Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: The Resurrection as Legend

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default The Resurrection as Legend

    THE TRILEMMA OF C.S. LEWIS:

    C.S. LEWIS, more famous for his children's books in the Chronicles of Narnia ( Prince Caspian, The Witch, the Lion and the Wardrobe, etc )was an atheist who became a Christian, born in Ireland but of English stock not Irish ( the group known as the Anglo-Irish, like George Bernard Shaw, Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels ) and Oscar Wilde ( Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, The Portrait of Dorion Gray )).

    He spoke of 3 POSSIBILITIES regarding Jesus, as he appears in the Gospels. And there are good reasons for accepting their reliabilty regarding him, based of various criteria like the CRITERION of EMBARASSMENT, that of MULTIPLE ATTESTATION, etc.

    He could be either a LUNATIC: sincere and who believed himself God and Messiah. Or LIAR: an impostor, or really LORD. He also considered the possibility of LEGEND, but rejected it due to the gospels being reliable.

    THE RESURRECTION AS LEGEND

    That is the idea held by ROBERT PRICE and HECTOR AVALOS, both ex-Christians. In GENERAL, but only in general, it takes at least 2 GENERATIONS or 50-60 years for a legend regarding a historical figure to appear. Now the gospel of MARK even by the LATEST dating ( 75 AD ) appears before the passage of 2 generations, and there we have a resurrection. Also the CREED in 1 COR 15 appeared less than 5 YEARS after Jesus' death. And the idea of that creed being that early is a conclusion of the LIBERAL NT scholars, as Gary Habermas said a debate, and accepted by them, including the JESUS SEMINAR, the most liberal of all.

    So we have an EXCEPTION to the rule, the legend of the resurrection appearing very early.

    OTHER CASE STUDIES OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE

    SABBATAI ZEVI ( or Sevi, Zvi ) ( 1626-1676 ): he was a Jew born in Smyrna, Turkey and he proclaimed himself the MESSIAH. He was accepted as such by great numbers. Right away stories by his followers appeared that he was doing MIRACLES: walking on fire without being burned, resurrecting the dead, that a fiery cloud had appeared over him, a voice from heaven was heard when he was around.


    CHARLES MANSON ( born 1934 ): he was a famous murderer, having kidnapped and killed in 1969 the famous American actress ( then pregnant ) SHARON TATE, wife of the famous movie director from Poland ROMAN POLANSKI ( creator of the PIANIST ). Stories that he had done miracles appeared during his lifetime.

    THE RASTAFARI RELIGION: begun in the 1930's in Jamaica they believe that the EMPEROR of ETHIOPIA HAILE SELASSIE ( 1892-1975 ) was none other than GOD INCARNATE. Notice that the LEGEND of the DIVINITY of Haile Selassie emerged during the LIFETIME of Haile Selassie, it did not take 50-60 years after his death. They number from 1-2 million followers.

    In 1975 Haile Selassie was overthrown and later died in prison, from the evidence it seems he was assasinated. But most Rastafari REFUSED to believe it, since he was God incarnate, and said the body was of another man.

    THE DRUZE MOVEMENT: it was founded in 1021 by 2 men, HAMZA and a vizir of the Sultan called DARAZI. They believed that HAKIM, the SULTAN of Egypt ( ruled 996-1021 ), was nothing less than GOD INCARNATE. They number from 500,000 to 1 million followers. Notice it did not take 50-60 years for the LEGEND of Hakim being God to appear.

    Hakim was a man who was mentally unstable, decreeing strange and bizarre laws, persecuting the Christians and even destroying the Church of the HOLY SEPULCHER ( where the tomb of Jesus had been ) in Jerusalem in 1009. One night he went out on a walk outside of Cairo and simply DISAPPEARED, they never found his body. It was then that Hazam and Daziri, his followers, founded the Druze movement.

    THE REASON WHY THE JESUS MOVEMENT DIFFERS FROM THOSE EXAMPLES:

    It each case cited it was the BELIEVERS who actually believed and proclaimed the extraordinary claims and ONLY the BELIEVERS. It was the BELIEVERS of SABBATAI ZEVI who accepted the miracle stories and his messiahship, NOT the skeptics, the UNBELIEVERS. The same for the BELIEVERS of what DAZARI and HAZAM said, that SULTAN HAKIM was God incarnate, not the SKEPTICS. The same for the Rastafarians believers who believed Haile Selassie was God, not the skeptics.

    We know of no case where HARD-CORE skeptics ( like JAMES and the other brothers of Jesus )and outright ENEMIES ( like PAUL ) in the case of Zevi, the Rastafarians, the Hakim story, or Charles Manson BECAME BELIEVERS. In fact James and Paul became, along with Peter, the 3 top leaders of the Jesus movement.

    MATHEMATICAL PROBABITIY THAT IT WAS MORE PROBABLE THAT BARKOCHBA'S FOLLOWERS WOULD HAVE COME TO BELIEVE IN A RESURRECTION OF THEIR MESSIAH

    He was a man who led a revolt in 132-135 AD and accomplished more in fulfilling the traditional Messianic expectations than Jesus: he freed Palestine from Roman rule for a while, captured Jerusalem and, according to the Talmud, was even hailed by AKIBA, the greatest Jewish teacher of his time, as the Messiah. It was more mathematically probable that after his death his admirers would have proclaimed his resurrection, but they did not.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    PROBABILITIES:

    In the case of the JESUS MOVEMENT ( as it is now called by NT scholars ) we have 2 highly improbable ocurrences:

    1. That his disciples came to believe in his resurrection ( remember it was MORE probable that BARKOCHBA'S followers would have come to that idea ).

    2. That VERY STRONG UNBELIEVERS would later come to believe ( it did not happen among the skeptics in the cases of Sabbatai Zevi, the Rastafarians, the Druzes and Charles Manson ).

    WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESARRY?

    In the case of the DRUZES, if one, a harcore skeptic and unbeliever, lived back then, then what evidence would it take to convince YOU that Hakim was God incarnate? Or if one lived when Haile Selassie lived, what evidence would it take to convince YOU that he was God incarnate and make you a Rastafarian? Or what evidence would it take to convince YOU that Sabbatai Zevi was the Messiah, even after his apostasy?

    So in the case of James and his brothers and later Paul something later changed their perception. It was that they believed that they met JESUS RESURRECTED, it took THAT to convince them. That does not prove it happened but to say they did not believe it true goes contrary to the documentary evidence. And the case of Paul we have in his writings that he was also conscious an evil spirit tricks people and that he VERIFIED in the OT if the ideas of the Jesus movement were in accord with the OT.

    TEXT SHOWING THAT LATER JESUS' BROTHERS BECAME BELIEVERS

    In the earliest gospel of MARK we have that Jesus' family thought he was mad ( MARK 3:21 ) and that his relatives and family did not believe in him as a prophet ( MARK 6:4 ). In JOHN, the latest gospel, we have that his brothers did not believe in him( JOHN 7:5 ). But AFTER the resurrection in ACTS we have that all of a sudden they are believers:

    ACTS 1:10-14:

    " They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going ( NOTE: Jesus ascending ), when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. " Men of Galilee, " they said, " why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven. "

    Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together CONSTANTLY in PRAYER, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BROTHERS. "


    THE ARGUMENT THAT A GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT STRENGHTHENS THE BELIEVERS

    Finally Sabbatai Zevi went to Constantinople/ Istanbul and was imprisoned by the Sultan. He was then brought before him and asked to do the following miracle: he would be shot at by archers and he had to prevent the arrows from killing him. Zevi refused and he was given the choice of DEATH by IMPALEMENT ( a stake pierced through your body ) or conversion to Islam. So he became a Muslim.

    In the case of the Jewish followers of SABBATAI ZEVI it was a GREAT disappointment to hear he had APOSTASIZED from Judaism to Islam. The true Messiah is not supposed to betray the true religion. Many of his followers refused to reject their belief in Zevi as Messiah. They continued to believe in him. So literally THOUSANDS of JEWS converted to Islam, following his example. They became known as the DONME ( or Dounme, Donmeh )and number some 100,000 today. They secretely practice Judaism but are externally Muslim and continue to accept Zevi.

