By the way, if you're going to invent a story and try to pass it off as history, it would be best to keep your characters as obscure as possible. That way when nobody can find any evidence that they exist, you can say, why would there be any evidence? Like Jack Dawson on the Titanic.
You don't make him the second most powerful man of two different Empires. Because those are records that can be checked.
I'm going to chime in here. I might be super naive, but to me, on a personal level. The most compelling argument in the five senses realm alone, is the fact that scripture records a woman being the first witness. I know Lee Strobel brought this up in his book, and I can't believe I just took this for granted all along. People have scoffed at me, and told me it isn't a big deal, that Mary Magdalene was the first one there, so why shouldn't she be the first to witness the resurrection? Or some have downplayed it and told me that women were not nearly as looked down on as the feminists like to portray them.
To me they are completely missing the point. Women were not considered to be reliable witnesses back in 1st Century Middle East. Good Heavens, Women were not even allowed to vote in the US until the 20th century. You rarely even saw them on Juries until decades later. I believe that having Mary Magdalene written and recorded in Holy Scripture as being the first witness is HUGE. As I believe Stroble said himself, If the men who wrote scripture were just making up a story, why would they make up a woman being the first witness? Or perhaps, they were telling the truth, and just let the chips fall where they may.
I had a lot written and it all got deleted. Trying to reconstruct it. Bear with me...
Why would they make up a woman as the first witness?
It should be pointed out that, at first, they didn't. Remember I Corinthians 15? That's the first account of the resurrection, chronologically speaking. Mark is second. Then come Matthew and Luke at about the same time. John is last.
Paul says Jesus appeared FIRST to Cephas, then to the 12.
Nothing about women. Nothing about two anonymous disciples on the road to Emmaus. Not a hint. The story of the women being first had not been invented yet when Paul was writing. (Wanna know something REALLY strange? Paul never mentions an empty tomb).
Mark comes along aBOUT 20 years later and has three women first to arrive at the tomb. The stone is rolled away from the door by the time they get there. They go in. No Jesus. They see ONE man in white saying he's risen, go tell you friends! They go back and keep their mouths shut. The end. [As far as we know. The conclusions of Mark that you see in your Bibles are almost certainly forgeries. There may have been an original ending, but it's lost to history].
Well, that's a lousy ending.
Matthew knows this, so he sets out to improve on the ending. He has two women (doesn't mention the third because... well, who knows? Maybe she owed him money) arrive at the tomb. And as they arrive, there's an earthquake! [That no other gospel writers mention!] and an angel [one angel] rolls the stone away from the tomb, sits down on it and smokes a blunt! (I added the blunt. The rest is in the text). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see the angel and he tells them Jesus is risen, go tell you friends! He'll meet up with you in Galilee! (Where, class? GA-LI-LEE. That's right). It's implied but not stated that the women look inside the tomb. Maybe that's when they saw the one guy in Mark who said the same thing to them, and Matthew just didn't want to be redundant? So they go back and ... on the way they run into Jesus. Mark left this out, which is a shame because it's REALLY cool. They see him and the clasp his feet! [That means they touch him. Remember that. It becomes important later]. Jesus tells them, "Tell my disciples to go to Galilee!"
Where, class? GA-LI-LEE. That's right!
Not sure why Mark left out the appearance of Jesus. You would think that would be a crucial bit of info. Not sure why Mark left out the angel on the stone, or why Matthew left out the man in the tomb. But okay, writer's prerogative?
Now, a few verses later, the disciples go to Galilee (where, class? GALILEE, That's right) because that's where Jesus said to go. And they see him and he talks to them and... some... doubted? Okay. Fair enough. It was a lot to process.
Okay, so three women are first to learn of the resurrection in Mark, two are first to see the risen Christ in Matthew.
Why make that up?
We next turn to...
Luke. Women again. We're not told how many, but it's at least three, and at least one of them is NOT the same one mentioned in Mark. They go to the tomb. The stone is already rolled away from the door. Nothing about anyone sitting on the stone. Nothing about an earthquake. It's already rolled away by the time they get there. They go inside (no one tells them to go inside. They just do it because that's why they're there). No Jesus. But they see... two men in FABulous attire! And both men say "He is risen! Go tell you friends!" [I'm adding that second part. It actually doesn't say that in Luke]. So they go back to the Eleven (Paul said it was the Twelve. Matthew and Luke say it was the Eleven. Paul wrote his account before the story of Judas' betrayal was made up) and they (according to Mark keep their mouths shut but Luke's got no time for that, and according to Matthew they actually run into Jesus himself but Luke's got no time for THAT, so in his account they) tell the apostles everything. Everything. Unlike Matthew, Mark or Luke, they tell the apostles everything.
And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense.
And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense.
And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense.
Why repeat that? Because it is an element of the story that the apostles did not believe the women. Why make it up and have women as the first witnesses? Because it increases the drama! There's no mystery to this, Lee Strobel! Paul's resurrection account was BORING. It didn't even contain a tomb, much less women.
Then Luke has Peter run to the tomb to check it out for himself. Peter. Just Peter. No mention of anyone else (though the Emmaus story in the same chapter says he was not alone, so). Sees the empty tomb and says well I'll be...
The Emmaus boys meet up with Jesus, don't know it's him, realize it's him, and he vanishes! They go, like, WOW! Let's tell the others! So they go to Jerusalem, where they meet up with the Eleven and Jesus shows up and says Yo! It's true! TOUCH ME! It's really me! I'm here, right where I told you to meet me in (where, class? GA-LI-WHAT?) Galilee is 80 miles from Jerusalem.
