Now that I'm reconverted again to Christian faith, I've realized it was time to update my knowledge, so I've removed the dust from my goody old Bible but I've come across some issues with the reading. I'd really appreciate if my fellow believers could give me a hand with this questions. It's about the resurrection of Jesus.
1. Who found the empty tomb?
a. Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
2. Who did they find at the tomb?
a. Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?
a. Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."
b. Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."
c. Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."
d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.
Which options would be true?
(source: infidels.org)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Hallelujah, sister! Praise the lord, another lamb returned to the fold.
Here is yet another perfect example of why the bible is a completely ridiculous piece of garbage. There are 83 different versions of almost every fairytale in it! You'd think they'd have at least gotten the story straight before they tried to start the long con.
Edited to add: I'm not trying to be an a**, as everyone has the right to their own beliefs. But you've just given a prime example of why we atheists shake our heads at you people.
I like california girls
Hey, @Breezy, weren't you Christian not so long ago? I even remember you quoting the Bible...What would you pick as the best answer?
I'd love to. Unfortunately, part of being atheists means I don't answer questions anymore. I
"I'd love to. Unfortunately, part of being atheists means I don't answer questions anymore. I"
So you're now masquerading as an atheist out of frustration that the questions you asked didn't get the answers you wanted? Part of being an atheist for me is to acknowledge there are answers I don't have, and having the intellectual courage to admit this rather than run to the comfort blanket of assertions that are not properly evidenced. I can see why someone like yourself who deals in absolutes would find that frustrating.
Why not drop the masquerade and examine atheism honestly? You might learn something new. I have learned a great deal from my discussions with theists, and an honest examination of my atheism. Though admittedly I had a mediocre formal education, and am no more than a middling intellect, so there was and is a lot to learn.
Boring
Never mind your résumé, give an honest answer for once.
I am still stuck at the question why an individual without wealth and just crucified by the ruling class winds up with a tomb. They aren't cheap, poor people sure didn't get buried in them. According to my best efforts, the Roman practice at that time was to leave the crucified as food for the crows.
@David Killens: "Roman practice at that time was to leave the crucified as food for the crows."
You're quite right. Victims were left up to rot as a warning to others. They certainly didn't take them down after a few hours and return them to their families.
@DavidKillens, the tomb fact is not under question. I'm sure God intented to give His son the care he deserved (after all, Jesus had suffered enough at that point) instead of let him rot at the cross.
I just want to know which version is more probable regarding the other questions.
How do you fellow believers solve these contradictions? I guess the day He was correcting the prophets' drafts, he got distracted because there was a war or something.
He contributed to the 'Jesus Aftercare Fund' that's why he got better treatment. Have you never heard 'Jesus Saves'?
Wasn't it actually the Romans who carried out the execution? And then blamed it on the Jews? Nice bit of crafty political back-stabbing going on there. But hang on a minute, Jesus was Aramaic wasn't he? Is that even the same thing as being Jewish?
@Keith: "Wasn't it actually the Romans"
The story I heard was that the Jewish elders wanted Jesus killed but had to apply to the Romans because only they had the power to execute people. Pontius Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus but in the end washed his hands of the matter. I learned all that by watching "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "Life of Brian."
I think Aramaic was his language. Judging from portraits of him, Jesus was either Spanish-Italian or Swedish.
"I am still stuck at the question why an individual without wealth and just crucified by the ruling class winds up with a tomb. They aren't cheap, poor people sure didn't get buried in them. According to my best efforts, the Roman practice at that time was to leave the crucified as food for the crows."
Well it's not easy to glean facts after 2 millennia, but you can see how the narrative loses something with an unmarked paupers grave. Makes you wonder what Christians would be wearing around their necks now if the cult had still taken off? It's hard to imagine vampires being scared of dirt, such is the power of imagery, though more mental gymnastics must be required to square their veneration of such images and carvings with these:
Exodus 20:1-15 ESV
“You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the Lord your God.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
— Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV)
Go figure, what about statues and paintings of the Madonna I wonder?
Answers
1. Mary, Mary, and another woman called Mary who shall also be known as Mary
2. Elvis in his Las Vegas fringed jumpsuit, and Liberace in his light-up suit
3. Fox News
According to the Codex Sinaiticus, 3 cleaning women found the tomb empty and said nothing for fear they would be accused.
I would answer this, but you guys would either insult my beliefs, intelligence, or integrity while you refuse to even consider any answer other than the one you’ve already come to. I suggest if anyone is truly interested in these questions and not just here to bash Christianity one could read a book by Norman Geisler or D.A. Carson.