    The argument is that EVEN the great disappointment of the crucifixion of Jesus was NOT enough to destroy the faith of the disciples in him. Notice that even the death of Haile Selassie, God incarnate, was NOT enough to destroy the FAITH of the RASTAFARIANS that he was God.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE: THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

    It is a group that numbers 6 million and was founded by American CHARLES RUSSELL ( 1852-1916 ). In 1914 he said that in that year JESUS would PHYSICALLY come back ( the second coming ). When he did not MOST still kept believing since he convinced them that there had been an error in interpretaion and it meant his SPIRITUAL return to the world.

    THERE IS A DIFFERENCE:

    One notices that right away. In the gospels, all 4 of them, NOT one of the male disciples believes Jesus had resurrected when first hearing the news. The women believed but ONLY because angels appeared, NOT because they saw an empty tomb. Jesus had to appear to them in person. Notice in JOHN that even after the other male disciples told THOMAS that Jesus had resurrected ( Thomas was then absent ), HE did not believe it. And in John we have the beloved disciple believing only because he noticed something about the clothes in the empty tomb that convinced him, not the empty tomb itself, the way the linen stripes were still arranged.

    They were NOT like Zevi's followers, nor the Rastafarians, who believed no matter what, till the end, no doubts at all.

    THE RESURRECTION ACCORDING TO SHABIR ALLY

    Let us accept for second his idea. Jesus was really crucified, and APPARENTLY died, but not really. He was alive all the time. God made sure he would not die, he was RESCUED. Then he woke up and was seen by his disciples and later ascended to heaven.

    DEATH IN ANTIQUITY WAS UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY

    In his debate with MICHAEL LICONA there was an argument used by Shabir Ally, based on a scholar's research into how people in the past understood the concept of DEATH. That is true in the sense that then people did NOT have the TECHNOLOGY and MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE that there are cases, very few, but there are where: a person is APPARENTLY DEAD but in reality is still alive, barely, but alive. And we have cases where apparently dead people have woke up.

    So in Antiquity, due to lack of medical knowledge, such people were actually believed to have " resurrected from the dead."

    BUT IN REALITY THE CONCEPTS ARE THE SAME:

    In Antiquity for them DEAD was DEAD. They never meant " dead, but not yet, still alve, but barely. " It meant you had no life. At that time they did not have the medical knowledge that there actually is a state where a person is APPARENTLY dead but not so. If TODAY we did not have that knowledge and an apprently dead person all of a sudden woke then we would also consider it a true miracle.

    THE THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

    Again, accepting events as given by Shabir Ally, that poses a THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM. I will explain. It means that Jesus was NEVER really DEAD, he always had life. Barely, almost gone, but still alive. So when Jesus woke up HE believed he had REALLY been dead. So we have here the case of 3 DECEPTIONS:

    1. The deception by God to Jesus, for not telling him he was never really dead. He did not tell him: " You were never killed, I RESCUED you."

    2. The deception by God through Jesus of the disciples, who believed he had really died and resurrected.

    3. The deception of humanity for 600 years till it was revealed to Mohammed that " truly he was not killed nor crucified. "

    ABOUT GREGORY BOYD AND THE RESURRECTION AS LEGEND

    He is a famous Christian who used to be an atheist. He is on the liberal side regarding politics. He and coauthor PAUL EDDY recently wrote the book THE JESUS LEGEND ( appeared in 2008 ) in response to the Jesus and legend claims. There are 2 versions: that for NT scholars ( 400 pages ) and that for the general public ( about 150 pages ). It took them 4 years to write, due to the fact that Paul Eddy is a research addict, who was also lookig for new information against their position that might have been overlooked.

    They even in the end had to eliminate 3 CHAPTERS or 100 pages that treated the NON-CANONICAL GOSPELS. They will appear in a new book. Here is a link where they discuss their book in an interview:

    http://www.bringyou.to/BoydEddyJesusLegend.mp3


    A short biography of him:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_A._Boyd

    PAUL AS A FIRST-HAND WITNESS

    Accepting the position of the skeptics, we would reject the 4 gospels as FIRST-HAND TESTIMONY ( Matthew and John ) or BASED on first-hand testimony ( Mark and Luke ). But no one denies the authenticity of several letters by Paul and in 1 COR 15:8-9 we have Paul as a FIRST-HAND witness to the resurrection. He believed he had seen Jesus physically resurrected. To say, as you find in the Muslim literature, that we have NO writings from a FIRST-HAND source regarding Jesus is false.

    It was that that convinced him. In 1 COR 15:3-7 he gives us the CREED of the followers and then ADDS a bit of personal information. So we know he was not just REPEATING what he had heard from FIRST-HAND witnesses ( in other words he would just be SECOND-HAND testimony ). In the creed he says JESUS appeared RESURRECTED to alot of people: PETER, the twelve, JAMES, the apostles and even 500 followers.

    THE 1 COR 15:8-9 TEXT:

    " And last of all HE ( Jesus ) APPEARED to me ALSO, as to one abnormally born.
    For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. "

    PHYSICAL RESURRECTIN OR SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION?

    Really it is only a SMALL MINORITY of NT scholars who hold the idea that Paul and the early disciples of Jesus preached a spiritual resurrection, like TILL FARRELL ( website: theskepticalreview.com ), DAN BARKER ( website: ffrf.org ) and RICHARD CARRIER. I have in another post given the reasons why based on the documentary evidence ( the 4 gospels, Paul, Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Ireneus, Tertullian ) and even archeaology and the way all that evidence is INTERRELATED the PHYSICAL resurrection of Jesus as being the REAL BELIEF of the first disciples is certain.

    In fact I had not then given an important bit of evidence given in 1 CLEMENT ( 96 AD ), written by Clement of Rome, who knew the apostles. I had said that he wrote of Paul and Peter being martyrs. He also mentions the resurrection 2X.

    In one he says: " therefore having received orders and complete certainy caused by the RESURRECTION of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit's certainty, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is about to come. " Clement, based on the documentary evidence, knew some of the apostles, and here he says they spoke of a resurrection.

    2 INTERESTING DEBATES REGARDING THE RESURRETION OF JESUS AS LEGEND:

    The website where a whole bunch of debates about the existence of God, the resurrection, etc are is:

    http://bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

    GREGORY BOYD AND ROBERT PRICE: here Price cites the cases I gave, plus a bit more, I just added extra info for those who have never heard of them before:

    http://www.bringyou.to/BoydPriceDebate.mp3

    WILLIAM CRAIG and HECTOR AVALOS: the bad part is that Avalos indulges in sarcasm that is very unprofessional, of the Ahmad Deedat and Till Farrell type.

    http://www.bringyou.to/CraigAvalosRe...tionDebate.mp3

  3. #3
    (THOAT-wob-lur MAN-grove)
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hell on the Border
    Posts
    5,002

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Possibly you don't understand the beliefs of the primary audience to which you address yourself. We Muslims believe that Jesus (P) was not crucified in the first place, but rather God somehow made it seem as though he was. The most common theory about what exactly that constituted involves God forcing Judas Escaroit to go onto the cross instead, obviously miraculously transformed so as to be a perfect duplicate. Although that notion bears no certainty, or even anything approaching it, it does make sense of various, otherwise unconnected things. I discuss this in my "Evidence Against the Crucifixion" article on my website (link in signature). I also refute the Trilemma on the site. It was a shame doing that, slightly, given the respect and interest and fandom I've always had with Lewis's theological writings and stories.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman View Post
    Possibly you don't understand the beliefs of the primary audience to which you address yourself. We Muslims believe that Jesus (P) was not crucified in the first place, but rather God somehow made it seem as though he was.
    The reason I give out the additional information is so one can know all the details. In fact, the conclusions and information in NT studies do AFFECT Islamic studies. They are connected. For example:

    1. The documentary evidence ( which is not just that of Paul but of other non-Pauline writings, and INDEPENDENT of Paul ) tells us the original disciples of Jesus ( which would not include James and Paul ) believed in a physical resurrection. Not that it proves it happened, but that it was the original belief.

    So if a Muslim scholar argues that the EARLIEST belief of the earliest LEARNERS ( the Greek word disciple means learner ) was the SUBSTITUTION theory he would have to convincingly explain away the documentary evidence to the contrary.

