NOGO

You are changing Matthew's story. Matthew is saying that the guards were still there and an Angel opened the tomb. So you are also removing the guards, right?

Matthew is also saying that it was the angel who told them that Jesus had resurrected. Mark and Luke say this as well. In John this takes place on her second visit.

Mary leaves the tomb with great joy since she knew that Jesus had resurrected. Not so in John.

Mary leaves to tell the others.
Luke says that she reported to the eleven.
Mark says that Mary did not tell anybody because they were in fear.

John's Mary finds tomb open
John's Mary thinks that the body had been stolen.
John's Mary panics and runs to tell the others but meets Peter and John. So she tells Peter and John not that Jesus had risen but that his body had been stolen.
John's Mary meets Jesus near the tomb while all other three acconts claim that Jesus was not there.
John's Mary's message to the others is different than Matthew's and Luke's because John's Mary is the only case where she leaves the tomb not believing/knowing that Jesus had resurrected.
John's Mary is the only Mary who returned to the tomb a second time.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Matthew's MaryM meets Jesus upon returning from the tomb on the first visit. Here you are saying that she returns to the tomb on her own. She sees two angels who tell that Jesus has risen and then meets Jesus. She first thinks that it is the gardner and asks him where did they take the body.

But this is totally ludicrous since MaryM was told on he first visit that Jesus had risen and she leave the tomb with fear and great joy.

In you sequence you should therefore add a sudden memory blank between the two visits.

Jonesy

The bible has been changed over history. It is now not an accurate histprical document that it once was. Read this to find out:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm</a>

If you don't even want to read it, you are already showing sings of human ignorance. However, by reading it, you show that you can approach anything non-judgementally, judging it only after examining it. (this goes to anyone not wanting to read books of this type while saying it's bullshit before reading it)

Radorth

No, the angels say nothing except "Woman, why are you weeping?" This is a different event, probably, fully understandable if we accept that no one really believed until they actually saw Jesus. Who would?

Only Matthew throws a wrench in the works (again) when he claims they were "full of great joy" as though they believed in the resurrection already. I do not think anyone really believed until they saw Jesus. I don't think any writer has them seeing Jesus before they go to tell the others, or believing, except Matthew. This is an important point I think.

Nevertheless I must concede that Matthew cannot be reconciled with the rest, and that he got his story wrong. Ohterwise the synoptics are in remarkable agreement, given the skeptic's assertion that they all went around making up stuff willy-nilly.

But when you have only 70 years to slap such a story together, things are missed I suppose.

Radorth

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

NOGO:
In John this takes place on her second visit.

Radorth:
No, the angels say nothing except "Woman, why are you weeping?" This is a different event, probably, fully understandable if we accept that no one really believed until they actually saw Jesus. Who would?

NOGO:
Ok but John's MaryM sees Jesus on the second visit. In Luke MaryM tells Peter that Jesus had resurrected and he does not believer her. Peter's motivation for going to the tomb in Luke is not the same as in John. One is told that Jesus had resurrected while the other is told that the body had been stolen.

Radort:
Only Matthew throws a wrench in the works (again) when he claims they were "full of great joy" as though they believed in the resurrection already. I do not think anyone really believed until they saw Jesus. I don't think any writer has them seeing Jesus before they go to tell the others, or believing, except Matthew. This is an important point I think.

NOGO:
In Both Matthew and Luke we have evidence that MaryM believed since in one she leaves with great joy and the other she tells Peter that Jesus resurrected.

Radorth:
Nevertheless I must concede that Matthew cannot be reconciled with the rest, and that he got his story wrong. Ohterwise the synoptics are in remarkable agreement, given the skeptic's assertion that they all went around making up stuff willy-nilly.

NOGO:
You are not as bad as I thought. Can you concede that Matthew fabricated most his story from very little information?

Radorth:
But when you have only 70 years to slap such a story together, things are missed I suppose.

NOGO:
I find it hard to accept this statement. The resurrection is the most important event for Christians. Yet there are more inconsistencies in the resurrection stories than any comparable number of verses anywhere in the NT.
You may wish to believe anyway but you have to admit that this does not help your cause one bit.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radorth

She does not tell Peter that. She tells him two angels told her so, apparently. Since we are talking the first and last resurrection of a Savior in history, I'm sure she did not fully believe until she saw him herself. Nobody else really believed until they actually saw him either, so my statement is more than fair and yours is based on an assumption that she believed the angels.

No I can only concede he wrote what he heard instead of (like the more judicious Luke) checking more sources. It is possible he just made up the earthquake/soldiers "like dead men" portion himself, but I think it more likely he heard it.

Meanwhile you are applying modern tests of authenticity no ancient ms would survive.

