Doug Shaver

I've tried it that way a couple of times. I couldn't make it work. But then, I'm a skeptic, so that doesn't count as a failure.

Doug Shaver

Oh, so a request for clarification is really obfuscation?

Goodness. Orwell would have been so proud of you.

Doug Shaver

Plus Acts plus I Corinthians. Musn't forget them.

It might be barely possible for just the gospels. I'm not sure. But there's no way to get them to hang together and then squeeze in all of Paul's particulars.

sschlichter

You told me to include Acts and 1 Cor 15, so I did.

You then told me that you were going to go thru the chronological arrangements of the gospels I supplied and check them for coherence. Did you change your mind?

~Steve

sschlichter

There is nothing in Acts and 1 Cor 15 that contradicts with the gospels.

sschlichter

What of Paul's particulars could not fit? Do you need me to add two more columns?

sschlichter

Who besides the disciples would have wrote anything about Jesus? What would have been anyone else's motives for writing about Jesus?

Keith&Co.

Zombies walking around in public?
Miracles performed, reportedly infront of oodles of witnesses?
Wholesale slaughter of newborns?
Raising of the dead?

No one noted any of these events, or rumors of these events, at the time of these events?

No one would report any of the events, except as an annotation to the biography of the Christ?

This sounds historically sound to you?

Sheshbazzar

Looks like you and your fellow apologist sschlichter need to have a talk.
Did the Saviour breathe The Holy Ghost on them? or, is it as sschlchter argues. "Nothing happened here."? Do you agree with his statement?

Your narrative appears to be supportive of the majority Christian position that the first instance, when He "breathed on them", was the Apostolic "first-fruits", receiving the "first-fruits" of The Holy Ghost, the "earnest" (a down-payment) on that total outpouring and "filling" of The Holy Spirit that was to be fully accomplished Fifty days latter on The Day of Pentecost.
If that is your position, it opposes sschlichter, If that is not your position, and you agree with sschlichter, then you really need to revise, reword and clarify your narrative so that it does not present Him actually "breathing The Holy Ghost on them".
You might want to review the preceding arguments that have been made about this matter, and perform a web search as to survey the opinions and the reasoning of your fellow Christians on this particular subject.

Further, SO WHAT if He had been "dead for 3 days?" Did He not come back to life?, and He now lives evermore?
Does it seem proper to imply that He was suffering from a extreme case of halitosis because of His former death?
And that His "grave breath" would have percluded Him from the conveying the Holy Ghost to His Apostles by breathing on them?
Certainly most Christians would find such a view to be offensive.
Yet that is the implication of sschlichter's post.

sschlichter

I do not know how many witnesses are oodles, but his brothers felt he should stop doing his miracles in secret.

(John 7:3) So Jesus' brothers advised him, "Leave here and go to Judea so your disciples may see your miracles that you are performing.
(John 7:4) For no one who seeks to make a reputation for himself does anything in secret. If you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."
(John 7:5) (For not even his own brothers believed in him.)

Beyond those who beleived him, I would not see any reason for anyone to write about the hearsay of miracles. I do not think someone crucified for making wild claims and sorcery was headline news.

Also, everyone who did believe them had very good reason for not talking or writing about it. they were afraid.

(John 7:13) However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish leaders.

(John 12:42) Nevertheless, even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess Jesus to be the Christ, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue.
(John 12:43) For they loved praise from men more than praise from God.

What the Jews had to say about Jesus can be found in the Talmud. that he was a bastard, dabbled in sorcery, ordered stoned to death and hung from a tree. Who was going to say anything (or even care to ) besides his followers?

Not that I beleive Philo, all the way from Alexandria had ever heard of Jesus, but if he had, Philo the Pharisee was not going to say something miraculous about him?

Also, since you beleive that ALL theists necessarily experience cognitive dissonance, then this is also a good reason why no one would have discussed it. CD would also have prevented any discussion from those whose beleifs were being challenged. Wouldn't you agree that CD is what ALL the theist Jews must have experienced?