Jesus says, This is what is written. The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. And no one in the back said "chapter and verse, please!" because the Old Testament never says that. Ever. Anywhere.
So they take a walk to Bethany, about a mile and a half away. And Jesus ascends.
Wait, what? That's it? He ascends from Bethany on the day of (after?) the resurrection? He's with them ONE DAY?
Read Luke AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT. You can't squeeze 40 days into that story.
So, recapping:
Mark has three women first at the tomb. Matthew has two. Luke has three, but not the same three as the first three. So right now, AT LEAST four women are part of this group. Luke also says there were others.
Still not sure why Mark left out the other man in the tomb or why he and Luke left out the angel on the stone, or Jesus appearance to the women on the say back to Jerusalem. Not sure why Matthew left out ANYONE in the tomb or the appearance on the road to Emmaus or the party crashing in Jerusalem, not to mention the ascension. Now, was the ascension in Bethany the day of the resurrection before or after the disciples went to Galilee (80 miles on foot)? It would have to have been after, right? I'm getting confused. Oh well. Luke will come back in Acts and suddenly manufacture 40 days where he originally had just one anyway, so let's move on to...
John.
In John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb first. No one else is mentioned. All four gospels agree she was there. There is no agreement among all four on ANYONE else. But on Mary Magdalene, we're clear. She was there. She sees that the stone has been removed from the entrance. No angel on the stone. No men inside the tomb. She doesn't even go into the tomb. She runs back to tell Peter and the Disciple Jesus Loved (DJL) that the Lord's been taken away. How does she know this? We're not told. Maybe she could see from outside the tomb that the inside was empty? It never says she went in. Ok, fine, it never says she didn't either. Anyway, Peter and DJL race to the tomb.
DJL gets there first, but doesn't go in. Peter (a man) is first to go in. He sees the Shroud of Turin (just checking to see if you're still reading. This post is getting long). He says well I'll be. Then DJL comes in. They believe. They go back to where they were staying (this was in Jerusalem).
FINALLY, after all that, Mary Magdalene looks inside the tomb and sees... TWO ANGELS IN WHITE! They ask her why she's crying. She says she couldn't get her shadow to stick (Still with me? Good. Just checking). So she turns around and there's this OTHER guy (psst. It's Jesus). And she's so excited to see him that she clasps his feet! Oh, wait. Sorry, that was Matthew. So Jesus says, "Yes, it's me! Touch me!" Oh, wait, that was Luke. Jesus says "HANDS OFF, woman! It's me. I've got work to do, but I'm alive. Go tell you friends."
And she does.
Did Peter get to the tomb before or after Mary Magdalene saw the man? I mean the angel? I mean the two men? I mean the two angels? How long was Mary Magdalene quiet? Long enough for it to be the ONLY thing Mark found worth mentioning, not long enough for ANY other gospel writer to find it important.
Who was with Mary? At least three other women. But John couldn't be bothered with any of them.
Why is Matthew the only one to send the disciples to Galilee?
Why does Luke give the distinct impression that Jesus ascended on the same day he crashed the party in Jerusalem?
John is clear that there was more time than that. Jesus appears to the disciples (he doesn't say how many) on the resurrection Sunday, then a week later when Thomas can join in on the fun (they're still in Jerusalem at this point: it's the same house for both appearances, according to John).
Then there's an epilogue where some time passes and the guys go fishing. Jesus shows up and kills a few thousand fish for them. And then, John 21:14 says this was the THIRD time Jesus appeared to his apostles.
So the first time was in Jerusalem. The second time in the same house in Jerusalem. And the third time by the Sea of Galilee. On a mountain, according to Matthew. So, I'm guessing like right next to the Sea of Galilee, because Matthew says they saw him on a mountain. But they were fishing. It's strange though. John reads like they were surprised to see Jesus, not like they were expecting him because he told them to be there. Oh well. John ends.
No earthquake. No angel sitting on the stone. No single man inside the tomb. Peter runs out to the tomb BEFORE Mary sees angels (in Luke it's AFTER Mary sees the angels).
Why make women the first witnesses of the resurrection if the story is just made up? Precisely because it adds to the credibility of the story! The same reason you move the angel around or add angels. The same reason you add nameless disciples on the road to Emmaus and disappearing/teleportation acts that lead you to seriously question why anyone had to roll the stone away from the tomb in the first place!
Acts 1.
Because we're not finished.
At the end of the novel "First Blood," the character of Rambo dies. In the movies, he lives. The same guy who wrote the first novel wrote the novelization for the second Rambo movie. In his introduction, he acknowledges that Rambo dies in his first book, but in the story itself there's no mention of it. It's a novelization of the movie, and you're supposed to forget what you read in the last chapter of his original book -- just go with the movie's ending.
I'm thinking something like that happened with Luke. You read the last chapter of the gospel and Jesus ascends the same day as he first appeared. Then you turn to Acts, and presto! He's around for 40 days proving he's alive. No one else mentions 40 days. None of the gospels say it's 40 days before he's skybound.
This is the progress of a legend. It starts out simple and then details are added and removed, replaced and refined until you have the tale you want to tell. Making women the first witnesses doesn't mean it happened in history. That's a pious fiction. Look at Romans 16. The church didn't have a problem with women at that time. According to Acts, a woman was the first Gentile convert (who knows if that's true or not? The point is, it wasn't something scandalous).
