The Proof I Promised

MEXCOM · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

1) You are assuming there is no God. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
2) You are assuming the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.
3) Now for some questions. How do you know that cloning technology was not invented? Did you see when it was 'invented?' How do you know you are who you are? How do you know God didn't create you and didn't just give you to a family and tell them not to tell you? You don't. You might have been there at your own birth but you don't remember it happening, no one does. You might have pictures, video, but those could have been doctored.
4) Let's say that you know cloning tech wasn't created. How did you get that knowledge a book? Because I use a book also to justify my rationale also.
5) Yes you can throw logic back at me. That's my point. You can't disprove X and I can't prove X. So why assume X doesn't exist?
Ps. I agreed with what you said because I know what science is. I don't believe taking a photograph of my soul will steal it.

2-0-Sixx · Apr 28, 2004

MEXICANCOMMANDO said:

NO, this is incorrect. How many times do I have to explain atheism? I do NOT assume there is no god. I have not seen any evidence that suggest god exists, therefor I am atheist.
Atheism- the lack of theism.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god

How do you know you have a penis? How do you know it's really there? Maybe you think you see a penis, but in reality there is no penis.

You seriouly should click on that link I provided comrade. http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Seriously read that shit.

LOL, Just because someone can't prove X does NOT exist, doesn't mean you should believe in it. Do you believe in santa claus? (If you say yes or "I don't know, he could exist" then your a fucking idiot and I am not going to waste my time on you anymore) Can anyone prove he does not exist? No, they can't. You cannot prove the nonexistant does not exist. It's impossible.

Today I took a shit and Halle Berry came out my ass. Can you prove that didn't happen?

What?

MEXCOM · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

I was going off what dictionary.com said. you sound more like an agnostic. But you would know what you are better than I do.

2-0-Sixx said:

I jerk it a lot. Trust me I know I have a penis because I can see it, feel it, smell it, bitches can taste it, and although it really doesn't make a sound when I nut I go 'ahhhh!'

2-0-Sixx said:

I did. I know what the scientific method is. I studied it before.

2-0-Sixx said:

1)But because someone can't prove X does not exist does not mean it doesn't. I can believe whatever I wish I find it difficult to accept when you tell me I can't when I very well can.
2)Santa Claus...No. St. Nicholas Yes.
3)You are telling me you can't prove the non-existant. Are you referring to God? Because if you are then you are contradicting yourself. How do you know he is non-existant when you can't prove he is? Without concrete evidence it's hard to take your claim seriously (I bet this is how you feel when you want others to prove God does exist).

2-0-Sixx said:

No I can't. I never said I could either.

2-0-Sixx said:

It was a joke. It's irrelevant so I wont explain it unless you want me to.

2-0-Sixx · Apr 28, 2004

MEXICANCOMMANDO said:

I'll give you the same advice I gave to locc...stay away from dictionary.com. What I said is the true definition of atheism. I've seen plenty of bullshit definitions like "Unwilling to believe" , "one who is against god" and shit like that. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. That is all.

I have also provided the true definition of the word 'Agnostic.' I posted it on a different thread, but I will quote myself just so you can see it.

This is the correct defintion. Came straight from the source.
I will reply to the rest of your shit later. got to go

MEXCOM · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

My bad man. Like I said you would know what you are better than I do. So would it be ok to say an Atheist does not believe in God?

2-0-Sixx said:

I knew what an Agnostic is. I think I've read this post before. So are you an agnostic atheist?
Well no, scratch that, it would be contradictory to be agnostic and atheist.
Looking at the definition of Agnostic in the simples terms:
[Those that] cannot say [The supernatural/God] does or does not exist, so [they] suspend judgment.
But Atheism is:
A lack of belief.
So if you lack belief how can you suspend judgement?
I think it would be better to say that an Agnostic cannot be an atheist as they have already passed judgement (they do not believe in God) and an Agnostic cannot truly be a theist as they have also passed judgement. Of course this is just me going off on a tangent. I'll await your reply.

MEXCOM · Apr 28, 2004

I'll do one more.