    2. Since we can trace the physical resurrection belief to within 2 to 3 years after Jesus' death, then the LEGEND of the physical resurrection did not take 30-50 years. And also the legend APPEARED in the JERUSALEM area, not 1,000 miles away in ROME. A Muslim scholar who argues that the physical resurrection is a legend that appeared 2 or 3 generations later and far away would have to present good reasons to reject the contrary evidence.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman View Post
    The most common theory about what exactly that constituted involves God forcing Judas Escaroit to go onto the cross instead, obviously miraculously transformed so as to be a perfect duplicate. Although that notion bears no certainty, or even anything approaching it, it does make sense of various, otherwise unconnected things. I discuss this in my "Evidence Against the Crucifixion" article on my website (link in signature). I also refute the Trilemma on the site. It was a shame doing that, slightly, given the respect and interest and fandom I've always had with Lewis's theological writings and stories.
    In the conclusion of the article in your website called EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CRUCIFIXION some of the things you said were ( the emphases are MINE ):

    " Why so many contradictions in these brief accounts? The same goes for the Resurrection accounts. Go to http://ffrf.org/ for Dan Barker’s slightly longer list of Resurrection contradictions.

    Now, what are the MOST IMPORTANT, improbable contradictions I’ve listed? Right, they’re the ones ABOUT JUDAS ISCARIOT. There’s confusion not only over how he died, but over WHETHER he DIED.

    This fits the common Islamic idea that God miraculously switched his physical appearances with his teacher’s so that he was crucified instead. It all fits, don’t you see? That’s why there’s such confusion over Judas’s death, that’s why there’s such confusion over what happened at the crucifixion, that’s why the four Resurrection accounts of the Gospels are hopelessly inconsistent. "

    I will give my objections later to more of what you stated in your article but I think the most important is that regarding IF JUDAS DIED.

    REASONS TO DOUBT

    In your website in the article EVIDENCE AGAISNT THE CRUCIFIXION you gave a list of 16 contradictions or apparent contradictions in the NT that should make us doubt there ever was a crucifixion of Jesus. Now what you gave is known to all NT scholars and ALL, except for those who do not believe Jesus existed, agree that:

    1. Jesus was crucified.
    2. Jesus died.

    Of all persuasions. But let me list those who are famous and who do NOT believe there was a PHYSICAL RESURRECTION. And these SAME people would agree with all or most of your 16 items:

    BART EHRMAN ( agnostic ), JAMES TABOR ( atheist ), JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN, ROBERT FUNK, MARCUS BORG, TILL FARRELL ( atheist ), DAN BARKER ( atheist ), GERD LUDERMANN ( atheist ), HECTOR AVALOS ( atheist ), KEITH PARSONS ( atheist ), JOHN LOFTUS ( atheist, website debunkingchristianity ), ELAINE PAGELS, BISHOP JOHN SPONG, GEZA VERMES ( Jewish ), PAULA FREDRIEKSEN ( Jewish ), RICHARD CARRIER ( atheist ).

    These are, as the saying goes, they are " your men and women ", they are on your side, so to speak. Yet they have no doubts that Jesus was really crucified and died, they do not say " maybe it was somebody else ", " there is doubt if he really was killed, or somebody else. " And again, they known about the 16 examples you gave.

    I read your article about why to doubt the crucifixion. Your cited as an argument:

    DOUBT IF JUDAS DIED AT ALL?

    So in ACTS 1:16-19 and in MATT 27:5 we have Judas dead. No doubt about that. Then you pointed out to the church creed in 1 COR 15 that says " he appeared to the TWELVE ". That is to say Jesus appeared RESURRECTED after his death. And JUDAS would be a member of the TWELVE. In your website you said Christians say " the Twelve was just a title that Paul was just using to refer to the 11. " No doubt some say that but I do not think it is correct.

    WHERE THE TWELVE ALWAYS COMPOSED OF THE SAME PEOPLE?

    In the gospels the phrase THE TWELVE refers to the original 12 disciples, including Judas. But after his death and after the resurrection the remaining eleven PLUS OTHERS to the number of around 120 PERSONS who believed in the resurrection had a ELECTION in ACTS 1:20-26 to REPLACE the VACANT POSITION of JUDAS.

    INCREDULTIY ABOUT THE 1 COR 15 CREED'S AFFIRMATION THAT 500 SAW JESUS RESURRECTED:

    Notice we have a LARGE NUMBER of 120. In the 1 COR 15 creed it says Jesus appeared to 500 PERSONS. Many times people say that the 500 number is not TRUE. Why? Because it is not mentioned in the gospels. Yet it is in the EARLIEST CREED according to all NT scholars. The JESUS SEMINAR puts it at 2 years after the death of Jesus. GERD LUDERMANN ( whose articles you can find in infidels.org ), the most famous NT scholar of GERMANY, once a Christian and now an ATHEIST, puts it at 3 years after his death. And those 120 could well have been among those in the 500 crowd.

    HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE TWELVE OF 1 COR 15 MEANS THE TWELVE WITH JUDAS' SUBSTITUTE AND NOT THE ORIGINAL TWELVE?

    It is simple. Because 1 COR 15 SPECIFIES that " the twelve " saw the RESURRECTED JESUS. Now ACTS 1 tells us Judas died and then we have the election to take his place, to complete the 11 and make it 12 again, so JUDAS could NOT have seen the resurrected Jesus.

    THE NEW TWELVE IN ACTS 1:15-26:

    " In those days Peter stood up among the believers, a group numbering about 120 and said, " Brothers... 'May another take his place of leadership.' ( NOTE: take the place of JUDAS ) Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

    So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas, also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, " Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to TAKE OVER this apostolic ministry, which JUDAS LEFT left to go where he belongs. "

    Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so HE ( note: MATTHIAS ) was ADDED to the ELEVEN apostles. "

    THE CONDITIONS FOR TAKING JUDAS' PLACE:

    One condition, among others, was to have seen JESUS RESURRECTED.
    They are, in ACTS 1:

    " Therefore it is necessary to choose ONE of the MEN who:

    1. Have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, BEGINNING from JOHN'S BAPTISM ( note: of JESUS ) to the time when Jesus was TAKEN UP FROM US ( note: the ascension ).

    2. For one of these must become a WITNESS with US of his RESURRECTION."

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman View Post
    The most common theory about what exactly that constituted involves God forcing Judas Escaroit to go onto the cross instead, obviously miraculously transformed so as to be a perfect duplicate. Although that notion bears no certainty, or even anything approaching it, it does make sense of various, otherwise unconnected things. I discuss this in my "Evidence Against the Crucifixion" article on my website (link in signature). .
    The following is about a detail of JUDAS often commented on and which you refer to in your article EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CRUCIFIXION:

    HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

    We have it in MATT 27:5 and ACTS 1:18. One is a CLEAR verse and the other one less clear, we know that from the ORIGINAL GREEK. So in the clear verse in MATTHEW Judas hangs himself: " Judas threw the pieces of silver in the temple, left and went to hung himself."

    WHAT MATTHEW 27:5 DOES NOT SAY:

    Notice it does NOT say WHERE: in a house, in a field, from a tree, from the ceiling, etc. More than that he hung himself we can not say. End of information.

    THE UNCLEAR PART OF ACTS 1:18:

    Checking in several sources it turns out that in the original Greek we have the words PRENES GENOMENOS. That is the phrase translated as FALLING HEADLONG. The meaning of PRENES is undeniably " headlong, head foremost, head first. "

    However the word GENOMENOS does NOT mean FALLING at all. It is translated like that to hide the ambiguity. It means BECOMING or TO BECOME.

    What we have in ACTS 1:18 is:

    " With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there PRENES GENOMENOS ( head foremost becoming ), his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. "

    WHAT TO NOTICE IN THE PASSAGE:

    Notice that nowhere in the ACTS 1:18 passage do we have the verbs TO WALK or TO FALL. The way the words are put does not say that Judas was WALKING in the field and FELL head down and hit his stomach which burst open.

    NEITHER does the passage say the body of Judas was hanging and when the rope was cut it fell on the ground and the feet hit the ground and the body inclined HEAD DOWN, thus making the stomach hit the ground and bursting.

    WHAT DOES THE PASSAGE SAY?

    All it says is, to paraphrase it accurately, that " the stomach of Judas burst open when it ( Judas, or his body ) BECAME HEAD FOREMOST. "

    What does that mean exactly? It what way did the head becoming foremost CAUSE the stomach to BURST open? We do not know. The way the Greek text stands is TOO FUZZY.