Lee Strobel is well-intentioned, but his "Case for" books leave a lot to be desired -- I speak as a journalist and as someone who tries to be a critical thinker: Strobel fails miserably at both.
Hey This is actually quite great. You gave me a nice format to study. I get excited when I can see something come together, so I"m going to work on this. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to write this out, especially since it got deleted. I HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS! GRRR! Anyway, I know a lot of things are from a matter of perspective, like if there is two angels, then of course there will be "one" in another persons view. I mean, that's how real the Word is. You yourself know (in your business) that when people give different versions, they both may be telling the truth, but just seeing it through different perspectives. Okay, I'm going to copy and paste your stuff and start looking at the scripture. :)
Jesus Christ Our Passover would be a decent read for a rebuttal. I'm sure Mark S and others would have other resources and observations.
I tried to just go by what's in the verses. I've read a LOT of stuff lately and I can't say for sure that I haven't regurgitated a line or two from other sources, but if I did it was unintentional. I'll be happy to add a footnote to give someone proper credit if I'm found to have committed any plagiarism here (lol).
Yeah, I'm digging into this now, and this is deeper than I thought. I'd love to hear some other voices on this. Wow.
You do know and realize that this is the real crux of true (i.e., genuine) Christianity, don't you?
I've contended elsewhere on this site (I forget where, or in exactly what manner) that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is (in this day and time) intrinsic to believing anything aside from or beyond what is (or can be) received and known only by our physical senses. In other words, it is what breaks the bondage to our physical senses of what can be believed. And, in light of that, there is presently no valid material "proof" of his resurrection... for if there were any, believing God would remain bound to the material reality of our senses.
This is why no one ever REALLY believes in the resurrection of Christ unless their heart is opened to it. And only when the inherent hardness of a man(or woman)'s heart is softened, does it ever allow room for it. Furthermore, I personally believe that a real softening of the heart starts with the recognition and acknowledgment of something written in Rom. 3:23. And when we "get" the reason (i.e., the heartfelt need) for our own redemption, verse 24 (of Rom. 3) springs to life within us... as it's understood why Christ is (and has to be) alive. Anything else no longer makes sense. Thus, leaving Rom. 3:23 (or its equivalent) out of the picture seems to stop anyone at the cross of Christ
You know, it's not hard-heartedness that gets people to change their minds. It's open-mindedness. It's rational thought. It's the courage to face yourself and say you were wrong about something. It's realizing when people are manipulating your emotions because they lack confidence in their own position.
If you have to discourage people from investigating their beliefs with an open mind, maybe you just don't have that compelling an argument to make. If I were confident in my belief, I would say "INVESTIGATE AWAY!" confident that the facts will lead you to the same place they have led me. And I don't even have an all-powerful God on my side.
Like I did above: I actually told her, take another look at Jesus Christ Our Passover. These other guys will no doubt suggest additional material Read it! I ENCOURAGE investigation.
Here's what I would say to her if I were a believer:
Pray about it. Study. Pray again, more. Ask people you trust. Don't make rash decisions. Think it through. PRAY AGAIN. Let me know if I can help you! I will do my best to show you what I see in the scriptures. I will pray with you.
What I would NOT do is try to guilt the person into remembering we're all sinners and only soft-hearted humble people agree with me and everyone else is stiffnecked, hard-hearted and lacking in humility.
You know, it's not hard-heartedness that gets people to change their minds. It's open-mindedness. It's rational thought. It's the courage to face yourself and say you were wrong about something. It's realizing when people are manipulating your emotions because they lack confidence in their own position.
If you have to discourage people from investigating their beliefs with an open mind, maybe you just don't have that compelling an argument to make. If I were confident in my belief, I would say "INVESTIGATE AWAY!" confident that the facts will lead you to the same place they have led me. And I don't even have an all-powerful God on my side.
Like I did above: I actually told her, take another look at Jesus Christ Our Passover. These other guys will no doubt suggest additional material Read it! I ENCOURAGE investigation.
Here's what I would say to her if I were a believer:
Pray about it. Study. Pray again, more. Ask people you trust. Don't make rash decisions. Think it through. PRAY AGAIN. Let me know if I can help you! I will do my best to show you what I see in the scriptures. I will pray with you.
What I would NOT do is try to guilt the person into remembering we're all sinners and only soft-hearted humble people agree with me and everyone else is stiffnecked, hard-hearted and lacking in humility.
Ummm... "rational thought" is about the last thing people who are needing to be persuaded actually take heed to.
The resources for learning persuasion are numerous, here is one.
Perhaps one of the most significant resources of our era is the seminal research of Robert Cialdini, emeritus professor of social psychology and author of Influence.
Okay, I have no doubt whatsover that God is real and Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I do know about hardening of the heart. My heart has been hardened many times, which is why believers rarely see miracles. Andrew Wommack has a great teaching on this. People can experience miracles and very quickly forget. Look at the Israelite's in the wilderness. People saw Jesus perform miracles and didn't believe. They even wanted to kill Lazarus after he had been raised from the dead. Even the apostles who were with Jesus in his resurrected body, it says "Some still doubted!!!" Mathew 27:17.
Even if a person has never experienced anything "supernatural" (which I've no doubt some GS'ers have) there is plenty of evidence in the world. Romans 1 makes it clear, that God reveals Himself through the "seen" to where man has no excuse. But anyway, I'm truly not here to defend God, who needs no defending. I'm just saying there is no way, no how, anybody could ever get me not to believe, no matter what research they come up with. I have my own issues with God, plenty of them. But not believing is not one of them.
