Carbuncle

Oh, so much to respond to. I don't have too much time now, but I'll try . . .

************

I'll start with what I think is the most important question: the defense of the Gospels. Someone stated that the Gospels do not agree on where Jesus showed up after the resurrection. However, I don't think that's true. Here's what the Gospels do say about appearances:

Matthew: An angel says that Jesus has risen and will appear at Galilee. Jesus then appears before the women who visited His tomb and tells them that the disciples and they may see Him again at Galilee.

Mark: An angel says that Jesus has risen and will appear at Galilee. Jesus then appears to two of the disciples, and then again appears before most of the disciples "reclining at the table".

Luke: An angel says that Jesus has risen and mentions Galilee. Jesus then appears before two disciples while they are walking near Jerusalem. Jesus then appears before most of the disciples in Jerusalem (while they were breaking bread, which can coincide with the "reclining at the table" part of Mark).

John: This Gospel doesn't state what the angel said, but after that Mary Magdalene sees Jesus, and He tells her to tell the disciples about Him (works with Matthew). Jesus then appears before the disciples inside a room (twice). Then Jesus appears in Galilee.

Using this information, we can construct a timeline that goes something like this:

1. A group of women (including Mary Magdalene) approach Jesus' tomb at early dawn (when it was still somewhat dark) and finds it empty, and also see two angels.
2. One angel speaks and tells them that Jesus has risen, and to tell the other disciples that they will see Him in Galilee.
3. Jesus appears before the women afterwards and says something similar to what the angel said.
4. Jesus appears before two of the disciples near Jerusalem.
5. Jesus appears before most of the disciples in Jerusalem.
6. Jesus appears before the disciples again (this time with Thomas present).
7. Jesus preaches before the disciples in Galilee.

It's never stated that Jesus will appear FIRST in Galilee. Luke stated that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem. John describes that same meeting in Luke, but doesn't mention wear it happens (although the events that occur match up). Afterward, Jesus must have gone to Galilee.

I understand that not all of the Gospels include all this information, but that is to be expected given the method of writing biographies back then. Omission was acceptable, since most stories were passed by word of mouth. And even if someone did make an actual mistake in the events, the other disciples would have corrected him/her.

************

Also, there are some interesting things that point to an earlier date for the writing of the Gospels. For example, Acts was written by Luke (it's practically a first-person thing at some points). The second half of Acts dealt mostly with Paul. However, it ends abruptly, telling of how Paul was imprisoned in Rome, but never finishing that story. It would make sense then that Acts was written before Paul was executed in 62 AD. Acts was also part of a 2-part set, the first part being the Gospel of Luke. In Acts 1:1-2, Luke mentions the first part, which he says was an account of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it would make sense that Acts was written before the year 62, and the Gospel of Luke before that, and, if you agree that Luke copied Mark, then the Gospel of Mark was written even sooner. That's less than a 30-year separation between the resurrection and the Gospels being written.

Okay, 30 years may seem like a long time, but that's actually quite short compared to most other accepted pieces of history. For example, the earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, and yet historians widely consider them to be accurate. And 30 years is still within a generation of the resurrection. Remember that Christianity started in Jerusalem, the same place that Jesus was crucified. If they were lying about the disappearance of the body and even the crucifixion itself, the Jews would have never let it survive.

************

I have more to say, but I must go now. However, I know I still have to expand on this, and to answer all those theological questions about Adam and Eve. But please, give me a moment. This time is currently very stressful for me.

May you have a nice day.

Soul Invictus

I understand that with the high propensity for parties here not to agree with your stance, you have a challenging role of addressing the multiple feedback given to you. If you get the time, I'd wonder if you could address my qualms with the original sin concept and the rest of my rebut a few replies back...

Regards,

Invictus

RED DAVE

From EstherRose:

Well, the fact is that it goes a little beyond the fact that your beliefs are unpleasant and hurtful to me. 6 million Jews paid the price for your beliefs. And a few thousand Iraqis paid the price this year. And it goes on and on. Iran is next. Historically, xtians have had very few compunctions about killing of enslaving those who disagree with them. And since you have your own pathway to heaven, you can always ask for forgiveness if you fuck up.

Nice piece of evasion: the righteous exception that proves the rule. The fact is that Christianity as a whole, in all its denominationations, failed. And how did they suffer? Were they dragged naked into a gas chamber, murdered and then sent to hell?

RED DAVE

AndresDeLaHoz

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

It is sometimes put forward by conservative authors that Acts may be as early as 62 CE because it does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul. However, it is to be noted that Acts 20:25, 36-38 hints that the author knew of Paul's death. Moreover, the notes in the Catholic NAB state: "Although the ending of Acts may seem to be abrupt, Luke has now completed his story with the establishment of Paul and the proclamation of Christianity in Rome. Paul's confident and unhindered proclamation of the gospel in Rome forms the climax to the story whose outline was provided in Acts 1, 8: 'You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. . . and to the ends of the earth.'" Furthermore, the dependence of Luke upon the Gospel of Mark rules out such an early dating for Luke-Acts. Finally, the author seems to be aware of the events of the Jewish revolt c. 70 CE. In Luke, Jesus warns, "the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will case up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side" (Lk 19:43). Because Josephus says that Jerusalem was completely surrounded and that earthworks were erected in order to lay siege to the city, this clearly refers to the siege of 70 CE.

CX

Could you provide scholarly references to support these assertions. As far as I know there is near universal agreement that a literary dependence exists in the synoptic gospels. While there are various solutions to this problem the most widely accepted is that AMt copied from AMk (cf HTNTW Udo Schnelle, WWTNT Burton Mack, TWTNT LT Johnson etc.) Secondly, if you are following another thread in this forum, there is considerable question as to the authorship of the Gospels and the evidence weighs heavily against AMt having been written by Matthew the Apostle of Christ, precisely because of the copying from GMk (nearly 90%).(Ibid)

CX

BTW folks, since this was so kindly dropped in our lap here in B,C&H could we keep this thread limited to biblical criticism and/or the historicity of biblical narratives? Perhaps you all could split off any other issues independently to GRD or back to EOG.

Thanks

CX - Moderator B,C&H

Majody

But if he designed and created us, he gave us our nature, therefore giving us a sinful nature. So he is indirectly causing us to sin.

Clarice O'C

quote:Originally posted by Carbuncle

"And without the Bible, I don't think I could call myself a Christian. "

And:

"All things happen to His will. You could say that He forces us to commit sin, but that's not accurate. If we already have a sin nature, then we'd sin anyway. It's not a matter of Him making us; it's a matter of Him stopping us. And there really is no reason for Him to do so. I mean, why should God even care about finite, sinful beings in the first place?"



Hello, Carbuncle,

I'm wondering what it is about the bible that makes it your ultimate authority. Do you not know that it was written by "sinners," e.g., Paul admitted to this of himself.

Also, a basic question: If your Jesus god can intervene and stop sin why didn't he save his own people from all of the terrible acts committed against them according to scripture plus the holocaust and other crimes throughout history?

Thanks,
Clarice


Edited to add another thought.