    THE WAY CORPSES FALL AND HIT THE GROUND:

    Skeptics say a corpse would fall FEET FOREMOST or FIRST. That is true, I agree. But when a corpse hits the ground it does not stand on its feet, it:

    1. Falls BACK FOREMOST, falling on its back.
    2. Falls SIDEWAYS, falling on its side.
    3. Falls HEAD FOREMOST, head pointing down, on its stomach.

    WHY WOULD A STOMACH BURST SO EASILY?

    It is RARE for a person to fall and just burst his stomach like that. Not that it is impossible, but rare. However accepting the hanging of Judas then since it was the PASSOVER FESTIVAL HOLIDAY of SEVERAL days, no Jew would have touched a dead body to become ritually impure.

    The taking down of Judas' body would have taken several days. In the meantime it would have got SWOLLEN. When the hung body would have been taken down by cutting the rope, it is natural for the SWOLLEN STOMACH to BURST OPEN when the feet hit the ground and the body tipped HEAD FOREMOST, making the stomach hit the ground, not the BACK.

    ONE EXPLANATION:

    Some have said here is a scribal error and that the original words were PRESTHES GENOMENOS, not PRENES ENOMENOS, meaning " SWOLLEN BECOMING " ( " to become swollen ", not " to become head first " ). One who held this idea was HYAM MACCOBY ( 1924-2004 ), a British NT scholar who is famous for his view that PAUL was NOT JEWISH, but a GENTILE. A view that has been rejected by all NT scholars.

    In his book JUDAS ISCARIOT AND THE MYTH OF JEWISH EVIL ( 1991 ) he says the orignal wording was PRESTHES GENOMENOS. Now to be superskeptical one can say it is only speculation, but in the website tektonics, assuming the information is accurate, it is stated that in SYRIAC ( the Aramaic of Syria ), ARMENIAN and GEORGIAN manuscripts the passage is translated as AND BECOMING SWOLLEN.

    That is important, really, because the translator may well have had Greek copies with the words PRESTHES GENOMENOS.

    CONCLUSION:

    Again, one is not obliged to accept that explanation so leaving it as PRENES GENOMENOS the impartial skeptic would agree that:

    1. The passage as it stands in Greek is very ambiguous.
    2. It is RARE for a person walking in a field to fall and BURST his stomach, a fractured or broken leg is more likely. Unless he fell from a CLIFF, but no cliff is mentioned in ACTS 1.
    3. So at best either explanation of what BECOMING HEADLONG exactly means in relation to the bursting of the stomach is a candidate. But to say the passage 100% says Judas was walking, fell and burst his stomach is inaccurate.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    In your article you wrote about " who carried the cross? ". Here I add something but later will add more. I am going by parts. Also I will later add more about the JUDAS theme: why the field was called the " Field of Blood " and " who bought it? " Again, about the bursting of the stomach it may be what the Jewish-British scholar HYAM MACCOBY stated.

    DID JESUS CARRY HIS CROSS OR NOT?

    In all the SYNOPTICS ( Mark, Luke and Matthew ) a man called SIMON OF CYRENE carries the cross. We are even told his name. And I showed in a former post we most probably have archeological evidence he existed.

    PUTTING THE NARRATION OF JOHN 19:17 TO THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST:

    In JOHN 19:17 it is said Jesus carried the cross. But was he able to carry it ALL the WAY? In the non-Christian documentary SCIENCE OF THE BIBLE ( 2005 ) by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC they decided to test if Jesus would have been able to carry the cross from Jerusalem to a certain distance outside. They:

    1. Got a man around 30 who was stocky and of medium height, how Jesus would most probably have been.

    2. Made a cross using the SAME WOOD as the trees around Jerusalem. The first cross was in the FORM of a SMALL T ( like this: + ). Result: it was TOO HEAVY for him to carry AT ALL.

    3. Made him carry a BEAM across his shoulders, tied with ropes. Halfway through or less he could not continue, the pain was too great. And this was a man who had NOT been whipped, like Jesus. Conclusion: he would have needed the help of another man.

    HOUR OF THE CRUCIFIXION

    It was undeniably at the THIRD HOUR ( 9 am, MARK 15:25). Later MARK 15:33 tells us from the 6TH HOUR till the 9TH hour ( 12 pm-3 pm ) there was a DARKNESS. MATTHEW does NOT say the hour of the crucifixion but he KNEW about it since he had copied from MARK, 90% of him ( more of that later ). But MATTHEW 27:45 repeats the 12 pm-3 pm darkness.

    Here MATTHEW is using the JEWISH TIME SYSTEM. We know because in MATT 20:1-16 we have the PARABLE of the WORKERS where it is incomprehensible unless here Jesus ( who by the way was talking to a Jewish-Palestiian audience ) is using the Jewish Time System.

    In fact, scholars routinely also say the Gospel of MATTHEW, because of its great use of OT prophecies, was directed to a JEWISH AUDIENCE of Jesus' followers.

    THE 6TH HOUR IN JOHN 19:14:

    All NT scholars agree the Gospel of JOHN was written for a GENTILE audience, one which used the ROMAN TIME SYSTEM ( like ours ) where the DAY BEGINS at MIDNIGHT. So the 6th hour is 6 AM, and not NOON.

    WHY SOME SAY THE TIME USED IN JOHN IS THE JEWISH TIME SYSTEM:

    It is because they think JOHN 19 says the 6TH HOUR or NOON ( in the JEWISH TIME SYSTEM ) not because he cared about what the real crucifixion hour was but just to make Jesus' crucifixion coincide with the time the Passover Lamb was killed in the Temple. It is a theological statement, not history.

    DOES THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAY JESUS WAS CRUCIFIFIED IN THE 6TH HOUR ( in either the Jewish or Roman System )?

    No, it refers to the the APPROXIMATE TIME Jesus was CONDEMNED to be killed, NOT the hour he was killed. The JOHN 19:12-16 text:

    " From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “ If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar. ”

    When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and ABOUT the SIXTH HOUR. And he said to the Jews, “ Behold your King! ” "

    COMMENT: notice the " about the 6th hour " is an estimation, it could have been 5:30 am or 6:30 am. Also notice the " about the 6th hour " refers to the MOMENT the Jewish crowd convinced PILATE to CONDEMN Jesus, not the hour he was actually nailed. But to continue:

    " But they cried out, “ Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him! ”
    Pilate said to them, “ Shall I crucify your King? ”
    The chief priests answered, “ We have no king but Caesar! ”
    Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. Then they took Jesus and led Him away. "

    ABOUT THE 2 THIEVES AND JESUS:

    The objection is that it is impossible for the 2 thieves in MATT 27:44 to mock Jesus and in LUKE 23:39-43 for one of them to be sympathetic. They were together for 6 HOURS, not 2 MINUTES. There was more than enough time for BOTH events to happen.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman View Post
    The most common theory about what exactly that constituted involves God forcing Judas Escaroit to go onto the cross instead, obviously miraculously transformed so as to be a perfect duplicate. Although that notion bears no certainty, or even anything approaching it, it does make sense of various, otherwise unconnected things. I discuss this in my "Evidence Against the Crucifixion" article on my website (link in signature).
    To address other things in your article about the events happening around the death of Jesus:

    THE RELATION AMONG THE FOUR GOSPELS:

    The ACADEMIC CONSENSUS or agreement of at least 95% of scholars ( in this case more ) is that MATTHEW and LUKE had a copy of MARK and copied from him. MATTHEW copied 90% of MARK, and LUKE about 50%. Plus MATT and LUKE share Q, or 230 verses common to both but absent in MARK. And also LUKE has material not in MATT or MARK, and the same for MATTHEW.

    As for JOHN the scholars are divided 50/50 if he copied from the Synoptics.

    It is very important to remember this when one makes claims about supposed gospel contradictions. Because they show when MATT or LUKE simply add details to what is already in MARK. And they also omit details found in Mark.

    TECHNIQUES USED BY MATT AND LUKE IN RELATION TO MARK:

    Scholars had noticed the folowing: 1. TIME COMPRESSION. 2. OMISSIONS. 3. ADDING DETAILS TO A STORY. 4. EVENT SUMMARY and 5. PARAPHRASE.