2-0-Sixx said:

1) this was written about 701-681 BCE
2) This can be attributed to John the baptist.
2a. John the baptist paved the way for Christ
2b. In Matthew 3:1-2, it says: In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea, and saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
3) It says LORD. LORD is typically used when referring to God. Hebrew tradition does not allow the usage of the Word YHWH and so we have replaced that word with LORD.

I AM · Apr 28, 2004

MEXICANCOMMANDO said:

Obviously you can't read. Me, my existance, my body, is the proof. You want a picture of me too? I can post that for you if you want. You are seriously the most illogical person posting on this thread. Did they have cloning technology for humans back then in 1983? No, and don't tell me to prove it to you, you can go do your own fucking research like yall cats made 2-0-sixx do. I feel like I'm wasting my time even typing to you about this. I don't give a shit if "what ifs" are applied because that is ALL that they are. What if this, what if that...What if I killed you, what if I didn't....WHO FUCKING CARES. The point is, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. There is no point in talking about it if it DID NOT HAPPEN. My parents (divorced) did geneology but I guess I just won't trust that because then you would say some stupid ass shit like "the bible is in writing just like your geneology information." But MY EXISTANCE, the fact that I am here, right now, typing this out is your proof. Your clone example is ridiculous because even you know that's not an option. I do not use "what ifs" in my arguements towards you, so I would appreciate the same from you. Unless you can't do it because that is the fundamental basis of your argument for your religious beliefs.

miggidy · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

Thank you miggidy for calling my reply a joke. Forget the fact that I spent hours on that shit.

For the record, it wasn't in reply to commando, please go back and check again. And miggidy, the only joke on this thread is you.

I asked for the prophecies over and over. NO ONE would post them. I had to waste my precious time looking that bullshit up. I could have spent my time learning about science, something that can actually help humanity, something that actually EXISTS, but no, I foolishly flushed hours of my time down the toilet just so I can prove to everybody how freakin retarded these prophecies are.

You and Commando...it's like debating 6 year olds...scratch that. Its like debating sub-human, extra-chromosome, Corky mutherfuckers. There is absolutely not one once of logic between the two of you. Fuck, Commando wouldn't even admit leprechauns don't exist for crying out loud! What amazing things are you going to say tomorrow? Are you going to point out how I was wrong? WOW. What a fucking suprise! After all, you know the TRUTH!, right?

"Look 2-0-Sixx, it says right here that Jesus was born with two feet!! its the TRUTH!"

My bad bro, I take my words back.
I was being insensative.... I try my hardest but its a daily challenge.

I've been busy these past two weeks so I don't have much time to check on these boards anymore.
But I'll do my best to come in here as often as I can.

miggidy · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

LOL! I'll take a crash course on evolution, however I don't see how any of the rest will help me disprove the existance of a God being.

What Truth is there in science that hasn't already been shown 2-0?
In fact if you were to look at all the subjects you presented,
all you're going to find is further proof of design.

Science is presented everywhere at all times, its even an elementary school subject.

Yet education about God or its concept is no where to be found.
There for one must put in work to try to dig as much info as possible.
Look into the scientific side of God.
Look into the study of the "collective subconscious" 2-0.
This might help you understand the nature of God....

miggidy · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

All through out the bible (specially the Torah), God empowers certain people and turns them into nations. He makes them kings/governors, what have you. These nations or cities share the same name as their rulers. I think this is where a city's name became anonymous with it's people, you know people from Judah are Jews and so on. Anyways this may explain why even a religious title became anonymous with the title of its people or the town/city/nation that they are from. Same example, "Jew" now also took on the meaning of a religious title.

Anyways, the town of Bethlahem exists till this day.
Go here for more info:
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-502943-bethlehem_introduction-i

2-0-Sixx said:

Did you read the entire chapter? Its speaks of the coming of the Messiah, its all in context.

Isaiah 40: 3-8
" The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
"Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God.
Every valley shall be exalted
And every mountain and hill brought low;
The crooked places shall be made straight
And the rough places smooth;
The glory of the LORD shall be revealed,
And all flesh shall see it together;
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

The voice said, "Cry out!"
And he said, "What shall I cry?"

"All flesh is grass,
And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field.
The grass withers, the flower fades,
Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it;
Surely the people are grass.
The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever."

This is only part of the chapter but right here you can see that this talks about the Messiah.
Looking at it, its all in chronological order.
First the voice in the wilderness, the Messiah fixing everything with God's Word, and the Word standing forever till this day.
It is mportant to know that even the Jews knew that there would be a predecessor to the Messiah.
Many didn't figure out that John was the predecessor and that Jesus was the Messiah only after the Spirit descended into the bodies of the apostles. Many Jews converted when the pieces of the puzzle were put together in front of them by the apostles.

Reading the book of Romans will help you understand the Torah prophecies about the Messiah.
The book pretty much focuses on the preaching of Paul to the Jews about Jesus.
At this point he has taken the Spirit.
He broke the Old Testament down to the Jews and that’s why many accepted the Jesus as the Messiah. Now if he was being ignored? Why was he killed? Surely he was a threat to the elite of the time. They come after you when people start listening….

2-0-Sixx said:

Bro, where did you get two donkeys from?

Peep Matthew 21: 1-8 again,
"Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, "The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them."
All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

"Tell the daughter of Zion,
"Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey."

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road."

I think you were misinformed 2-0....

continued

miggidy · Apr 28, 2004

2-0-Sixx said:

Not quite 2-0, I think Commando gave you the wrong passage.

Here's one that talks about how the Messiah would be despised:

Isaiah 53:3
“He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.”

2-0-Sixx said:

Good point.... But there's many passages in Psalms that have connections with events of Jesus' life. Now to David, he might have been talking about himself but many Christians feel that this was a message that in a way, speaks of the Messiah.
A lot of events in the Torah, also serve metaphors.
For example the time that Moses told everyone to spread the blood of a sacrificed lamb in their doorsteps to avoid the angel of death from killing them.
This blood serves the same purpose of Jesus' blood that by accepting it, it washes away our sins and gives us eternal life.
Here’s a good article describing another event in the Torah that’s connected to Jesus:
http://www.allinclusivechrist.org/reality/crucifixion.html
It’s regarding Moses’s book “Numbers” 21: 4-8

Moving on, take these other passages into account....

Zechariah 12: 10
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn."

Most interpret this as a prophecy of when Jesus was pierced on his side after he died.
Even if you disagree with this interpretation, this Torah prophecy is talking about the death of the Messiah none-the-less....

Now go and read Isaiah 53 in its entirety.
Another Torah prophecy about the suffering the Messiah would go through.
This one has tons of details....

2-0-Sixx said:

Read the entire chapter 2-0,
it clearly reffers to Jesus.
The other "rebels" you talk about came after Jesus, which LOL was another prophecy given by Jesus. He said that many would claim to be Him (after his resurrection).

2-0-Sixx said:

Dude it isn’t vague when its kept in its context. This is part of the entire chapter of Isaiah 53.
Further proving the point that the entire chapter talks about the Messiah, not someone else, or different people. The chapter is consistantly talking about one person….

I’m going to give you one more prophecy regarding the crucifixion of the Messiah.
I can go on and address every response you had to Commando but it would be more of the same.
Plus it takes up way too much time to pull the scripture and break it down at the same time….
All of this can be avoided by looking at the source instead of going through a middleman.

This one here's tricky and its pretty deep much like God's way of using the brass serpent in Numbers 21: 4-8.
Exodus 12: 43-51
"And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you."
Thus all the children of Israel did; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. And it came to pass, on that very same day, that the LORD brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt according to their armies."
These are the passover regulations passed on to Moses from God.
Notice the symbology in it? This is what I would like to call an indirect prophecy, like the brass serpernt and the sacrifice of animals. Obviously, this passover is similar in idealogy to the sacrifice and salvation of Jesus.
Why was it done this way? Maybe so that the Jews don't make the excuse of saying they weren't sure Jesus was the Messiah. God would probably tell them that they are fools, that the same passover they perform all the time, has the same meaning of the death of the Messiah and his message of salvation. This is truly on a deep level 2-0, if you don't accept this as the Word of God at least give it its due for ingenious complexity....

Peace bro,
Miggidy

haNk1 · Apr 28, 2004

Isaiah 53:3
“He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.”

"most hated in the game"

shep · Apr 28, 2004

these "prophecies" still don't mean shit. i can say that a messiah will come and be hated by people and it could talk about numerous people that may come along the way. still waiting for the proof of this "Truth"

shep · Apr 28, 2004

and while i'm waiting for the "Truth," maybe you god people should look at this

Leave No Stone Unturned
An Easter Challenge For Christians
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."
Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

shep · Apr 28, 2004

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)

Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)

Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)

John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)

Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)

Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)

John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)

Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)

Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)

John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)

Mark: Yes (16:4)

Luke: Yes (24:2)

John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)

Mark: One young man (16:5)

Luke: Two men (24:4)

John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)

Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)

Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)

John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
Matthew: Yes (28:8)

Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)

Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)

John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)

Mark: Yes (16:10,11)

Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)

John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)

Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)

John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Matthew: Yes (28:9)

John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)

Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)

Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)

John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)

Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)

Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)

Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)

John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
Mark: No (16:13)

Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)

Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)

Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)

John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday

Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday

John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)

Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee

Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)

Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)

John: No ascension

Paul: No ascension

Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Rectal Prolapse · Apr 28, 2004

If you had actually read the gospels instead of cutting and pasting from your favorite liberal revisionists than you would realize that all of your supposed contradictions are not contradictions at all. You seem to think all these things happened on Easter Sunday. In fact they happened on Easter and the days and weeks following the ressurection. All of the different testimonies you listed, instead of taking away from the authority of scripture as you have suggested, reenforce it. All of these people had seen the Risen Christ. Argue all you want about whether he was "spiced" before or after the Aposteles brought anointing oils, the testimony of his ressurection is indisputable.

shep · Apr 28, 2004

that article was written by a former priest, someone who had dedicated his life to this, so i'm sure he knows more than you...

here are some more absurdities
Biblical Absurdities
Here is a list of some verses that are completely outrageous. It makes the bible sound like a children's book. Enjoy.

Lev. 11:13 - 11:23 - Reference to Bats as "birds"

Rev. 12:3, 3, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 13:1, 2, 4, 11, 16:13, 20:2, Deut. 8:15 - Reference to Dragons

Gen. 1:1 & 1:2 - The Earth is created before its sun

GE 4:17 - Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations.

GE 1:12, 16 - Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 32:24-30 - God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob's hip. (This is one of my favorites)

Luke 4:5 - Jesus sees "all the kingdoms of the worlds" from atop a mountain--something that could only be done, if the Earth was FLAT! It is impossible to see all the kingdoms of the world if it is a sphere.

Rev. 7:1 - Reference to "the four corners of the earth". This also suggests that the earth is flat. A sphere has no corners.

JB 9:6 (KJV) - God shakes the earth out of its place and makes its pillars tremble. Yet another verse implying that the earth was flat.

JS 10:12-14 God obliges Joshua by making the sun and moon stand still (so that he can finish his battle by daylight). Note that this verse implies that the sun revolves around the earth, which was "common knowledge" at that time.

Lev. 11:6 - Reference to hares "chewing their cud"

Lev. 11:21-23 - Insects (locusts, grasshoppers and beetles) called "four-legged"

Gen. 1:16 - The Moon is created as a "lesser light"

Isa. 13:21 and 34:14 - Reference to Satyrs

Gen. 1:16 - All other stars are created after the earth, its sun and moon, with no mention of any other planets in this solar system

Num. 22:28-30 - Reference to talking asses (note that this could also be a reference to the Christians themselves)

Num. 23:22 & 24:8 and Ps. 92:10 - Reference to Unicorns

shep · Apr 28, 2004

Rectal Prolapse said:

If you had actually read the gospels instead of cutting and pasting from your favorite liberal revisionists than you would realize that all of your supposed contradictions are not contradictions at all. You seem to think all these things happened on Easter Sunday. In fact they happened on Easter and the days and weeks following the ressurection. All of the different testimonies you listed, instead of taking away from the authority of scripture as you have suggested, reenforce it. All of these people had seen the Risen Christ. Argue all you want about whether he was "spiced" before or after the Aposteles brought anointing oils, the testimony of his ressurection is indisputable.

indisputable my ass...

these so called gospels were written long after, as many as 90-120 years after the events, and contradict each other

shep · Apr 28, 2004

here are some more for you to ponder:

Biblical Contradictions
Here are some of the better biblical contradictions. All of the verses have been checked out, and the OT ones have been located in the original Torah. Enjoy.

"...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (II Kings 2:11) VS Jesus states that NO man has ever ascended to heaven (John 3:13)

"the Earth abideth forever" (Ecc 1:4) VS "...the Earth also...shall be burned up" (2Peter 3:10)

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth" (Gen 7:17) VS "And the waters prevailed upoon the earth 150 days" (Gen 7:24) VS The flood starting while Noah was 599, 2 mos and 17days (Gen 7:11) and ending when Noah was 600, I month and 1 day old (Gen 8:13) - This would put the flood's duration at being 319 days.

God cannot lie (Num 23:19, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18) VS God lies, sends "lying spirits" and delusions (I Kings 22:20-30, II Chron 18:19-22, II Thes 2:11-12)

"The Lord is a man of war" (Ex 15:3) VS "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace" (I Cor 14:33)

"with God all things are possible (Matt 19:26) VS God's inability to drive out inhabitants (Judges 1:19)

God forbids the making of any thing that is in heaven (Ex 20:4) VS God commands the making of 2 cherubims of gold (Ex 25:18)

God denounces incest (Deut 27:22) VS God blesses the union of Abraham with his sister, Sara (Gen 17:15-16)

Jacob was buried in Canaan (Gen 50:13) VS Jacob was buried in Sychem (Acts 7:15-16)

Keturah was Abraham's wife (Gen 25:1) VS Keturah was Abraham's concubine (I Chron 1:32)

The bible claims the Earth had only ONE language before the Tower Of Babel (Gen 11:1) VS the bible states that other nations had other languages BEFORE the Tower Of Babel (Gen 10:5)

God creates animals BEFORE Man (Gen 1:25-26) VS God creates animals AFTER Man (Gen 2:18-19)

God claims that once you go to the grave, you "come up no more" (Job 7:9) VS God's promise of universal resurrection of the dead (John 5:28-29)

God encourages revenge, ala "tooth for a tooth" (Ex 21:23-25) VS "turning the other cheek" (Matt 5:39)

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree" (Ps 92:12) VS "The righteous perisheth and no man layeth it to heart" (Isa 57:1)

"Remember the Sabath day, to keep it holy" (Ex 20:8) VS God allowing people to treat each day as they want (Rom 14:5)

God goes into minute detail reagarding sacrifices and burnt offerings (Lev 1-7) VS God denies ever saying anything to them about sacrifices or burnt offerings (Jer 7:22)

"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved" (Gen 32:30) VS "No man hath seen God at any time..." (John 1:18)

It is forbidden to sell a daughter (Lev 19:29) VS Conditions are set up for selling one's daughter (Ex 21:7)

Children shall pay for the sins of their fathers (Ex 20:5, Deut 5:9, Rom 5:12,14,19,6:23) VS Children shall NOT pay for the sins of their fathers (Deut 24:16, II Chron 25:4, Ezek 18:19-20)

God encourages wisdom (Prov 4:7) VS God discourages attaining wisdom (Ecc 1:18) & (Cor 1:19)

Rectal Prolapse · Apr 28, 2004

Shep, your continued cutting and pasting of faulty information is quite pathetic. There is a little something called figurative language that I think you should read up on. Also, check out the terms: context, metaphor, allegory, and archetype. The Bible is quite clear when it is using allegories and metaphors, but what with all your cutting and pasting instead of reading, i wouldn't expect you to understand that. Seriously, the examples you provided are poor to say the least, and indicate a poor understanding not only of scripture, but of the different uses of language. There are some genuine difficulties in the Bible, none of which you listed. I urge you to actually read, not just cut and paste.

The Proof I Promised

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Some Random Asshole

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Fresh

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Sicc OG

Fresh