I am really surprised at myself, after Raf's' post on all the seemingly contradictions on Who saw Jesus first, that I never studied this part more. So I am very grateful for his post! It gives me something to study on. I do notice that Jesus only appeared to believers. If I were Jesus I would have loved to appear to the jerks who beat me and tortured me. I would have given them a scare or two. But I guess that's why I'm not Jesus. that and a billion other reasons. I sure as hell wouldn't die for me. Or anyone else for that matter. Okay, I'm rambling now. I'll be back to read more later. This is really a great thread!
Okay, I have no doubt whatsover that God is real and Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I do know about hardening of the heart. My heart has been hardened many times, which is why believers rarely see miracles. Andrew Wommack has a great teaching on this. People can experience miracles and very quickly forget. Look at the Israelite's in the wilderness. People saw Jesus perform miracles and didn't believe. They even wanted to kill Lazarus after he had been raised from the dead. Even the apostles who were with Jesus in his resurrected body, it says "Some still doubted!!!" Mathew 27:17.
Even if a person has never experienced anything "supernatural" (which I've no doubt some GS'ers have) there is plenty of evidence in the world. Romans 1 makes it clear, that God reveals Himself through the "seen" to where man has no excuse. But anyway, I'm truly not here to defend God, who needs no defending. I'm just saying there is no way, no how, anybody could ever get me not to believe, no matter what research they come up with. I have my own issues with God, plenty of them. But not believing is not one of them.
I am really surprised at myself, after Raf's' post on all the seemingly contradictions on Who saw Jesus first, that I never studied this part more. So I am very grateful for his post! It gives me something to study on. I do notice that Jesus only appeared to believers. If I were Jesus I would have loved to appear to the jerks who beat me and tortured me. I would have given them a scare or two. But I guess that's why I'm not Jesus. that and a billion other reasons. I sure as hell wouldn't die for me. Or anyone else for that matter. Okay, I'm rambling now. I'll be back to read more later. This is really a great thread!
I believe my approach is consistent with item 3 on your list (item 3 is very poorly named but the details are laudable).
Rottie,
On some threads I'm the provacateur. On others i try to just answer questions people may have and address preconceptions.
I didn't start or revive this thread, but I'm trying to show that my position is not one of emotion, anger or hard-heartedness. Contrary to what was alleged in now-deleted comments, I have no problem with people reading or studying scripture. I just like to say read ALL of it.
If you want to stay a believer til the end of time, more power to you.
If you're curious about where i stand now, ask away!
There is actually a line from a Stephen King novel that has stuck with me for years. It's from the book, Thinner. (It was a movie too) This man, Billy, is cursed by a gypsy, and he keeps losing weight. He seeks help from an acquaintance, who is rather shady, but more than willing to help. When Billy tells his friend of how he was "cursed" by the gypsy, his friend believes him, because as skeptical as his friend is, he says something to the effect of "Anybody who sees something with their own eyes, and still doesn't believe, is a jerk." I've thought of that so many times. But that's another story for another time.
Raf: I just respect that you respect people with different views. I do have my own "problems" with God, relationship problems that I'm working on. But I have a bigger problem with religion. I can agree to disagree with people of many different Christian faiths, but it seems that somehow I have to keep my mouth shut about a lot of things lest I'm called a heretic. That just drives me nuts. I just like to keep things rational and reasonable. I would be very careful to question a persons salvation. Only God knows the heart.
A few years ago, Ken Hamm debate Bill Nye on the subject of evolution.
Ken is not a scientist, but he's a young earth creationist who's studied the subject extensively and is no slouch. (He's an idiot, in my opinion, but he's not a stupid idiot).
Bill Nye is not a scientist either, but he is an advocate for science education.
So both men were asked, what would change your mind?
Ken said, Nothing. Nothing will change his mind. Nothing will shake his faith. Nothing can convince him that the Word of God is not true.
Bill Nye's answer: Evidence. Show me the evidence and I will change my mind.
I don't think it's a virtue to say I won't change my mind. I will. But with evidence.
And that's the key difference here. CLAIMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Appeals to emotion are not evidence. Non sequiturs (like Romans 1) are not evidence.
When we say something like "the disciples saw him and did not believe," we are making an assumption that the story told in that particular gospel is true. It's not. It's a claim, and one that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. Mary Magdalene's silence is a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. When did Peter get to the tomb? John gives us a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject.
You know, when The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield contradicts Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, which contradicts Spider-Man Homecoming starring Tom Holland, which contradicts Spider-Man starring Nicholas Hammond, you don't try to harmonize the four accounts. Rather, you recognize each as a work of fiction interpreted by different storytellers. But name those storytellers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though those were NOT the authors of those books) and suddenly they're historians!
They're fiction writers.
So believe what you want, but real investigation does not begin with a conclusion.
I can only speak for myself, . I do know this. Even if I quit believing in God tomorrow, He would still exist. Just because I don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. There is way too much order, and miracles that we take for granted every day. Where did LIFE come from? Not just dead lifeless matter, but LIFE. Where did LOVE come from? Humor, songs, creativity, the beauty of nature. But then it's spoiled, it's imperfect. I can also see the evil. God may seem to hide behind a curtain but the devil sure doesn't.
People have "God" moments just squinting up at the sun. . There has to be an intelligent design. Something cannot come from Nothing.