Hi, @AJ. I prefer to read your version than to spend any money in apologetics. And having a strong opinion (whatever side you are) has nothing to do with insult anyone's beliefs, integrity, etc. And humor is the best gun of all.
By the way, I guess you should've said "to bash Religion". Remember, neither Christianity is the only religion in the world, nor USA the only country that exists (or matters).
@aj777
We are not bashing you personally ( well I have had heated exchanges with you ) we bash the claims themselves. To us at least in my eyes what you believe doesn't matter, it's when these claims allow people to make law or treat others as non-equals that's when we need to speak up. I don't feel as it's a personal attack it's an attack on the Bible or another holy book!
From my mind (let's say I know who you are but I mean anyone) if I saw you on the street and you were being beat down... I would try to help any way I could. At that point it no longer matters what your belief is I am on team people and if you are hurt I will try to help!
Are you sure you’re not bashing me personally? Here’s a tame example from one of your posts “Aj777 you are an immoral sad apologist, ” I’d bet you don’t vent your anger on people in real life like you’ve done to me. BTW laws in the UK and England at least have something to do with Christianity don’t you think?
I stand by what I said I am not bashing "you" personally, I am bashing your answer to the slavery issue we have spoken multiple times about. If you feel in any way that owning another human as property or give excuses on why god allowed slavery your view is immoral. Maybe I am strange but I do not feel anyone on this forum has bashed me personally. They may insult my intelligence on an issue, but they do not know me personally so they cannot bash me personally. There has been plenty of times you have alluded that I am mad at god, or something in my life happened that's why I am angry. Yet you do not know me, you don't know my life and that's where I do not take anything said personally. Actually that is a commonly used tactic by apologists. But as I have said in the past if I am wrong I will correct it so- if I have gave you the impression that I want to bash "you" I am truly sorry. Now with that being said if I am in a face to face with someone I do not have a problem calling them on bullshit or telling them that they are making excuses for an immoral fictional god and this has also made them immoral in my eyes.
And to your question yes I am sure a lot of laws made in the U.K.- or America even have been derived from Christian ideas. That being said in America we just allowed same sex marriage at a federal level! That is fucking insane it took this long, and laws like that are why I want a secular society!
Now riddle me this do you think that Christians are more law abiding then atheists?
No I don’t think that people that call themselves Christians or religious are more moral than atheists. What I’ve been trying to get you to understand is that apart from an objective standard outside of self or society there is no such thing as morality. Appreciate the apology, and if I offended you by suggesting that you are angry I am sorry. You’ve given me reasons to believe that you are angry though by the language you’ve used, so if you are not angry and that is just a way you’re choosing to speak for whatever reason, ok then.
@aj777 no problem....
I reject the premise that without a god there can be no objective moral standard, because I do not believe there is an objective moral standard! An objective moral standard means that an act is immoral no matter what the circumstances are, they have no level of subjectivity.
This is what I am trying to get you to understand if your god is the objective moral standard then morals would be under his control. Meaning that if tomorrow he commanded us ( america ) to nuke Africa it would be morally correct to do so. But as a society we understand that morals are subjective, that depending on circumstances an immoral act could not lead to jail time. "If I kill someone who is trying to break into my house and kill me."
As stated above objective moral standards are not Subject to circumstances... when god commanded to kill in his name those people were moral in gods eyes, and if you believe god is the standard then in your eyes as well.
As a society is ever changing and evolving we progress our understandings of what is and what is not moral.
I would tell you right now that I do not know you but I would bet that you are a hell of a lot more moral than your god. Please don't allow yourself to make excuses for why he had to do what he did! He can do anything he wants. He allowed humans to own other humans as property ( even if its indentured servitude ) but yet he commands that you do not eat shellfish???
It is a book written in its time by humans that had no other concern but themselves, they were selfish and immoral.
Burny, here’s another way to think of objective morality. If there is one act that is always wrong no matter the society, circumstances, or culture, then objective morality exists. An example often given is torturing babies for fun. If morality is not objective then that is not really wrong?
So would holding back medication from your young child/ baby that would have saved their life be considered torcher? What if I told you that baby suffered extreme pain as it died? Yet the parents allowed this to happen because their religion didn't allow medicine? Is it morally ok?
Also you glossed over everything else!!! What if god said tomorrow that torchering babies was ok? Under your world view would it be moral if god commanded it?
Oh and another thing ... don't you believe that humans are born with original sin? So if that baby was born to parents that didn't baptize their baby would god not Send that disgusting Heathen to hell to be torchered for eternity for existing??????
Oh and didn't your god command the mass killing of all the men woman (that were married or knew of men) not virgins and babies???????? Hmmmmmmmm!!!!!
Was that moral???!!!???
Without comment
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Pages