Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (disciples, church, prophet)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who lived and walked with Jesus (the disciples) went out into the world and taught the life and message of Jesus. They took on disciples of their own and established churches, devised liturgies, and taught doctrine.
Even granting a later date of the Gospels being written, those writing them would have had access to those who learned directly from the disciples. Those who learned directly from the disciples would have had access to reading the Gospel accounts and even critiquing them for accuracy.
If an insignificant detail was overlooked (were the women fearful or joyful, for instance - maybe they were both...), I don't understand why that is a make-or-break issue for you unless you're just looking for an excuse in your desperation. Jesus still rose from the dead either way.
It is not an excuse, it is one example of a contradiction.
It is your ad hoc excuses that are in desperation.
It is not an excuse, it is one example of a contradiction.
It is your ad hoc excuses that are in desperation.
The premise that puts the lie to this entire silly debate about accuracy is that NO human recordings are infallible or inerrant. They are always subject to our human failings and flaws, period. Seeking such flaws is pointless, IMO.
Yep, I understand you believe in a god; point being, even those of us who do not - must accept ‘it is what it is’. It simply requires common sense to know the difference. That said, it does not appear as though the OP is taking much comfort in his belief; but rather, much frustration (which was my original point).
Those who lived and walked with Jesus (the disciples) went out into the world and taught the life and message of Jesus. They took on disciples of their own and established churches, devised liturgies, and taught doctrine.
Even granting a later date of the Gospels being written, those writing them would have had access to those who learned directly from the disciples. Those who learned directly from the disciples would have had access to reading the Gospel accounts and even critiquing them for accuracy.
If an insignificant detail was overlooked (were the women fearful or joyful, for instance - maybe they were both...), I don't understand why that is a make-or-break issue for you unless you're just looking for an excuse in your desperation. Jesus still rose from the dead either way.
If the story was being tinkered with and improved upon for better continuity to deceive the pagans that the church was trying to convert then it gives a lot of credence to the claim that Jesus' resurrection was a fabrication being pushed by the Jesus cult leaders to get the pagans to accept Jesus. Changing the story from "the women didn't tell anybody" to "the women went and told the disciples" is a huge detail that you simply refuse to acknowledge because it makes Christianity look deceptive and I told you earlier you would hate and try to quash ANYTHING that made your religion look deceptive even if deep down you believed it to be true. But it all depends on which side of the fence we're standing on. Which I acknowledge there can be no meeting of the minds on with regard to the gospels having been deliberately and deceptively changed by dishonest churchmen to better accommodate a more believable story the churchmen were trying to sell to the pagans.
If the story was being tinkered with and improved upon for better continuity to deceive the pagans that the church was trying to convert then it gives a lot of credence to the claim that Jesus' resurrection was a fabrication being pushed by the Jesus cult leaders to get the pagans to accept Jesus. Changing the story from "the women didn't tell anybody" to "the women went and told the disciples" is a huge detail that you simply refuse to acknowledge because it makes Christianity look deceptive and I told you earlier you would hate and try to quash ANYTHING that made your religion look deceptive even if deep down you believed it to be true. But it all depends on which side of the fence we're standing on. Which I acknowledge there can be no meeting of the minds on with regard to the gospels having been deliberately and deceptively changed by dishonest churchmen to better accommodate a more believable story the churchmen were trying to sell to the pagans.
Oh for Pete's sake, Thrill, they had decades and centuries and millennia to change the documentation to support whatever their limited knowledge and minds could conceive. So what??? We have intellect and perception that is in many ways superior to theirs by dint of the significant advances in knowledge and the spread of literacy and education over millennia. If we can't reconcile what is reasonable from what is primitive and absurd, we should abandon any such efforts.
Oh for Pete's sake, Thrill, they had decades and centuries and millennia to change the documentation to support whatever their limited knowledge and minds could conceive. So what??? We have intellect and perception that is in many ways superior to theirs by dint of the significant advances in knowledge and the spread of literacy and education over millennia. If we can't reconcile what is reasonable from what is primitive and absurd, we should abandon any such efforts.
Well, obviously then, Mystic honesty in not a priority for you if you see nothing wrong with for example changing the story from "Jesus did not rise from the dead" to "Jesus rose from the dead." So if the original Mark text read, "The women told no one" then the question becomes "Well, then how did the disciples learn of Jesus rising?" And if you're going to argue, "Maybe Jesus appeared to them afterward" then there's two problems with that 1. what gives you the right to make up hypotheticals on important details for which there is just the opposite evidence and 2. why didn't Mark include "Jesus later appeared to the disciples" in his text? This is exactly why the longer ending was added to Mark, because it sounded bad to have the text read that Jesus didn't appear to anybody to prove he rose. I mean this is not rocket science, Mystic:
Rule #1: When you're pushing a new religion for which there is no evidence then make up the evidence.
Rule # 2: When you have people asking you for evidence see Rule #1.
So if the original Mark text read, "The women told no one" then the question becomes "Well, then how did the disciples learn of Jesus rising?"
Yet again, you miss the point. The disciples and their own disciples were already telling people about the Resurrection for a full generation or more before Mark was written.
The reality of the Resurrection was an established doctrine of Christianity long before Mark was written.
Yet again, you miss the point. The disciples and their own disciples were already telling people about the Resurrection for a full generation or more before Mark was written.
The reality of the Resurrection was an established doctrine of Christianity long before Mark was written.
But then why didn't Mark write his account that way? Was Mark the last one to find out that Jesus rose?
Mark obviously knew that Jesus rose, or else what's the point of even writing the account?
It's merely some non-essential details that are supposedly in question.
Well, it's a non-essential to you and others like you because you accept without reservation the idea Jesus rose, even when the data shows there's no evidence to support such a belief. I and other skeptics in here are different. We are not ready to accept on pure faith without evidence that a man rose from the dead. There's nothing anywhere to prove it's ever happened, including Jesus. It's gets back to my analogy, "Would you buy a bridge from me that I own in New York city for which I have a genuine deed to prove I own it." Of course you wouldn't. How can you act with such perfect common sense on everyday practical matters, and then throw all common sense to the wind when it comes to Jesus? I did it for decades so I've been there, but for all those years I never had the benefit of having someone show me the complete absence of evidence to support the Jesus resurrection.
Taking the position you and other Christians take automatically puts you all in the inconvenient, often awkward, even more often completely laughable position of having to explain away all these errors and contradictions that are rife in the Bible such as the one we're discussing. Even Mystic takes the position that "It's not a big deal, Thrill. Who cares if the Bible contradicts itself? Don't get caught up in the petty details; get caught up in the Bible's message." It was things like the following that got me to start questioning if what I was reading about Jesus was really the whole story. Observe:
"No man has seen God at any time" John 1:18
However:
"And Jehovah spake unto Moses face to face" Exodus 33:11
I realize you're deft enough to invent something to cover that glaring mistake--a twist of the meaning of a word here, a bend of the meaning of a verse elsewhere--because you've had years of experience confronting such embarrassing errors. You know: "Well, speaking face to face doesn't actually mean speaking face to face...."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