    WHAT DID JESUS DRINK ON THE CROSS?

    MARK 15:23 says " they gave him WINE mixed MYRRH to drink, which he refused " and MATT 27:34 says " they gave him WINE mixed with CHOLE ( the ORIGINAL Greek word used ) to drink, but when he tasted it, he did not want to drink it. "

    Remember that MATT copied from MARK, yet he changed the word MYRRH to CHOLE. The question is WHY? He also added that Jesus first tasted and then refused. There is nothing wrong with that. MARK just gave the FINAL ACT, the rejection of the wine, and MATT added HOW it came about ( he added information to Mark ).

    WHAT IS MYRRH?

    It is a substance that has THREE characteristics:

    1. It is an AROMATIC ( it smells good, used as a perfume ).
    2. It has a BITTER taste. The word MYRRH comes from the Arabic MURR, which means " BITTER ". For checking, see:

    http://1911encyclopedia.org/Myrrh

    3. It has a certain use as a NARCOTIC, a PAIN-KILLER. For checking, see:

    http://www.faqs.org//abstracts/Zoolo...-but-not-.html

    THE WORD CHOLE HAS 2 MEANINGS IN GREEK:

    1. It means GALL ( also called BILE ), a liquid secreted by the liver. To verifiy, read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile

    2. It means BITTER. In ACTS 8:20-23 we have:

    " Peter answered: " May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of CHOLE and captive to sin. "

    Check ACTS 8:23, it is always translated as BITTERNESS.

    WHY DOES CHOLE MEAN BOTH GALL AND BITTER?

    Because GALL or BILE is a BITTER substance, just like MYRRH, another BITTER substance. The link given confirms it.

    So CHOLE can be translated either way. Now they did not mix real GALL or BILE into WINE. So the CHOLE in MATT 27:34 would mean BITTER or BITTER SUBSTANCE ( and myrrh is bitter ), not real gall.

    CONCLUSION:

    MATT copied from MARK. He knew MYRRH was a BITTER substance. He knew CHOLE in Greek meant BITTER. It was natural for him to used CHOLE to refer to myrrh.

    WHAT COLOR WAS THE ROBE OF JESUS: SCARLET ( MATT 27:28 ) OR PURPLE ( JOHN 19:1-3/ MARK 15:17 )?

    SCARLET is a bright red. The 2 colors are more similar than different. I do not have any problem with one person seeing it one color and another a similar color. One's salvation does not depend on that.

    But it seems probable that JOHN also saw it as SCARLET yet decided to call it PURPLE. And also MARK. Why? Because scarlet is similar to purple.

    WHAT KIND OF AN EXPLANATION IS THAT?

    Again, remeber that 50% of scholars think JOHN read the SYNOPTICS, so he could have read about the robe being scarlet. And remember that MATT changed MYRRH in MARK to CHOLE. JOHN could well have done the same for a specific reason I will give.

    Even if JOHN never read the SYNOPTICS he could well have seen a SCARLET robe and described it as PURPLE for that same reason.

    THE JOHN 19:1-3 TEXT:

    " Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. The soldiers twisted together 1) a CROWN of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in 2) a PURPLE robe and went up to him again and again, 3) saying, " Hail, KING of the Jews!" And they struck him in the face. "

    INTERPRETATION: THE MEANING OF PURPLE:

    It says CROWN of thorns, PURPLE robe, the title KING of the Jews, 3 KEY words. In ANTIQUITY, without a doubt in Jesus' time, the color PURPLE was a symbol of ROYALTY. Verify in:

    http://pffc-online.com/mag/paper_his...lfish_royalty/

    So since in that time PURPLE was a symbol of royalty and kingship then JOHN would have seen a SCARLET robe, thought it was close enough to purple and called it thus to EMPHASIZE the ROYALTY of Jesus, taking into consideration the CROWN of thorns and the title given of KING of the Jews.

    MARK ( FROM WHO MATT COPIED ) ALSO HAS IT AS PURPLE:

    MARK 15:16-17: " The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace, that is, the Praetorium, and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a PURPLE robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. "

    MATT obviously knew that, yet changed it to SCARLET. I think it was because to him it had seemed MORE like scarlet than purple. There was no symbolical reason to use the word SCARLET.

    WHY WAS THE FIELD CALLED THE FIELD OF BLOOD?

    MATT 27:3-8 tells us because Judas took money and betrayed Jesus. It was BLOOD MONEY and since the Jewish priests bought the field in JUDAS' NAME, it was called the FIELD of BLOOD ( blood-money ).

    When you look at the things COMMON to MATT 27:3-8 and ACTS 1:18-19 you see 2 things: the idea of BLOOD MONEY and the name FIELD OF BLOOD. But in ACTS we also have the BLOOD FROM JUDAS' STOMACH. I do not see why the name Field of Blood can not be due to BOTH details: the blood-money and Judas' blood.

    THE ACTS 1:18-19 TEXT:

    We have 2 things:

    " 1) With the REWARD ( NOTE: the blood money ) he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, 2) his body BURST OPEN ( NOTE: blood came out ) and all his intestines spilled out.

    Everyone in Jerusalem heard about THIS ( NOTE: only about the stomach incident, or about BOTH, the blood-money and the stomach? ), so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. "

    WHAT DID EVERYONE IN JERUSALEM HEAR?

    They heard about the DEATH of JESUS and also about JUDAS' blood coming out of his stomach. Did they also hear about WHO the man in the field was? I do not see why not and that they also heard about the blood-money ( which is the reason given for the name Field of Blood in MATT 27 ). The BLOOD-MONEY is mentioned in both passages.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    DID JESUS REFUSE WINE ( MARK 15:23 ) OR VINEGAR ( MATT 27:34 )?

    In some translations of MATT we have it as VINEGAR, in others as WINE. Again, MATT copied from MARK. MARK uses the word OINOS. It simply means WINE, no other meaning.

    MATT uses OZOS. It has 2 meanings in Greek: 1. SOUR WINE and 2. VINEGAR. Matt obviously was giving more detail about the wine and what he meant was that it was a " sour wine. "

    ABOUT BARABBAS

    Literally BARABBAS means SON OF THE FATHER in Aramaic, meaning the son of his own father or the SON OF " THE " FATHER ( son of God, holy man ). God was given the title FATHER in the OT, in other Jewish writings and even more in the NT. From early gospel copies we know that the full name of the man was YESHUA BARABBAS ( Jesus son of the Father ).

    Some think what really happened was a mix up in the information with the years and that the one really killed was Jesus Son of the Father ( YESHUA BARABBAS )and who was later confused with Jesus of Nazareth, also known as the Son of God ( holy man ).

    WHY WAS BARABBAS IN JAIL?

    The MARK 15:7 and LUKE 23:19 tell us he was involved in INSURRECTION and MURDER. MATT 27:16, who copied from Mark, only calls him a NOTABLE PRISONER ( also translated as notorious ). JOHN 18:40 calls him a ROBBER ( in Greek it is LESTES ).

    NO ROMAN OFFICIAL WOULD EVER HAVE LET A MAN CONDEMNED FOR TREASON LIKE BARABBAS FREE:

    One reads that the whole trial incident could NOT have happened since Barabbas had been condemned for treason against Rome, a crime punished by death. Never would a Roman official release such a man.

    That is true. But when you read the texts it does not say Barabbas has ALREADY been CONDEMNED, he is only in prison.

    THAT IS NOT TRUE, LUKE 23:26 SAYS HE IS IN PRISON

    Yes, it says that, that he is a PRISONER. In fact, Jesus himself had not yet been condemned, yet he is a PRISONER. He had only been ACCUSED: accused of TREASON by proclaiming himself king of the Jews.

    Again, I agree that if BARABBAS had already been found guilty ( CONDEMNED ) then no Roman official could have granted him pardon. The only way Pilate could have actually presented a choice between the 2 is if both were still only under accusation, not condemnation. It could even be that Barabbas was there as the suspected intellectual author, having ordered an insurrection and murder, but not physically participating.

    CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE SYNOPTICS AND JOHN CONCERNING BARABBAS

    JOHN only calls him a LESTES ( robber, bandit ), and mentions no insurrection and murder. It seems Barabbas was a ZEALOT, a terrrorist-nationalistic movement founded in 6 AD. The first terrorists in history, who even murdered Jewish priests. That would fit with insurrection and murder.

