that word in the absolute loosest sense).

Cheers

CX - BC&H Moderator

gagster

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. Sure, there are some omissions that don’t cast doubt on a story, but the kind that we cite do. Minor details can be omitted, but certainly not major ones.

If we were to read a story by someone who claimed to be in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and he didn’t mention what happened we’d doubt the accuracy of his story. If we read a story by a guy who said he was on the maiden voyage of the Titanic, but he didn’t mention that it sank, we’d conclude the guy just made it all up.

I was watching the pilot for The Streets of San Francisco not long ago. Karl Malden and Michael Douglas were asking a suspect some questions. The suspect said that he had driven home the previous night across the Golden Gate Bridge. Karl Malden told him that the bridge had been closed for three hours that night. The suspect immediately began to run; he knew he had been caught in a lie. There’s no way that he would have sat there for three hours, waiting for the bridge to be reopened, without mentioning it to the detectives.


Greg

Roland

14) Luke 24:33-35 - The men returned to Jerusalem and told the eleven and some other disciples how Jesus appeared to them and was alive.

14) John 20:18 - Mary M. told the disciples what she saw and what happened.

15) Mark 16:14-18 - Jesus appears to the eleven, rebukes their unbelief, and encourages them to do great things in His name.

15) Acts 1:4-5 - Jesus tells them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit.

15) John 20:19-25 - Jesus appeared to them. He showed them His body and proved He was the risen Christ. Thomas was not present and did not see Jesus, so he doubted.

IS JASON FOR REAL HERE? JESUS APPEARED TO "THE ELEVEN," YET THOMAS WAS ABSENT?

Sven

You're absolutely right. Along this line: Some (?) scholars doubt that Marco Polo actually has been to China. Why? Because: "The basic argument against Marco Polo involves a set of telling omissions." (for example he wrote nothing about the Great Wall) Read more at http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/polo.html

Sorry, I don't know if this is to be taken serious, but the fact alone that even Marco Polo's voyage is doubted because of omission is enough to doubt accounts of men who were not even eye-witnesses and contradict themselves.