Secular Pinoy

Duly noted, Koy.

Roland

A clear contradiction occurs between Luke's account of Jesus' first appearance to the disciples after his resurrection and John's account.

Luke 24:33 states that "the eleven" were present when Jesus appeared and showed his wounds to them.

John 20:24, in dealing with the same incident, flatly states that Thomas was absent from the occasion.

I know that Jesus is supposed to be able to be in two places at once. But is Thomas?

Magus55

Um, 12 Apostles, one missing ( Thomas) = eleven

Treacle Worshipper

Magus, you weren't thinking. I've seen you do much better than this.
12 apostles, one dead (Judas) = eleven in total.
12 apostles, one dead, one missing = ten
TW

Roland

Thanks, Treacle.

I didn't think I would have to mention that fact in my original post.

Treacle Worshipper

You're welcome. I think Magus is a fairly recent convert to Xnity, so his misstep is understandable.
TW

davidH

Tabula_rasa,

That is not the answer to my question;

I answered the 'contradiction' from the NIV version which uses the word 'when' in place for 'in the day'.

Go back to my last post and read it.

The term 'for in the day' means 'when'. For example using what you have written above:

For God doth know that when you eat thereof, then your eyes will be opened....

It is exactly the same meaning - exactly the same as the last verse except u put in 'your eyes will be opened' in the place of 'death'.

But the point you are trying to make is that because Adam and Eve's eyes were opened on the very same day - that God must have been lying since they didn't die on the very same day.

The point I am trying to make is that by saying what God did - if Adam and Eve did die on the same day he would also have been telling the truth as if they had died when they did.

The term 'in the day' refers only to the time when they eat the fruit - and doesn't carry to mean their time of death.

I presume since no one else is debating apart from one person that they know this to be the case. Don't try to force the verse to say something that it doesn't.

'For in the day you eat of the fruit (ie. WHEN you eat of the fruit) you will surely die.'
My first answer using the NIV version stands.


Moving on to something else I read:

Sure Magnus made a mistake but this doesn't affect what he was attempting to show because there is no contradiction here, you have only made one out of it (and that is a generous statement). And the contradiction that you,Roland, have brought up in actual fact shows that you were not thinking or have not even examined it for yourself when you wrote it.

You are correct - it is the same event, and when the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus did arrive back in Jerusalem, the 'Eleven' and those with them are said to be present.

But what is not stated is that the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared. - Am I correct in saying this?

All that is said, is that they were all there when the disciples arrived back.

It's written that 'while they were still discussing these things Jesus appeared to them'.
Who knows the length of time after they arrived that Jesus appeared - 30mins? 2hrs? 5hrs?
All we know is that they were still discussing when he appeared.

And the passage in John that you mentioned tells us that Thomas
was not present when Jesus appeared. This is true, he was only present when the disciples arrived back from Emmaus, and so must have left.

How you can serious expect to see this as a contradiction I have no idea.

1. There is no passage that says Thomas, or even the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared.

How then can you say that Thomas was present, and the passage in John must be wrong?! When in actual fact it shows that Thomas must have left.

I am sure that you will agree with me Roland and Treacle Worshipper, that there is no contradiction here at all.
For those of you that which to persue this any further and say that it is not possible for Thomas to have left because all the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews.

It makes no difference whatsoever - Thomas is said to have not been there when Jesus came.

Hence the obvious conclusion in looking at the 2 passages is that Thomas must have left between the time when the disciples arrived and Jesus appearing.

Or maybe the conclusion you will draw is that the 2 passages must obviously contradict one another :banghead:

If there is no other Athiest on this forum that can come on and say that what I am saying is true about this 'contradiction' then I seriously dispair.

If anyone has any doubts about this, then I ask that some atheist on this board that does something to do with History come forward and tell truthfully whether this would cause the reliabilty between John and Luke to be questioned.

Edited to put something in Bold

Roland

David -

That may be the obvious conclusion to you, but I think it is illogical in the extreme. First of all, why would Luke write it AS IF the eleven disciples were there? I guess you expect Luke to keep saying over and over again throughout the story "the eleven, the eleven, the eleven." Yet, what writer writes like that? Once he said "the eleven" once there is no reason to repeat it, since all the readers will naturally assume that the eleven are still there.

And do you seriously think it would take that much time for those two guys to tell such a simple story?

And do you seriously think that Thomas - or anyone for that matter - would leave at such a time? The guys are only telling the disciples that they saw Jesus! Give me a break.

In addition, Mark 16: 14 also says that Jesus appeared to the 11 and "rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen." It seems to me this perfectly supports Luke's view.

It's obvious that John threw in that part about Thomas to make a point about "faith."

The fact is that Luke says "the eleven" were there. You have no justification for arguing that Thomas "left" other than the fact that you have to do so in order to keep it in line with John.

If John didn't exist and someone tried to argue that Thomas was not there, you would jump up and say, "Look, Luke 32:33 explicitly states he WAS there." It just goes to show that your argument is based on sand.

Roland

Take a look at Luke's version of the event and tell me honestly that he expects us NOT to see Thomas as present.


[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and THEY FOUND THE ELEVEN GATHERED TOGETHER and those who were with them,
[34] who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
[36] AS THEY WERE SAYING THIS, Jesus himself stood among them.
[37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
[38] And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
[39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."
[41] And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
[42] They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
[43] and he took it and ate before them.
[44] Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
[45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
[46] and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
[47] and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
[48] You are witnesses of these things.
[49] And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."
[50] Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
[51] While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.
[52] And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
[53] and were continually in the temple blessing God.

The "them" in verse 36 needs an antecedent. And what is that antecedent? "The eleven gathered together and those who were with them."

Jack the Bodiless

On the subject of Genesis and the Forbidden Fruit:

Sure, it's possible to resolve the contradiction. We have done it already. God LIED to stop Adam and Eve eating the fruit, but they ate it anyhow. Why not simply read the story as the author evidently intended it to be read?

Consider:
Obviously, thanks to the guidance of the Serpent, humans became more powerful than the gods intended, taking powers that only the gods were supposed to have, and they were therefore ejected from Eden specifically because of God's fear that they would gain further forbidden powers.

This is the Prometheus myth, with the Serpent as Prometheus.

Again, this is clear:
And, sure enough, they did NOT die, and their eyes WERE opened!

There is no need for these verbal gymnastics. The story is clear and straightforward.

It was not the intention of the author to portray God as a "nice guy", and he did not: that concept came much later (and contradicts much of the OT, not just this). This God is simply a great power to be feared.