I think peoples hearts get hardened, (everybody's is to a point) because we are rebellious, and we do not want to live to the standard that God sets before us. We think we are the smartest dog in the show, and we know better. Well just look at the world. How's that working for us?
I do agree the church has failed miserably. We SHOULD be seeing much more miracles than we do. If I were sick and went to most preachers, the first thing many (if not most) of them would do is ask if I went to see a doctor. As believers we focus too much on the world, and not on the Word. We become sensitive to the World. This is why sin becomes more and more acceptable, and we feel like outcasts if we don't go along with the worlds ways.
Plus, the whole concept of us needing a savior, that we cannot save ourselves, is unique to Jesus. Faith is a positive response to God's grace. We can't save ourselves, and God doesn't love us because we are so good. All we need to do is respond to what Jesus already accomplished and humble ourselves and accept it. But we always feel the need to "work" at it. We can't even humble ourselves enough to accept His grace.
As far as evidence, that'a unique to everybody. Everybody has their own God moments. I remember one of mine was the first time I bought a coconut and learned how to open it. The way it was designed just floored me. My brother was an agnostic, until he took a class for plants in college. When he learned how plants work, he realized there had to be an intelligent design. We have just become hardened to so many things we have taken for granted.
Oh and there are a zillion examples in the bible when people flat out saw miracles and it didn't do a thing for them. We all can harden our hearts and justify anything to within our small minded reasoning. Right now I'm thinking of When God spoke, and people were saying it was "thunder." John 12:28-30
Well I could go on and on, but that's at least my thoughts for the moment. :)
Well there ya go. That's pretty much how my dad felt (he was an agnostic) when I figured out how to open it, and declared, as serious as a heart attack..."There IS a God!" But my point is, there really are "God" moments for people throughout life. We just need to recognize them. That's what I mean about our hearts being hardened to everyday things.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Raf
Can't argue against my point, so dodge, distract, etc. I've seen this movie before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, if you're going to invent a story and try to pass it off as history, it would be best to keep your characters as obscure as possible. That way when nobody can find any evidence that they exist, you can say, why would there be any evidence? Like Jack Dawson on the Titanic.
You don't make him the second most powerful man of two different Empires. Because those are records that can be checked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I'm going to chime in here. I might be super naive, but to me, on a personal level. The most compelling argument in the five senses realm alone, is the fact that scripture records a woman being the first witness. I know Lee Strobel brought this up in his book, and I can't believe I just took this for granted all along. People have scoffed at me, and told me it isn't a big deal, that Mary Magdalene was the first one there, so why shouldn't she be the first to witness the resurrection? Or some have downplayed it and told me that women were not nearly as looked down on as the feminists like to portray them.
To me they are completely missing the point. Women were not considered to be reliable witnesses back in 1st Century Middle East. Good Heavens, Women were not even allowed to vote in the US until the 20th century. You rarely even saw them on Juries until decades later. I believe that having Mary Magdalene written and recorded in Holy Scripture as being the first witness is HUGE. As I believe Stroble said himself, If the men who wrote scripture were just making up a story, why would they make up a woman being the first witness? Or perhaps, they were telling the truth, and just let the chips fall where they may.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I had a lot written and it all got deleted. Trying to reconstruct it. Bear with me...
Why would they make up a woman as the first witness?
It should be pointed out that, at first, they didn't. Remember I Corinthians 15? That's the first account of the resurrection, chronologically speaking. Mark is second. Then come Matthew and Luke at about the same time. John is last.
Paul says Jesus appeared FIRST to Cephas, then to the 12.
Nothing about women. Nothing about two anonymous disciples on the road to Emmaus. Not a hint. The story of the women being first had not been invented yet when Paul was writing. (Wanna know something REALLY strange? Paul never mentions an empty tomb).
Mark comes along aBOUT 20 years later and has three women first to arrive at the tomb. The stone is rolled away from the door by the time they get there. They go in. No Jesus. They see ONE man in white saying he's risen, go tell you friends! They go back and keep their mouths shut. The end. [As far as we know. The conclusions of Mark that you see in your Bibles are almost certainly forgeries. There may have been an original ending, but it's lost to history].
Well, that's a lousy ending.
Matthew knows this, so he sets out to improve on the ending. He has two women (doesn't mention the third because... well, who knows? Maybe she owed him money) arrive at the tomb. And as they arrive, there's an earthquake! [That no other gospel writers mention!] and an angel [one angel] rolls the stone away from the tomb, sits down on it and smokes a blunt! (I added the blunt. The rest is in the text). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see the angel and he tells them Jesus is risen, go tell you friends! He'll meet up with you in Galilee! (Where, class? GA-LI-LEE. That's right). It's implied but not stated that the women look inside the tomb. Maybe that's when they saw the one guy in Mark who said the same thing to them, and Matthew just didn't want to be redundant? So they go back and ... on the way they run into Jesus. Mark left this out, which is a shame because it's REALLY cool. They see him and the clasp his feet! [That means they touch him. Remember that. It becomes important later]. Jesus tells them, "Tell my disciples to go to Galilee!"
Where, class? GA-LI-LEE. That's right!
Not sure why Mark left out the appearance of Jesus. You would think that would be a crucial bit of info. Not sure why Mark left out the angel on the stone, or why Matthew left out the man in the tomb. But okay, writer's prerogative?
Now, a few verses later, the disciples go to Galilee (where, class? GALILEE, That's right) because that's where Jesus said to go. And they see him and he talks to them and... some... doubted? Okay. Fair enough. It was a lot to process.