Wow. That makes about 33 suspect verses in the NT. (In my book) Of course my faith is not based on whether such a ms is embellished in one or 2 places. The others harmonize very well, and you haven't much of a case without Matt. Besides, Doherty says one can have the incredible faith of Paul without any Gospels.

Rad

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Sojourner553

Seems to me you would quickly agree that "modern tests" do a fine job in debunking all other religions' superstitions...

So why cry fowl when they show yours to be in the same category? For if the gospels were really true, it should be passing ALL tests for authenticity with flying colors!

as Percy Bysshe Shelley put it,

"If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?"

To which I add: Why can't even "believers in God" agree on what God has spoken -- especially when every one is telling you that God's "spirit" is active through them.

To me, it just explains why good people tend to have "good Gods" and bad people evil Gods.


Sojourner

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

Radorth:
She does not tell Peter that. She tells him two angels told her so, apparently.

NOGO:
You are splitting hair here. My point was simply that Luke's story is different than Johm's. Luke's Mary carries the message of resurrection while John's Mary carries the message that Jesus was stolen.

Radorth:
Since we are talking the first and last resurrection of a Savior in history, I'm sure she did not fully believe until she saw him herself.

NOGO:
Ridiculous statement. Whether it is the first or fiftieth it would have been MaryM's first. You are also forgetting that Jesus had told them that this was going to happen. So why is it that they all find this so unbelievable. Jesus had told them that (1) he was going to be arrested, (2) put on trial, (3) beat, (4) killed, and that (5) he would resurrect. Now 1,2,3 and 4 happened as he said so I would have thought that they should have all been there waiting for the resurrection on Sunday morning. Instead MaryM only remembered after the angel insisted that Jesus had told them.

Radorth:
Nobody else really believed until they actually saw him either, so my statement is more than fair and yours is based on an assumption that she believed the angels.

NOGO:
Interesting statement since you believe based on hearsay but you do not believe that MaryM who was told by an angel could possibly have believed it even after seeing that the tomb was empty. Also MaryM knew Jesus, possibly witnessed some of his miracles which you have not.

NOGO:
Can you concede that Matthew fabricated most his story from very little information?

Radorth:
No I can only concede he wrote what he heard instead of (like the more judicious Luke) checking more sources. It is possible he just made up the earthquake/soldiers "like dead men" portion himself, but I think it more likely he heard it.

NOGO:
Again you are splitting hair. We don't even know who wrote these documents so your statement is kind of funny. I am not questioning the integrity of the write of Matthew in particular. I will settle with the admission that the story was frabricated based on little information. Whether it was Matthew, some other author, or his sources, is not important to me. The fact remains that the story was mostly fabricated.

Radorth:
Meanwhile you are applying modern tests of authenticity no ancient ms would survive.

NOGO:
Why should they? Are you saying that there are other accounts of miracles which historians take as factual.

Radorth:
Wow. That makes about 33 suspect verses in the NT. (In my book) Of course my faith is not based on whether such a ms is embellished in one or 2 places. The others harmonize very well, and you haven't much of a case without Matt. Besides, Doherty says one can have the incredible faith of Paul without any Gospels.

NOGO:
No there are more. I have to start somewhere. Consider how long it took me to get you to actually look at this issue !!!

My point is that the Gospels do not contradict as much up to Easter Sunday and then we have all these problems. I know that this will not shake your faith in any way and that is not my purpose in showing you this.

You seem to have one hell of problem with Doherty. One can have incredible faith even without the Bible so your statement is simply meaningless. You seem to have a need to attack Doherty all the time.

Conclusion:
You may call them embellishments, I call it fabrication. Believers are known to stretch the truth to sell their meesage. You may have no problems with this but to me it destroys the credibility required to believe that a man actually came back from the dead.

Basically it goes something like this. If Matthew fabriacted evidence or if he reported fabricated evidence then early Christians fabricated evidence of the resurrection.

But if the resurrection was an historical event why fabricate evidence?

Why was this not corrected?

You may dismiss this if you want but the problem is a sizeable one.

I will compare Luke and John on my next post.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Radorth

I'm willing to look at any issue, and have shied away from none. You have more? You mean like the "stupendous error" committed by Jesus in his Sabbath comments? Let me get my pills.

I don't have a problem with Doherty as much as those who think he's an honest man. I simply visit his faulty logic on those who take him seriously. He has single-handedly created more opportunites for satire than Saddam Hussein's entire cabinet.

Radorth

Radorth

Re: Sojourner

No. I consider Muhammed's story essentially historical. Don't you?

But when you try to compare myths about 4000 year old sun gods, offering no contemporary accounts to even judge, you merely beg the question.

Radorth