    BUT TERRORISTS ARE NOT ROBBERS, SO THERE IS STILL A CONTRADICTION:

    JOSEPHUS ( 37-100 AD ), the Jewish historian, wrote about them and calls them LESTES ( robbers, bandits ) also. One of the ways the Zealots supported themselves was by robbery. They robbed to be able to have an insurrection. I would say the fact that JOHN just called him a robber is because he was wishing only to emphasize that detail.

    FOR CONFIRMATION:

    For confirmation of much of what I said check out the following article from the skeptical infidels.org:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ll/absurd.html

    A GOOD WEBSITE:

    There is answeringinfidels.com which has good critiques of the skeptics ( ACHARYA S, EARL DOHERTY, RICHARD CARRIER, DAN BARKER, ELAINE PAGELS ):

    http://answeringinfidels.com/

    WHICH ALSO HAS THE SECTION " ANSWERING SKEPTICS ":

    http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/

    FOR EXAMPLE:

    1. ACHARYA S ( Miss Murdoch ), who believes in the JESUS AS MYTH ONLY idea. Her way of RESEARCHING has been criticized even by ROBERT PRICE ( as the article by MICHAEL LICONA shows ):

    http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...ing-acharya-s/

    2. For those who want to read critiques of the ideas of RICHARD CARRIER's SPIRITUAL resurrection theory and that PAUL believed in 2 BODIES ( spiritual and physical bodies of resurrection ), check out:

    http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...na-debate.html

    3. For a critique of the METHODOLOGY used by DAN BARKER in his arguments for the RESURRECTION AS LEGEND ( it is OK to argued that the resurrection is a legend as long as your method is good, the article is against the INCONSISTENT method he uses, which hurts his cause ):

    http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...ng-dan-barker/

    WHO CARRIED THE CROSS?

    The Synoptics said it was a man called SIMON of CYRENE ( a city in northern Africa ). But JOHN 19:17 has it as:

    " So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). "

    THINGS THAT SUPPORT THE IDEA JESUS DID NOT CARRY THE CROSS ALL THE WAY

    1. As I mentioned before that was put to the experimental test in SCIENCE OF THE BIBLE ( 2005 ) by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. It was concluded Jesus would have needed help to carry the cross ALL THE WAY to his objective. While not 100% a guarantee he could not have done it, it supports the idea.

    2. Notice the text ALSO supports that idea by the way it is written.

    Checking in Young's Literal Translation the word used is " HE WENT ". Others write " HE WENT ", but never " HE ARRIVED ". I also checked some 20 English translations in BIBLEGATEWAY.COM. That means Jesus certainly BEGAN carrying a cross in JOHN but he certainly does not state Jesus ARRIVED still carrying it.

    Check out the original Greek in:

    http://studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?...h&ng=19&ncc=19

    3. If the phrase were " and carrying his cross ALL THE WAY, he LEFT for the place called the SKULL " then there would be a contradiction with the Synoptics. But there is no such explicit statement. And the experimental test done supports such an idea.

    THE TORTURES JESUS HAD TO GO THROUGH

    Again MATT had read MARK and both mention: 1. flogging, 2. crown of thorns, and 3. hit by a reed ( MARK 15:15-20/ MATT 27:26-31 ). LUKE also read MARK but he just mentions that Pilate decided to punish Jesus ( LUKE 23:16 ). That he does not mention the 3 details given does not mean he did not know them, only he chose not to emphasize them. So how can that be a contradiction?

    JOHN 19:-5 mentions: 1. flogging and 2. crown of thorns. Whether JOHN had read the Synoptics or not, he does not mention Jesus being hit by a reed. But the lack of one detail would not 100% mean: 1. That John did not know about it ( or even if he was unaware of it, what real importance does that have? ) and 2. That we have a contradition.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    my reply to your infancy narrative solutions is nearly complete. if you think your problem solving skills for the gospels are good why don't you defend the mary magdelene problem currently discussed at errnacy forum? i know till will rip all your solutions apart but do you even dare to go and post there? if you want i could create an account for you.

    errancy list

    James Patrick Holding
    vs. Darrell W. Conder

    http://www.darrellwconder.com/holding.html

    enjoy

    and

    Crimes by SpeculationPart One

    http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JF....html#literacy

    enjoy

    http://shabirally.wordpress.com/
    Last edited by ali; 23rd April 2009 at 17:43.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    This is going at a snailpace due to limited internet time for me but I think it is good since it gives others plenty of time to say objections to my objections. And now I would also have to address what smelgaman has added, to the best of my ability, which I read only yesterday.

    WHO BOUGHT THE FIELD?

    MATT says Judas threw the money away and the priests used it to buy a field, but in Judas' name. So the property was registered in his name. At that time the priests did not know Judas had decided to kill himself.

    LUKE in ACTS 1 is CITING Peter, giving a quotation. Not everything in a quotation is true. Some say PETER was being expressive and said " Judas bought a field " even though he knew it was bought by others but IN HIS NAME, so TECHNICALLY the field had been bought by him, legally speaking.

    I think that PETER did not know that but had only heard it was in Judas' name and thought he had bought it personally. I have no problem with that, since, as I said before, not everything in a CITATION is true. It is a CASE by CASE process.

    AN EXAMPLE:

    Suppose PETER had said a CITATION ) " Down below the country of Egypt there are UNICORNS but they are not graceful. They are fat and vicious. "

    Now UNICORNS do not exist. We all know that. He would be referring to a RHINOCEROS. As I said before not everything in a CITATION is true, he would be repeating something HEARD, which may or not be true. I have no problem with that given what I believe regarding quotations. Peter was wrong regarding Judas PERSONALLY buying the field but MATT knew MORE and told us the way it was.

    DID JESUS EVER CARRY THE CROSS AT ALL IN THE SYNOPTICS?

    There is no mention of it, no doubt about it. Yet we know it was the CUSTOM for the prisoner to carry it. Common sense would say the Synoptics do not mention the INITIAL carrying of the cross by Jesus because it was so COMMON.

    EXAMPLE:

    We all have to PAY BEFORE entering a bus for a distant city or taking a plane. Yet rarely do people mention it because it is the CUSTOM, it is so COMMON. There is still more to say on this but one goes by parts.

    WHAT WERE THE WORDS ON THE INSCRIPTION?

    My position is that it was THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS.

    WHY?

    Well, they all have the BASIC form KING OF THE JEWS: MARK 15:26 / MATT 27:37 /
    LUKE 23:38 / and twice in JOHN ( JOHN 19:19 / JOHN 19:21-22 ).

    MARK just has it as KING OF THE JEWS, but LUKE and MATT, who copied from him have it as THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS /THIS IS JESUS, KING OF THE JEWS. Since we know they had independent sources they obviously concluded MARK had left words out.

    JOHN does not have the words THIS IS but he has it as JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS. The question is, if the original was THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS, then would Mark, Luke, Matt and John knowingly have CONTRACTED ( left out words )? I say yes. They would have because they wanted to emphasize this or that.

    AN EXAMPLE:

    We have it in JOHN. Notice how JOHN 19:19 gives the title as JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS. The Jewish priests read it as JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS and complain to Pilate ( JOHN 19:21-22 ). But THEY say KING OF THE JEWS. Why? They wanted to EMPHASIZE a certain part of the whole. The point is that in ANTIQUITY in historical writing as long as you gave the ESSENCE of a speech, official title, inscription ( even if you left out words or details ), then you had done a good job.

    Nobody would have said: " You are lying to me. " Again, this is not something invented by me, but was part of the HISTORICAL PRACTICE of the TIME ( including paraphrasing ) and I think it was due to the 90% ILLITRACY rate, which made it acceptable to just include the essence.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    [QUOTE=smegalman;123061]my reply to your infancy narrative solutions is nearly complete. if you think your problem solving skills for the gospels are good why don't you defend the mary magdelene problem currently discussed at errnacy forum? i know till will rip all your solutions apart but do you even dare to go and post there? if you want i could create an account for you.

    errancy list

    THE MARY MAGDALENE PROBLEM:

    To say it clearly it says there is an irreconcilable contradiction between MATT 28:1-10 and JOHN 20:1-2. MATT mentions ONLY 2 women ( one of them MARY MAGDALENE ) and JOHN ONLY mentions MARY MAGDALENE. We have that ALL 4 GOSPELS mention MARY MAGDALENE:

    1. MARK 16:1-5: mentions 3 WOMEN in all.
    2. MATT 28:1-5 mentions 2 WOMEN in all.
    3. LUKE 24:1-4 just says THEY ( feminine ) and in verse 10 gives 3 NAMES and adds " and other women ". It seems LUKE 24:12 is an INTERPOLATION, which I did not know then. It seems Farrell accepts it but at least 50% of other scholars do not. I will address that in my argument.