Okay, so three women are first to learn of the resurrection in Mark, two are first to see the risen Christ in Matthew.
Why make that up?
We next turn to...
Luke. Women again. We're not told how many, but it's at least three, and at least one of them is NOT the same one mentioned in Mark. They go to the tomb. The stone is already rolled away from the door. Nothing about anyone sitting on the stone. Nothing about an earthquake. It's already rolled away by the time they get there. They go inside (no one tells them to go inside. They just do it because that's why they're there). No Jesus. But they see... two men in FABulous attire! And both men say "He is risen! Go tell you friends!" [I'm adding that second part. It actually doesn't say that in Luke]. So they go back to the Eleven (Paul said it was the Twelve. Matthew and Luke say it was the Eleven. Paul wrote his account before the story of Judas' betrayal was made up) and they (according to Mark keep their mouths shut but Luke's got no time for that, and according to Matthew they actually run into Jesus himself but Luke's got no time for THAT, so in his account they) tell the apostles everything. Everything. Unlike Matthew, Mark or Luke, they tell the apostles everything.
And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense.
And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense.
And the apostles did not believe the women because their words seemed like nonsense.
Why repeat that? Because it is an element of the story that the apostles did not believe the women. Why make it up and have women as the first witnesses? Because it increases the drama! There's no mystery to this, Lee Strobel! Paul's resurrection account was BORING. It didn't even contain a tomb, much less women.
Then Luke has Peter run to the tomb to check it out for himself. Peter. Just Peter. No mention of anyone else (though the Emmaus story in the same chapter says he was not alone, so). Sees the empty tomb and says well I'll be...
The Emmaus boys meet up with Jesus, don't know it's him, realize it's him, and he vanishes! They go, like, WOW! Let's tell the others! So they go to Jerusalem, where they meet up with the Eleven and Jesus shows up and says Yo! It's true! TOUCH ME! It's really me! I'm here, right where I told you to meet me in (where, class? GA-LI-WHAT?) Galilee is 80 miles from Jerusalem.
Jesus says, This is what is written. The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. And no one in the back said "chapter and verse, please!" because the Old Testament never says that. Ever. Anywhere.
So they take a walk to Bethany, about a mile and a half away. And Jesus ascends.
Wait, what? That's it? He ascends from Bethany on the day of (after?) the resurrection? He's with them ONE DAY?
Read Luke AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT. You can't squeeze 40 days into that story.
So, recapping:
Mark has three women first at the tomb. Matthew has two. Luke has three, but not the same three as the first three. So right now, AT LEAST four women are part of this group. Luke also says there were others.
Still not sure why Mark left out the other man in the tomb or why he and Luke left out the angel on the stone, or Jesus appearance to the women on the say back to Jerusalem. Not sure why Matthew left out ANYONE in the tomb or the appearance on the road to Emmaus or the party crashing in Jerusalem, not to mention the ascension. Now, was the ascension in Bethany the day of the resurrection before or after the disciples went to Galilee (80 miles on foot)? It would have to have been after, right? I'm getting confused. Oh well. Luke will come back in Acts and suddenly manufacture 40 days where he originally had just one anyway, so let's move on to...
John.
In John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb first. No one else is mentioned. All four gospels agree she was there. There is no agreement among all four on ANYONE else. But on Mary Magdalene, we're clear. She was there. She sees that the stone has been removed from the entrance. No angel on the stone. No men inside the tomb. She doesn't even go into the tomb. She runs back to tell Peter and the Disciple Jesus Loved (DJL) that the Lord's been taken away. How does she know this? We're not told. Maybe she could see from outside the tomb that the inside was empty? It never says she went in. Ok, fine, it never says she didn't either. Anyway, Peter and DJL race to the tomb.
DJL gets there first, but doesn't go in. Peter (a man) is first to go in. He sees the Shroud of Turin (just checking to see if you're still reading. This post is getting long). He says well I'll be. Then DJL comes in. They believe. They go back to where they were staying (this was in Jerusalem).
FINALLY, after all that, Mary Magdalene looks inside the tomb and sees... TWO ANGELS IN WHITE! They ask her why she's crying. She says she couldn't get her shadow to stick (Still with me? Good. Just checking). So she turns around and there's this OTHER guy (psst. It's Jesus). And she's so excited to see him that she clasps his feet! Oh, wait. Sorry, that was Matthew. So Jesus says, "Yes, it's me! Touch me!" Oh, wait, that was Luke. Jesus says "HANDS OFF, woman! It's me. I've got work to do, but I'm alive. Go tell you friends."
And she does.
Did Peter get to the tomb before or after Mary Magdalene saw the man? I mean the angel? I mean the two men? I mean the two angels? How long was Mary Magdalene quiet? Long enough for it to be the ONLY thing Mark found worth mentioning, not long enough for ANY other gospel writer to find it important.
Who was with Mary? At least three other women. But John couldn't be bothered with any of them.
Why is Matthew the only one to send the disciples to Galilee?
Why does Luke give the distinct impression that Jesus ascended on the same day he crashed the party in Jerusalem?
John is clear that there was more time than that. Jesus appears to the disciples (he doesn't say how many) on the resurrection Sunday, then a week later when Thomas can join in on the fun (they're still in Jerusalem at this point: it's the same house for both appearances, according to John).
Then there's an epilogue where some time passes and the guys go fishing. Jesus shows up and kills a few thousand fish for them. And then, John 21:14 says this was the THIRD time Jesus appeared to his apostles.
So the first time was in Jerusalem. The second time in the same house in Jerusalem. And the third time by the Sea of Galilee. On a mountain, according to Matthew. So, I'm guessing like right next to the Sea of Galilee, because Matthew says they saw him on a mountain. But they were fishing. It's strange though. John reads like they were surprised to see Jesus, not like they were expecting him because he told them to be there. Oh well. John ends.
No earthquake. No angel sitting on the stone. No single man inside the tomb. Peter runs out to the tomb BEFORE Mary sees angels (in Luke it's AFTER Mary sees the angels).
Why make women the first witnesses of the resurrection if the story is just made up? Precisely because it adds to the credibility of the story! The same reason you move the angel around or add angels. The same reason you add nameless disciples on the road to Emmaus and disappearing/teleportation acts that lead you to seriously question why anyone had to roll the stone away from the tomb in the first place!
Acts 1.
Because we're not finished.
At the end of the novel "First Blood," the character of Rambo dies. In the movies, he lives. The same guy who wrote the first novel wrote the novelization for the second Rambo movie. In his introduction, he acknowledges that Rambo dies in his first book, but in the story itself there's no mention of it. It's a novelization of the movie, and you're supposed to forget what you read in the last chapter of his original book -- just go with the movie's ending.
I'm thinking something like that happened with Luke. You read the last chapter of the gospel and Jesus ascends the same day as he first appeared. Then you turn to Acts, and presto! He's around for 40 days proving he's alive. No one else mentions 40 days. None of the gospels say it's 40 days before he's skybound.
This is the progress of a legend. It starts out simple and then details are added and removed, replaced and refined until you have the tale you want to tell. Making women the first witnesses doesn't mean it happened in history. That's a pious fiction. Look at Romans 16. The church didn't have a problem with women at that time. According to Acts, a woman was the first Gentile convert (who knows if that's true or not? The point is, it wasn't something scandalous).
Lee Strobel is well-intentioned, but his "Case for" books leave a lot to be desired -- I speak as a journalist and as someone who tries to be a critical thinker: Strobel fails miserably at both.
Edited by Rafspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Hey This is actually quite great. You gave me a nice format to study. I get excited when I can see something come together, so I"m going to work on this. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to write this out, especially since it got deleted. I HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS! GRRR! Anyway, I know a lot of things are from a matter of perspective, like if there is two angels, then of course there will be "one" in another persons view. I mean, that's how real the Word is. You yourself know (in your business) that when people give different versions, they both may be telling the truth, but just seeing it through different perspectives. Okay, I'm going to copy and paste your stuff and start looking at the scripture. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jesus Christ Our Passover would be a decent read for a rebuttal. I'm sure Mark S and others would have other resources and observations.
I tried to just go by what's in the verses. I've read a LOT of stuff lately and I can't say for sure that I haven't regurgitated a line or two from other sources, but if I did it was unintentional. I'll be happy to add a footnote to give someone proper credit if I'm found to have committed any plagiarism here (lol).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Yeah, I'm digging into this now, and this is deeper than I thought. I'd love to hear some other voices on this. Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You know I'm an atheist now, right? I don't want to be misleading, but we have not chatted for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You do know and realize that this is the real crux of true (i.e., genuine) Christianity, don't you?
I've contended elsewhere on this site (I forget where, or in exactly what manner) that believing in the death and resurrection of Christ is (in this day and time) intrinsic to believing anything aside from or beyond what is (or can be) received and known only by our physical senses. In other words, it is what breaks the bondage to our physical senses of what can be believed. And, in light of that, there is presently no valid material "proof" of his resurrection... for if there were any, believing God would remain bound to the material reality of our senses.
This is why no one ever REALLY believes in the resurrection of Christ unless their heart is opened to it. And only when the inherent hardness of a man(or woman)'s heart is softened, does it ever allow room for it. Furthermore, I personally believe that a real softening of the heart starts with the recognition and acknowledgment of something written in Rom. 3:23. And when we "get" the reason (i.e., the heartfelt need) for our own redemption, verse 24 (of Rom. 3) springs to life within us... as it's understood why Christ is (and has to be) alive. Anything else no longer makes sense. Thus, leaving Rom. 3:23 (or its equivalent) out of the picture seems to stop anyone at the cross of Christ
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll take informal logical fallacies for $2000.
And the answer is...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
call it what you will, it doesn't make it any less true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, yes, it does.
You know, it's not hard-heartedness that gets people to change their minds. It's open-mindedness. It's rational thought. It's the courage to face yourself and say you were wrong about something. It's realizing when people are manipulating your emotions because they lack confidence in their own position.
If you have to discourage people from investigating their beliefs with an open mind, maybe you just don't have that compelling an argument to make. If I were confident in my belief, I would say "INVESTIGATE AWAY!" confident that the facts will lead you to the same place they have led me. And I don't even have an all-powerful God on my side.
Like I did above: I actually told her, take another look at Jesus Christ Our Passover. These other guys will no doubt suggest additional material Read it! I ENCOURAGE investigation.
Here's what I would say to her if I were a believer:
Pray about it. Study. Pray again, more. Ask people you trust. Don't make rash decisions. Think it through. PRAY AGAIN. Let me know if I can help you! I will do my best to show you what I see in the scriptures. I will pray with you.
What I would NOT do is try to guilt the person into remembering we're all sinners and only soft-hearted humble people agree with me and everyone else is stiffnecked, hard-hearted and lacking in humility.