    THE WAY TILL FARRELL PLACES THE PROBLEM:

    I have already put my ideas in his website. I was put in there by a Muslim who participates in this forum under the name William. So I posted in the forum section, where till now some 3,800 have read it. I wrote too much but in the end Till Farrell said he would not debate unless I gave my real name, and also that I had got my ideas from others. And that was the end of it.

    In reality no, I had simply read the texts and visualized about the CONNECTIONS among the SYNOPTICS. Also then I did not know about the debate that LUKE 24:12 was an INTERPOLATION, which has modified my view. If you wish you can paste my views there to see what he responds but first I will give it in a more organized way than then and alot shorter and I really think it solves the thing.

    I said that the way he placed the problem made him win, he was right, but that I disagreed. We had to consider what LUKE 24:-4 said also and how THAT would solve the problem.

    MY IDEA ABOUT IT:

    Now I believe TILL FARRELL agrees that MARK was copied by MATT and LUKE. Again, ad nauseaum, I repeat that MATT and LUKE knew perfectly well what MARK had written and that MARK mentions 3 WOMEN at the tomb. Now IF MATT were 100% INDEPENDENT of MARK then FARRELL'S case would be stronger, but I do not think he holds that. And MATT only mentions 2 WOMEN.

    MATT 28:5-10 says an ANGEL appeared to WOMEN ( only TWO women? )( the text makes that clear, would that include MARY MAG? ) and tells them Jesus resurrected and later JESUS himself appears to THEM ( to only TWO women, and that would include MARY MAG? ).

    Again, though MATT only says 2 women, he KNEW there were at LEAST 3 WOMEN ( just by reading MARK ).

    MATT 28:1-6 TIME COMPRESSES ALOT WHAT HE READ IN MARK 16:1-7:

    I showed that in the skeptical review forum ( check it out ):

    http://theskepticalreview.com/vboard/viewtopic.php?t=15

    It is not a wild guess, it is obvious it being known MATT had a copy of MARK. Also in this forum here I have shown the other 2X MATT time compressed, and also LUKE ( 3X ). So the argument that there is a contradiction would be true if MATT had NEVER read and copied MARK.

    HOW MANY WOMEN HAD MATT IN MIND WHO WENT TO THE TOMB?

    Two things here:

    1. At least THREE, though he mentions only TWO. Having copied 90% of MARK he knew there were at least THREE. My idea is that the WOMEN ( at least TWO ) in MATT 28:5-10 would NOT have included MARY MAG.

    2. Also, and this is VERY IMPORTANT we have that NOWHERE in MATT 28:5-10 is ANY NAME said, much less hers, just WOMEN and THEY ( feminine ). Do you see how analysing the CONNECTIONS between the SYNOPTICS makes things less complicated?

    THE " WE " IN JOHN 20:1-2 DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN A " REAL WE ", IT CAN JUST AS WELL BE AN EXPRESSION:

    JOHN 20:1-2 says:

    " Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, MARY MAGDALENE went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, " They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and WE don't know where they have put him! "

    TWO EXAMPLES WHERE " WE " IS USED BUT IT MEANS ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL:

    NICODEMUS:

    JOHN 3:1-2:

    " Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, " Rabbi, WE know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him. "

    JESUS HIMSELF:

    JOHN 3:10-12:

    " You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, " and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, WE speak of what we know, and WE testify to what WE have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? "

    NOTE: here Jesus seems to be using the ROYAL PLURAL where WE means " I and my wisdom ", " I and my power. "

    THE COUNTER ARGUMENT:

    The SYNOPTICS were written BEFORE JOHN. FARRELL agrees with that also. We have 2 things:

    1. There you have from THREE DIFFERENT AUTHORS the TRADITION that MORE than ONE WOMAN went to the tomb.

    2. We have NO TRADITION in a written source from BEFORE or AFTER JOHN that ONLY ONE WOMAN went to the tomb. By logic the " WE " in JOHN uttered by MARY MAG refers to a real " we ", that she was saying at least another woman had gone with her to the tomb. I take it Farrell tries to be as impartial as possible, so he would concede tradition goes counter to his idea.

    FOR THE TILL FARRELL ARGUMENT:

    I have not said my whole arguement yet, still having to deal with LUKE, but it will come. But in the meantime here is Farrell's argument:

    http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTMaryMagdalene.html

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Quote Originally Posted by smegalman View Post
    ABOUT THE SHABIR ALLY LINK:

    http://shabirally.wordpress.com/

    I have objections to it but here I will give a brief description to be explained better later:

    1. That JOHN invented the lance thrust into Jesus, ( according to most scholars ). It never happened, it was merely for THEOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA VALUE. But when you analyze the gospel of John there are FOUR cases that go COUNTER to it.

    2. That people NEVER died after only 6 hrs on the cross, it took days. There is new scientific evidence based on medical experimentation that shows people did ( not in general, but it is proven experimentally it was possible ).

    3. He said JOSEPHUS tells of 3 friends of his crucified, all were taken down when he asked VESPASIAN to do it. Two died but one survived. So he says this is proof one could survive crucifixion. Yes, I AGREE. BUT, when you make a COMPARISON of the Jesus case and that of his friends, it goes COUNTER to his position.

    THE MUSLIM POSITION:

    They refer to MARK 15:35-36 as proof Jesus was RESCUED:

    " Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that IF POSSIBLE the hour might pass from him. " Abba, Father, " he said, " everything is possible for you:

    1. Take this cup from me. ( NOTE: do not let me get CRUCIFIED )
    2. Yet not what I will, but what you will. " ( NOTE: the Muslim argument is that God's will was AGAINST the crucifixion, so the desire of Jesus and God were the SAME ).

    THE IMPLICATIONS OF SHABIR ALLY'S POSITION:

    Most Muslims hold there never was any crucifixion of Jesus, like JOHN SOLOMON in his website HOUSE OF THE CRESCENT MOON. But SHABIR ALLY does. So what he is saying is that:

    " Take this cup from me " does NOT mean the logical meaning of " Do not let me get crucified " but " do not let me get crucified and die ".

    WHAT THAT IMPLIES:

    I showed that his postion of Jesus not really dying, not being CLINICALLY DEAD but only apparently meant that for 600 years God let a threefold deception take place: of Jesus, his disciples and the world, since all thought Jesus had REALLY been CLINICALLY DEAD. But one can say:

    ALLAH ACTS AS HE WISHES:

    Now in his debates about the ATONEMENT he says one reason he REJECTS it is because it says " God allowed his own son to be killed/ or was even responsible for it ". Maybe you have seen it also. He puts it this way: " If a FATHER here were to do that to his own SON, then we would consider him to be a FIRST-DEGREE MURDERER, we would put him in PRISON. What real FATHER would APPROVE of killing his own son? "

    SO WHERE DOES ALLAH'S WILL ENTER HERE?

    He has put himself in the following situation:

    1. God would NEVER have let JESUS DIE, but...
    2. God would have let JESUS go through the TORTURES of the CRUCIFIXION but still not die.

    The question would be asked: " If he disapproves of God letting Jesus getting killed how can he if he says Jesus felt no pain, then where is the proof? It would be a mere supposition. A FAITH STATEMENT. In the gospels Jesus undeniably felt pain.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    478

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    Quote Originally Posted by smegalman View Post
    my reply to your infancy narrative solutions is nearly complete. if you think your problem solving skills for the gospels are good why don't you defend the mary magdelene problem currently discussed at errnacy forum? i know till will rip all your solutions apart but do you even dare to go and post there? if you want i could create an account for you.
    To continue but still not complete:

    WHAT MARK SAYS THAT LUKE READ

    MARK 16:1-6 tells us that women went to the tomb, found the stone rolled away, ENTERED and found it empty and SAW an angel who told them Jesus had resurrected.