Edited by RafDetail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Ummm... "rational thought" is about the last thing people who are needing to be persuaded actually take heed to.
The resources for learning persuasion are numerous, here is one.
Perhaps one of the most significant resources of our era is the seminal research of Robert Cialdini, emeritus professor of social psychology and author of Influence.
But I digress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Okay, I have no doubt whatsover that God is real and Jesus Christ rose from the dead. I do know about hardening of the heart. My heart has been hardened many times, which is why believers rarely see miracles. Andrew Wommack has a great teaching on this. People can experience miracles and very quickly forget. Look at the Israelite's in the wilderness. People saw Jesus perform miracles and didn't believe. They even wanted to kill Lazarus after he had been raised from the dead. Even the apostles who were with Jesus in his resurrected body, it says "Some still doubted!!!" Mathew 27:17.
Even if a person has never experienced anything "supernatural" (which I've no doubt some GS'ers have) there is plenty of evidence in the world. Romans 1 makes it clear, that God reveals Himself through the "seen" to where man has no excuse. But anyway, I'm truly not here to defend God, who needs no defending. I'm just saying there is no way, no how, anybody could ever get me not to believe, no matter what research they come up with. I have my own issues with God, plenty of them. But not believing is not one of them.
I am really surprised at myself, after Raf's' post on all the seemingly contradictions on Who saw Jesus first, that I never studied this part more. So I am very grateful for his post! It gives me something to study on. I do notice that Jesus only appeared to believers. If I were Jesus I would have loved to appear to the jerks who beat me and tortured me. I would have given them a scare or two. But I guess that's why I'm not Jesus. that and a billion other reasons. I sure as hell wouldn't die for me. Or anyone else for that matter. Okay, I'm rambling now. I'll be back to read more later. This is really a great thread!
Edited by RottieGrrrlmisspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I bet Stephen King could make that story sing!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Rocky,
I believe my approach is consistent with item 3 on your list (item 3 is very poorly named but the details are laudable).
Rottie,
On some threads I'm the provacateur. On others i try to just answer questions people may have and address preconceptions.
I didn't start or revive this thread, but I'm trying to show that my position is not one of emotion, anger or hard-heartedness. Contrary to what was alleged in now-deleted comments, I have no problem with people reading or studying scripture. I just like to say read ALL of it.
If you want to stay a believer til the end of time, more power to you.
If you're curious about where i stand now, ask away!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
There is actually a line from a Stephen King novel that has stuck with me for years. It's from the book, Thinner. (It was a movie too) This man, Billy, is cursed by a gypsy, and he keeps losing weight. He seeks help from an acquaintance, who is rather shady, but more than willing to help. When Billy tells his friend of how he was "cursed" by the gypsy, his friend believes him, because as skeptical as his friend is, he says something to the effect of "Anybody who sees something with their own eyes, and still doesn't believe, is a jerk." I've thought of that so many times. But that's another story for another time.
Raf: I just respect that you respect people with different views. I do have my own "problems" with God, relationship problems that I'm working on. But I have a bigger problem with religion. I can agree to disagree with people of many different Christian faiths, but it seems that somehow I have to keep my mouth shut about a lot of things lest I'm called a heretic. That just drives me nuts. I just like to keep things rational and reasonable. I would be very careful to question a persons salvation. Only God knows the heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No he doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, so I'm going to tread on this very carefully.
A few years ago, Ken Hamm debate Bill Nye on the subject of evolution.
Ken is not a scientist, but he's a young earth creationist who's studied the subject extensively and is no slouch. (He's an idiot, in my opinion, but he's not a stupid idiot).
Bill Nye is not a scientist either, but he is an advocate for science education.
So both men were asked, what would change your mind?
Ken said, Nothing. Nothing will change his mind. Nothing will shake his faith. Nothing can convince him that the Word of God is not true.
Bill Nye's answer: Evidence. Show me the evidence and I will change my mind.
I don't think it's a virtue to say I won't change my mind. I will. But with evidence.
And that's the key difference here. CLAIMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Appeals to emotion are not evidence. Non sequiturs (like Romans 1) are not evidence.
When we say something like "the disciples saw him and did not believe," we are making an assumption that the story told in that particular gospel is true. It's not. It's a claim, and one that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. Mary Magdalene's silence is a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject. When did Peter get to the tomb? John gives us a claim that flatly contradicts other claims about the same subject.
You know, when The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield contradicts Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, which contradicts Spider-Man Homecoming starring Tom Holland, which contradicts Spider-Man starring Nicholas Hammond, you don't try to harmonize the four accounts. Rather, you recognize each as a work of fiction interpreted by different storytellers. But name those storytellers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (even though those were NOT the authors of those books) and suddenly they're historians!
They're fiction writers.
So believe what you want, but real investigation does not begin with a conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
made it bigger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How am i supposed to argue with a coconut. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You don't argue with a coconut. You mix it with lime and drink it all up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Well there ya go. That's pretty much how my dad felt (he was an agnostic) when I figured out how to open it, and declared, as serious as a heart attack..."There IS a God!" But my point is, there really are "God" moments for people throughout life. We just need to recognize them. That's what I mean about our hearts being hardened to everyday things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Honestly, my reply:
I could believe in Santa Claus, Allah, the Easter Bunny and Slender Man tomorrow and that would not make them exist.
The existence of life proves life. It does not prove a deity. But even if it did, it would not prove a tribal deity who can't get his story straight.
Existence is not contingent on belief.
And insistence is not evidence.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.