    WHAT LUKE ADDS:

    LUKE 24 ADDS, from the way he writes, that AT FIRST the women saw nothing and were puzzled. So my idea is that MARY MAG was there with them and left to tell the news of the missing body in JOHN 20:1-2. That is all. The appearence of the angels inside the tomb took enough time for MARY MAG to actually leave before they had appeared.

    THE LITERAL TRANSLATION ( YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION ):

    MARK 16:1-6:

    " And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
    and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,
    and they said among themselves, ` Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre? '

    And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great,
    and HAVING ENTERED into the SEPULCHER, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed.
    And he saith to them, ` Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him! "

    WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT " HAVING ENTERED "?

    In other less literal translations it is " ENTERING " but here the women have already got in and they " see a young man in white ". The question is:

    WAS THE YOUNG MAN ALREADY IN OR DID HE APPEAR LATER?

    The way MARK wrote it gives us those TWO options:

    1. They got in and he was ALREADY there, or:
    2. They got in, SOME TIME passed and then they saw a young man.

    Again remember how MARK treated the WINE with MYRRH incident. He gave the FINAL ACT ( wine was offered and Jesus refused it ), while MATT told us the HOW it came about ( Jesus tasted it, did not like it, and refused ).

    LUKE CLEARS THAT UP:

    LUKE 24:1-5 ( Young's Translation ):

    " And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices they made ready, and certain [others] with them,
    and they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb,

    and HAVING GONE IN ( NOTE: like in the HAVING ENTERED of MARK ), they found NOT the body of the Lord Jesus.

    And it came to pass, WHILE they are PERPLEXED about this ( NOTE: the text tells us SOME TIME passed before the angel appeared ), that lo, two men stood by them in glittering apparel,

    and on their having become afraid, and having inclined the face to the earth, they said to them, ` Why do ye seek the living with the dead? "

    WHY ACCEPT LUKE'S ADDITION?

    One reason is that MARK has the TENDENCY to be SPARSE about DETAILS. What BETTER proof than how he ENDS his account: there are:

    1. NO RESURRECTION appearences at all ( but there is the PROPHECY by the angel that they will happen ). In addition:

    2. NO VIRGIN BIRTH.
    3. NO ASCENSION.

    ANOTHER REASON TO ACCEPT LUKE'S ADDITIONAL DETAIL:

    In his INTRODUCTION in LUKE 1:1-4 he tells us he had got extra info from others:

    " Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

    Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. "

    I still have more to say but this is good for the time being.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spain
    Posts
    589

    Default Re: The Resurrection as Legend

    MARK 16:1-6 tells us that women went to the tomb, found the stone rolled away, ENTERED and found it empty and SAW an angel who told them Jesus had resurrected.

    WHAT LUKE ADDS:

    LUKE 24 ADDS, from the way he writes, that AT FIRST the women saw nothing and were puzzled. So my idea is that MARY MAG was there with them and left to tell the news of the missing body in JOHN 20:1-2. That is all. The appearence of the angels inside the tomb took enough time for MARY MAG to actually leave before they had appeared.

    WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT " HAVING ENTERED "?

    In other less literal translations it is " ENTERING " but here the women have already got in and they " see a young man in white ". The question is:

    WAS THE YOUNG MAN ALREADY IN OR DID HE APPEAR LATER?

    The way MARK wrote it gives us those TWO options:

    1. They got in and he was ALREADY there, or:
    2. They got in, SOME TIME passed and then they saw a young man.
    what was so difficult for the authour of mark to tell his readers that when some time was passing, mary m done a speedy gonzalis to report to the others that they(jews? romans?) stole the body ,then she made her way back to the tomb, and then a young man appeared? who would assume option 2 if only mark was available? but who said "the stolen body" problem is currently under discussion @ errancy forum? one of your christian brothers by the name of "orielly" is getting his behind handed back to him, maybe you would like to help him out over there.

    When R577 the Sabbath was over, Mary R578 Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, F305 and Salome, bought R579 spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the R580 stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" 4 Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although F306 it was extremely large. 5 Entering R581 the tomb,

    [So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple R1258 whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They R1259 have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."]

    [So R1260 Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping R1261 and looking in, he saw the linen R1262 wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the R1263 face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen R1264 wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had R1265 first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they R1266 did not understand the Scripture, that R1267 He must rise again from the dead. 10 So the disciples went away again to R1268 their own homes.]


    they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were R582 amazed. 6 And he said to them, "Do R583 not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, R584 who has been crucified. He R585 has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, `He R586 is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.' " 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

    WHERE DID THE mother of james and salome and jonna and others disappear to? why did they play hide and seek with the big fish called pete? later on in mary m's 3rd visit, she is outside of the tomb weeping.lo and behold 2 angels appear inside of the tomb. she says to them, "they have taken his body..." did she not learn earlier, on her 2nd visit, that the body was a live one making its way to galilee?

    Take note that the women said "nothing to ANYONE"
    this contradicts lukes claim:
    And they R1039 remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary R1040 Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James...



    9 [Now F307 after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary R587 Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10 She R588 went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they R589 refused to believe it.

    mary m, according to the authour who forged mark 16, REPORTS to the deciples, after she sees a ressurected jesus, not AFTER SHE LEAVES the tomb.





    ******But R1032 on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the R1033 Jesus.******* 4 While they were perplexed about this,

    [ So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple R1258 whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They R1259 have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
    So R1260 Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping R1261 and looking in, he saw the linen R1262 wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the R1263 face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen R1264 wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had R1265 first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they R1266 did not understand the Scripture, that R1267 He must rise again from the dead. 10 So the disciples went away again to R1268 their own homes.
    ]

    behold, two R1034 men suddenly stood R1035 near them in dazzling clothing; 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 "He is not here, but He has R1036 risen. F514 Remember how He spoke to you while R1037 He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the R1038 Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." 8 And they R1039 remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary R1040 Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the R1041 apostles. 11 But these words appeared to F515 them as nonsense, and they would R1042 not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran R1043 to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; F516 and he went away to R1044 his home, marveling at what had happened.

    the women were perplexed then all of a sudden 2 men appear.
    This is how the text should be understood.robert is afraid to go to BB greek or sci lang.he knows he will get exposed there, so he hides here.

    questions :

    1. pete entered the tomb but did not see "perplexed" women. where did the women disappeare to? why did they reappear only when mary m made her return to the tomb? were the women angels?

    2. how come luke didn't mention peters 1st visit?
    3. why did the angel tell mary to go and report to peter something he ALREADY KNEW on his 1st visit?


    And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the R1263 face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen R1264 wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.

    But Peter got up and ran R1043 to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; F516 and he went away to R1044 his home, marveling at what had happened

    4.he LEARNT NOTHING NEW, SO WHAT WAS ALL THE "MARVELING" ABOUT?


    5. the big fish (pete) was involved in the establishment of kristianity, but when he went to the tomb the angels played hide and seek, why?



    WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT " HAVING ENTERED "?

    In other less literal translations it is " ENTERING " but here the women have already got in and they " see a young man in white ". The question is:

    WAS THE YOUNG MAN ALREADY IN OR DID HE APPEAR LATER?

    The way MARK wrote it gives us those TWO options:

    1. They got in and he was ALREADY there, or:
    2. They got in, SOME TIME passed and then they saw a young man.

    the kristian opts for option 2, but will he allow delay on all other verses in mat, mark , luke and john that have ppl entering place x and then something happens?


    one thing unique about christians is that when their problem solving defenses go out of date or are plain dumb they have to recycle their problem solving skills for the new testament.

    Biblical Evidence and Barker's Easter Challenge
    http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=245565
    read page 10 and on


    will the kristian assume that mary m was "grease lighting" that she OUTRAN the other deciples who raced each other to the tomb?

    will thekristian assume that "got up" implies pete had an asthma attack that was so bad that he had to take a long break and sit down somewhere?
    Last edited by ali; 27th April 2009 at 12:55.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31st January 2009, 17:26
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15th January 2009, 18:35
  3. Qur'anic Creation Account
    By ihsan in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2nd April 2008, 15:44
  4. Who was Dhu'l-Qarnayn?
    By Nadeem in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 28th May 2005, 22:09
  5. crucifixion-details
    By hawk in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 15th May 2005, 01:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •