Skip to main content

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
How important can it be uno, that four guys,who obviously wasn't there, but

wrote about it as best they could by talking to others and each other.

The important thing is to know that Jesus made it a point to appear to

the principle women first.

 

Iv


Vic, you need to understand that we have no ******* idea who wronte the Gospels.  ZERO IDEA.  They are "attributed" to certain people but know one knows.  Biblical scholars seem to agree that the  Gospels share some common source material.  Today we call that "plagiarization."  

Secondly, you need to understand that it is almost universally agreed that these books were not written until 40 to 70 years after the events took place.  The average lifespan back them was 35 to 40 meaning that none of the books are "eye-witness" accounts of what happened. In fact, they may be as much as three generations removed.  It's like you retelling a story about your great grandfather's war exploits. 

 

And lastly,  the story is eerily similar to other man/god resurrection stories that predate Xtianity by hundreds of years.

In short, these were all bedtime mythical stories relayed mouth to mouth until some member of the church (the only people who knew how to write) decided to write them down. 

Originally Posted by O No!:

Why do you all keep asking the same questions? We answer your questions and you keep asking the same ones, over and over again. If you didn't like the answer the first time, why do you want to hear it again?


Ono, the question HAS NOT been answered!  Please show me where there is a satisfactory answer?  The question was directly answered (more or less) a post or two after you posted this.  

Evasive answers that do not answer the question are not "answers" Ono.  They are evidence of not having an answer as is common with believers. 

Actually, Bill's first post in this thread answered the question perfectly. Until all of these people recieved the Holy Spirit, they did not fully understand what Jesus had told them would happen. There are many many places in the Gospel where the diciples misunderstood or over simplified Jesus' message. That explains why everyone was suprised when He disappeared.

 

And YOU explained why the accounts differ slightly when you pointed out (yet again) that the story wasn't written until much later. Take ANY account of ANY story, and you will find that different people will swear to seeing/hearing different things. (That's why eyewitness accounts of crimes are so notoriously unreliable.)

 

So, those are the answers to the questions, and they are honest answers. If you don't LIKE the answers, fine, but you won't hear different ones, so why keep asking?! This question has been asked before in different forms over the past couple of years here, and there really is no point in asking again.

 

What is it they say? If you keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, it is a good indication that you are crazy. Well, if you keep asking the same question over and over again expecting a different answer, that is a good indication that you asked so you could recieve something OTHER than the answer.

Originally Posted by Jennifer:

I ask this question on another thread a few days ago with no answer. The crazy person is the one that claims bill answered it.


If you're not bright enough to comprehend, perhaps you should find a simpler forum to go play in. It isn't my fault that you don't like the answers. But, as I said, you don't ask questions seeking answers, you just ask them trying to trap Christians into not being ABLE to answer them. You are so pitiful that despite your bitterness toward me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I truly feel sorry for you. And I DO pray for you, that whatever your problem is, you will someday find resolution and peace.

Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

I ask this question on another thread a few days ago with no answer. The crazy person is the one that claims bill answered it.


If you're not bright enough to comprehend, perhaps you should find a simpler forum to go play in. It isn't my fault that you don't like the answers. But, as I said, you don't ask questions seeking answers, you just ask them trying to trap Christians into not being ABLE to answer them. You are so pitiful that despite your bitterness toward me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I truly feel sorry for you. And I DO pray for you, that whatever your problem is, you will someday find resolution and peace.

 

 

I dont feel sorry for the old cow.  Anybody thats mealy mouthed as her needs a little something more attention getting than pity.

Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

I ask this question on another thread a few days ago with no answer. The crazy person is the one that claims bill answered it.


If you're not bright enough to comprehend, perhaps you should find a simpler forum to go play in. It isn't my fault that you don't like the answers. But, as I said, you don't ask questions seeking answers, you just ask them trying to trap Christians into not being ABLE to answer them. You are so pitiful that despite your bitterness toward me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I truly feel sorry for you. And I DO pray for you, that whatever your problem is, you will someday find resolution and peace.


I'm bright enough to know bill didn't answer the question. Now you're looking as silly and evasive as he does. I ask questions seeking answers, the problem is none of you have answers. Invictus and a couple of others are the only ones that will even give the questions an honest try. You and bill do the same thing when confronted, you call names and tell rambling stories that don't mean crap. ("Taking fluffy to the vet cause you luv him") that one made me gag. You think you are really something on this little nothing forum, and from what I understand you don't even live in the area. Don't they have a forum in your town for you to play ms know it all that actually doesn't know crap? You crave attention and brag on yourself all the time. Don't you have any family or a man that gives a rip about you? You have to find your worth here? That's what's pitiful.

 

 No, I don't like you, but it's not bitterness, it's not even hatred, it's disgust. I can see right through your act and that is exactly what chaps your azz about me. You can get off the "pray you find peace" line because it just doesn't work, and like the race card it's getting worn out. How about your bitterness? You project all your shortcomings onto others and in particular me. I can take it because I know that's the only little game you have and that even YOU know you're full of crap. You wish I was unhappy, but you lose on that too. Now again, I don't bother with your threads and if you don't like mine or my posts you can keep your old long nose out of them. Is that plain enough?

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by NashBama:

To answer the original question, it's simple. A tomb guarded by Roman soldiers containing the body of a man that was publicly executed was found empty. Natural human reaction would be surprise.

 


What evah.  How do you guys rationalize the following over who found the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James."

d. Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

My point was that a woman was first to find the tomb empty. The verses you posted reaffirmed that point. Mary Magdalene first found the tomb empty. If this was a concocted story, why use the most unreliable (according to the culture at the time) first witness? Why not have Peter find the tomb first?

 

Originally Posted by Jennifer:

Invictus, he didn't appear to the women first. But the question is why mary of all people didn't believe him when he said he'd rise in three days, and why she didn't sit in the tomb waiting for it to happen.

Actually, He did appear to the women first. John 20:14-16.

 

In hindsight, we can see where He made references to His death and resurrection. However, He never sat everyone down and said "Okay, here is exactly what will happen."

 

She didn't sit by the tomb waiting for the resurrection because for one, there were Roman soldiers guarding it. A woman wouldn't want to hang out with trained killers with free reign to do what they want at night.

 

Second, she saw a man executed. Romans knew how to kill people and there was no doubt in anyone's mind that He was dead. The reason for the public execution was to eliminate this teacher and His teachings, as well as discourage any other challenges to Roman and Jewish authority.

 

Christianity didn't begin with the crucifixion. If Jesus stayed dead in the tomb, everything He taught would have quickly faded away and Christianity would never exist. That was the Jewish leadership's plan. It was the resurrection that not only began Christianity, but caused it to spread as fast as it did.

Originally Posted by Jennifer:
Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

I ask this question on another thread a few days ago with no answer. The crazy person is the one that claims bill answered it.


If you're not bright enough to comprehend, perhaps you should find a simpler forum to go play in. It isn't my fault that you don't like the answers. But, as I said, you don't ask questions seeking answers, you just ask them trying to trap Christians into not being ABLE to answer them. You are so pitiful that despite your bitterness toward me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I truly feel sorry for you. And I DO pray for you, that whatever your problem is, you will someday find resolution and peace.


I'm bright enough to know bill didn't answer the question. Now you're looking as silly and evasive as he does. I ask questions seeking answers, the problem is none of you have answers. Invictus and a couple of others are the only ones that will even give the questions an honest try. You and bill do the same thing when confronted, you call names and tell rambling stories that don't mean crap. ("Taking fluffy to the vet cause you luv him") that one made me gag. You think you are really something on this little nothing forum, and from what I understand you don't even live in the area. Don't they have a forum in your town for you to play ms know it all that actually doesn't know crap? You crave attention and brag on yourself all the time. Don't you have any family or a man that gives a rip about you? You have to find your worth here? That's what's pitiful.

 

 No, I don't like you, but it's not bitterness, it's not even hatred, it's disgust. I can see right through your act and that is exactly what chaps your azz about me. You can get off the "pray you find peace" line because it just doesn't work, and like the race card it's getting worn out. How about your bitterness? You project all your shortcomings onto others and in particular me. I can take it because I know that's the only little game you have and that even YOU know you're full of crap. You wish I was unhappy, but you lose on that too. Now again, I don't bother with your threads and if you don't like mine or my posts you can keep your old long nose out of them. Is that plain enough?


This would be funny if it weren't so sad. The questions have been answered by many, the answers are the same, and you simply don't like the answers. It's too bad you spend so much time on this little "nothing forum", trying to vent your unhappiness and picking fights with strangers. I know you don't want anyone praying for you, but my pity for you will not allow me to leave you out of my prayers. Someday, perhaps when you grow up a little bit and face your problems, you will start to understand your own emotional demons and come to terms with your life.

Originally Posted by Jennifer:
Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

I ask this question on another thread a few days ago with no answer. The crazy person is the one that claims bill answered it.


If you're not bright enough to comprehend, perhaps you should find a simpler forum to go play in. It isn't my fault that you don't like the answers. But, as I said, you don't ask questions seeking answers, you just ask them trying to trap Christians into not being ABLE to answer them. You are so pitiful that despite your bitterness toward me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I truly feel sorry for you. And I DO pray for you, that whatever your problem is, you will someday find resolution and peace.


I'm bright enough to know bill didn't answer the question. Now you're looking as silly and evasive as he does. I ask questions seeking answers, the problem is none of you have answers. Invictus and a couple of others are the only ones that will even give the questions an honest try. You and bill do the same thing when confronted, you call names and tell rambling stories that don't mean crap. ("Taking fluffy to the vet cause you luv him") that one made me gag. You think you are really something on this little nothing forum, and from what I understand you don't even live in the area. Don't they have a forum in your town for you to play ms know it all that actually doesn't know crap? You crave attention and brag on yourself all the time. Don't you have any family or a man that gives a rip about you? You have to find your worth here? That's what's pitiful.

 

 No, I don't like you, but it's not bitterness, it's not even hatred, it's disgust. I can see right through your act and that is exactly what chaps your azz about me. You can get off the "pray you find peace" line because it just doesn't work, and like the race card it's getting worn out. How about your bitterness? You project all your shortcomings onto others and in particular me. I can take it because I know that's the only little game you have and that even YOU know you're full of crap. You wish I was unhappy, but you lose on that too. Now again, I don't bother with your threads and if you don't like mine or my posts you can keep your old long nose out of them. Is that plain enough?

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Hades/Paradise, Hades/Torment?  Bill, you need to spend some more time in Ephesians 4.  There is some good advice for you there.


Hi Crusty,

 

Yes, Hades had two compartments before Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again.  They are commonly called Torment (where non-believers reside) and Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom, where believers were until Jesus Christ led them from there into heaven (Ephesians 4:8).  This is also where the repentant thief went with Jesus Christ the day they were crucified.  Once He resurrected, the Paradise side of Hades was closed down, out of business -- but, the Torment side is still there waiting for all non-believers.

 

But, Crusty, if you have any problem finding any of this in the Bible, just let me know.  I will be happy to help you.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

________________

 

Your misrepresentation of this verse is phenomenal. 

 

You might try taking Ephesians 4:1 to heart. 

 

Have another blissed day, Bill.

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

Billie,,,Do you still want to stand on this Hades had two compartment thing???

 

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

BJG...........For the recond, Hades didn't have two compartments. Hades or Hell stands

on it's own. Paradise and Limbo are two different places. Limbo is where saved souls

stayed until the ascension of Jesus. Limbo isn't needed anymore and paradise

speaks for itself from the beginning of creation.

 

Iv

 

Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:
Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

I ask this question on another thread a few days ago with no answer. The crazy person is the one that claims bill answered it.


If you're not bright enough to comprehend, perhaps you should find a simpler forum to go play in. It isn't my fault that you don't like the answers. But, as I said, you don't ask questions seeking answers, you just ask them trying to trap Christians into not being ABLE to answer them. You are so pitiful that despite your bitterness toward me and anyone else who disagrees with you, I truly feel sorry for you. And I DO pray for you, that whatever your problem is, you will someday find resolution and peace.


I'm bright enough to know bill didn't answer the question. Now you're looking as silly and evasive as he does. I ask questions seeking answers, the problem is none of you have answers. Invictus and a couple of others are the only ones that will even give the questions an honest try. You and bill do the same thing when confronted, you call names and tell rambling stories that don't mean crap. ("Taking fluffy to the vet cause you luv him") that one made me gag. You think you are really something on this little nothing forum, and from what I understand you don't even live in the area. Don't they have a forum in your town for you to play ms know it all that actually doesn't know crap? You crave attention and brag on yourself all the time. Don't you have any family or a man that gives a rip about you? You have to find your worth here? That's what's pitiful.

 

 No, I don't like you, but it's not bitterness, it's not even hatred, it's disgust. I can see right through your act and that is exactly what chaps your azz about me. You can get off the "pray you find peace" line because it just doesn't work, and like the race card it's getting worn out. How about your bitterness? You project all your shortcomings onto others and in particular me. I can take it because I know that's the only little game you have and that even YOU know you're full of crap. You wish I was unhappy, but you lose on that too. Now again, I don't bother with your threads and if you don't like mine or my posts you can keep your old long nose out of them. Is that plain enough?

Finally, RM posts her real photo!

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Hades/Paradise, Hades/Torment?  Bill, you need to spend some more time in Ephesians 4.  There is some good advice for you there.


Hi Crusty,

 

Yes, Hades had two compartments before Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again.  They are commonly called Torment (where non-believers reside) and Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom, where believers were until Jesus Christ led them from there into heaven (Ephesians 4:8).  This is also where the repentant thief went with Jesus Christ the day they were crucified.  Once He resurrected, the Paradise side of Hades was closed down, out of business -- but, the Torment side is still there waiting for all non-believers.

 

But, Crusty, if you have any problem finding any of this in the Bible, just let me know.  I will be happy to help you.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

________________

 

Your misrepresentation of this verse is phenomenal. 

 

You might try taking Ephesians 4:1 to heart. 

 

Have another blissed day, Bill.

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

Billie,,,Do you still want to stand on this Hades had two compartment thing???

 

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

BJG...........For the recond, Hades didn't have two compartments. Hades or Hell stands

on it's own. Paradise and Limbo are two different places. Limbo is where saved souls

stayed until the ascension of Jesus. Limbo isn't needed anymore and paradise

speaks for itself from the beginning of creation.

 

Iv

 

Hell, like OZ, is a fictional place. Nothing to be concerned about.

This is funny. In another thread, Jennifer wrote this about Bill Gray:

 

"Bill's been given the correct information but just like gb he figures if he keeps pretending over and over that he doesn't see it or understand it, that it will be "not so". Deny you see it, pretend not to understand it, ask them over and over again and maybe it will go away is their mindset. They need to learn life doesn't work that way."

 

Yet that is EXACTLY what SHE HERSELF is doing in this thread, and in every thread where a question comes up and is answered in a way that she doesn't like. I think her new screen name ought to be Billifer.

 

Since you still like flapping your gums ohno how about you show me where I ask this question before and it was answered. The very reason for this thread was so the christians, bill especially, and others couldn't ignore the question. Invic and I touched on it but no one answered it.

 

****************************************************************************************************************

 

Originally Posted by Jennifer:

On a little different note I'd like to ask again, why was peter surprised to find the tomb empty? Didn't jesus tell them he'd rise in three days? Why didn't they believe him? AND why didn't mary just camp out next to the body? I'd have been right there sleeping on the floor waiting. But no, they go away and then are surprised that he's gone????  mmmmmmmmmmmmm

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

Jen Jen,,, your spinning your wheels. (Invics answer).

**************************************************************************************************************************

So tell me ohno, how do you figure the question was answered?

Last edited by Jennifer
 
July 21, 2011 6:47 PM
Delete Edit
 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

Tell me how so invic. Did or didn't the bible say "strips and themselves", not "it"  when describing the burial cloths? Did or didn't the bible say jesus told them he'd rise in three days? Now invic, if it was one of your christian pals asking that question would you tell him/her they were "spinning their wheels"?

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

Yes I would, because I know they already knew the answer. They would be wasting

time or just trying to stir things up.

Like the mentally four year old, jimboy.

.

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

And this is still my answer, are you going to ask more questions you already

know the answer to????

 

Don't be another jimboy

 

.

*********************************************************************
 
Don't be another bill gray.

 

Originally Posted by Jennifer:
 
July 21, 2011 6:47 PM
Delete Edit
 

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

Tell me how so invic. Did or didn't the bible say "strips and themselves", not "it"  when describing the burial cloths? Did or didn't the bible say jesus told them he'd rise in three days? Now invic, if it was one of your christian pals asking that question would you tell him/her they were "spinning their wheels"?

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

Yes I would, because I know they already knew the answer. They would be wasting

time or just trying to stir things up.

Like the mentally four year old, jimboy.

.

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

And this is still my answer, are you going to ask more questions you already

know the answer to????

 

Don't be another jimboy

 

.

*********************************************************************
 
Don't be another bill gray.

 

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

OHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!...gut shot.

 

.


 

 

 

These are some of the answers you got. First, from Bill:
"You are right that His followers, even though He had told them -- did not fully understand what He had been telling them.  This is why Peter denied Him three times, this is why most of His disciples ran away when He was arrested, this is why His disciples were discouraged and went back to fishing after His crucifixion.

 

Yet, when they did see Him in His resurrected body, they began to believe -- but, still lacked the full illumination which comes only from the Holy Spirit.


Jennifer, you asked, "Didn't they believe Him?"   The answer is yes and no.  They wanted to fully believe; yet, until they were indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) -- they did not have the Spirit given power, discernment, and illumination to be effective witnesses for Christ, to fully believe."

 

Now, I know you don't believe in any of this, but we had a discussion about the Holy Spirit in a couple of different threads recently. Christians DO believe that the Holy Spirit gives us guidance and understanding of spiritual things. So until they recieved the Holy Spirit, they didn't REALLY understand what Jesus was telling them.


Nashbama said this:

"To answer the original question, it's simple. A tomb guarded by Roman soldiers containing the body of a man that was publicly executed was found empty. Natural human reaction would be surprise.

 

The key to the whole event is who first found the tomb empty. In 1st Century Judea, women were not considered to be reliable witnesses. If the resurrection was staged, then the best choice for the first person to "discover" it would be the most reliable person according to their culture. This would be a man, probably a wealthy man or priest. Instead, someone with the least credibility first reported the tomb empty and Christ risen. The reason why this is key is because of the reaction, it was believed"


There is yet ANOTHER reason for the conflicting reports about who was there. Women didn't count for much back then so it is no surprise that they were left out of one of the accounts.Even Unob (although unintentionally, I'm sure) gave a good reason why the accounts don't match exactly:

"Secondly, you need to understand that it is almost universally agreed that these books were not written until 40 to 70 years after the events took place.  The average lifespan back them was 35 to 40 meaning that none of the books are "eye-witness" accounts of what happened. In fact, they may be as much as three generations removed.  It's like you retelling a story about your great grandfather's war exploits."


Then I wrote this:

Until all of these people recieved the Holy Spirit, they did not fully understand what Jesus had told them would happen. There are many many places in the Gospel where the diciples misunderstood or over simplified Jesus' message. That explains why everyone was suprised when He disappeared.

 

And YOU (this was addressed to Unob, about his post that I just quoted) explained why the accounts differ slightly when you pointed out (yet again) that the story wasn't written until much later. Take ANY account of ANY story, and you will find that different people will swear to seeing/hearing different things. (That's why eyewitness accounts of crimes are so notoriously unreliable.)

 

Now, you can continue to claim no one has answered your questions, but I just copied and pasted some of the answers you got. You may not LIKE the answers, but to deny that people HAVE answered your question is pretty pointless, don't you think? I mean, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that we DID answer you questions. As I said, you may not like the answers, but those answers are the truth.

Originally Posted by O No!:

 

 

These are some of the answers you got. First, from Bill:
"You are right that His followers, even though He had told them -- did not fully understand what He had been telling them.  This is why Peter denied Him three times, this is why most of His disciples ran away when He was arrested, this is why His disciples were discouraged and went back to fishing after His crucifixion.

 

Yet, when they did see Him in His resurrected body, they began to believe -- but, still lacked the full illumination which comes only from the Holy Spirit.


Jennifer, you asked, "Didn't they believe Him?"   The answer is yes and no.  They wanted to fully believe; yet, until they were indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) -- they did not have the Spirit given power, discernment, and illumination to be effective witnesses for Christ, to fully believe."

 

Now, I know you don't believe in any of this, but we had a discussion about the Holy Spirit in a couple of different threads recently. Christians DO believe that the Holy Spirit gives us guidance and understanding of spiritual things. So until they recieved the Holy Spirit, they didn't REALLY understand what Jesus was telling them.


Nashbama said this:

"To answer the original question, it's simple. A tomb guarded by Roman soldiers containing the body of a man that was publicly executed was found empty. Natural human reaction would be surprise.

 

The key to the whole event is who first found the tomb empty. In 1st Century Judea, women were not considered to be reliable witnesses. If the resurrection was staged, then the best choice for the first person to "discover" it would be the most reliable person according to their culture. This would be a man, probably a wealthy man or priest. Instead, someone with the least credibility first reported the tomb empty and Christ risen. The reason why this is key is because of the reaction, it was believed"


There is yet ANOTHER reason for the conflicting reports about who was there. Women didn't count for much back then so it is no surprise that they were left out of one of the accounts.Even Unob (although unintentionally, I'm sure) gave a good reason why the accounts don't match exactly:

"Secondly, you need to understand that it is almost universally agreed that these books were not written until 40 to 70 years after the events took place.  The average lifespan back them was 35 to 40 meaning that none of the books are "eye-witness" accounts of what happened. In fact, they may be as much as three generations removed.  It's like you retelling a story about your great grandfather's war exploits."


Then I wrote this:

Until all of these people recieved the Holy Spirit, they did not fully understand what Jesus had told them would happen. There are many many places in the Gospel where the diciples misunderstood or over simplified Jesus' message. That explains why everyone was suprised when He disappeared.

 

And YOU (this was addressed to Unob, about his post that I just quoted) explained why the accounts differ slightly when you pointed out (yet again) that the story wasn't written until much later. Take ANY account of ANY story, and you will find that different people will swear to seeing/hearing different things. (That's why eyewitness accounts of crimes are so notoriously unreliable.)

 

Now, you can continue to claim no one has answered your questions, but I just copied and pasted some of the answers you got. You may not LIKE the answers, but to deny that people HAVE answered your question is pretty pointless, don't you think? I mean, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that we DID answer you questions. As I said, you may not like the answers, but those answers are the truth.

 

 

 

Im telling you. Just look at the old gals dumassed posting. Shes retarded. whoever wrote about her pityfull ass got it right. Bet she dont talk like the tough gal in person or somebody would smack them jaws for her.

Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by O No!:

 

 

These are some of the answers you got. First, from Bill:
"You are right that His followers, even though He had told them -- did not fully understand what He had been telling them.  This is why Peter denied Him three times, this is why most of His disciples ran away when He was arrested, this is why His disciples were discouraged and went back to fishing after His crucifixion.

 

Yet, when they did see Him in His resurrected body, they began to believe -- but, still lacked the full illumination which comes only from the Holy Spirit.


Jennifer, you asked, "Didn't they believe Him?"   The answer is yes and no.  They wanted to fully believe; yet, until they were indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) -- they did not have the Spirit given power, discernment, and illumination to be effective witnesses for Christ, to fully believe."

 

Now, I know you don't believe in any of this, but we had a discussion about the Holy Spirit in a couple of different threads recently. Christians DO believe that the Holy Spirit gives us guidance and understanding of spiritual things. So until they recieved the Holy Spirit, they didn't REALLY understand what Jesus was telling them.


Nashbama said this:

"To answer the original question, it's simple. A tomb guarded by Roman soldiers containing the body of a man that was publicly executed was found empty. Natural human reaction would be surprise.

 

The key to the whole event is who first found the tomb empty. In 1st Century Judea, women were not considered to be reliable witnesses. If the resurrection was staged, then the best choice for the first person to "discover" it would be the most reliable person according to their culture. This would be a man, probably a wealthy man or priest. Instead, someone with the least credibility first reported the tomb empty and Christ risen. The reason why this is key is because of the reaction, it was believed"


There is yet ANOTHER reason for the conflicting reports about who was there. Women didn't count for much back then so it is no surprise that they were left out of one of the accounts.Even Unob (although unintentionally, I'm sure) gave a good reason why the accounts don't match exactly:

"Secondly, you need to understand that it is almost universally agreed that these books were not written until 40 to 70 years after the events took place.  The average lifespan back them was 35 to 40 meaning that none of the books are "eye-witness" accounts of what happened. In fact, they may be as much as three generations removed.  It's like you retelling a story about your great grandfather's war exploits."


Then I wrote this:

Until all of these people recieved the Holy Spirit, they did not fully understand what Jesus had told them would happen. There are many many places in the Gospel where the diciples misunderstood or over simplified Jesus' message. That explains why everyone was suprised when He disappeared.

 

And YOU (this was addressed to Unob, about his post that I just quoted) explained why the accounts differ slightly when you pointed out (yet again) that the story wasn't written until much later. Take ANY account of ANY story, and you will find that different people will swear to seeing/hearing different things. (That's why eyewitness accounts of crimes are so notoriously unreliable.)

 

Now, you can continue to claim no one has answered your questions, but I just copied and pasted some of the answers you got. You may not LIKE the answers, but to deny that people HAVE answered your question is pretty pointless, don't you think? I mean, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that we DID answer you questions. As I said, you may not like the answers, but those answers are the truth.

 

 

 

Im telling you. Just look at the old gals dumassed posting. Shes retarded. whoever wrote about her pityfull ass got it right. Bet she dont talk like the tough gal in person or somebody would smack them jaws for her.

You have to agree. RM is, if nothing else, a real Southern lady.

Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by O No!:

 

 

These are some of the answers you got. First, from Bill:
"You are right that His followers, even though He had told them -- did not fully understand what He had been telling them.  This is why Peter denied Him three times, this is why most of His disciples ran away when He was arrested, this is why His disciples were discouraged and went back to fishing after His crucifixion.

 

The reason Peter denied him three times was because he feared for his life.

He just witnessed the murder of Jesus and was surrounded by the people

against Jesus.

 

Jennifer, you asked, "Didn't they believe Him?"   The answer is yes and no.  They wanted to fully believe; yet, until they were indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit they did not have the Spirit given power, discernment, and illumination to be effective witnesses for Christ, to fully believe."

 

John 20: 1-8

1 On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.

2 So she ran 4and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don't know where they put him."

3 So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.

4 They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first;

5 he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in.

6 When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there,

7 and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place.

8 Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed.

(6 and 7)  the burial cloths

 9 For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead.

10 Then the disciples returned home.

Nashbama said this:

"To answer the original question, it's simple. A tomb guarded by Roman soldiers containing the body of a man that was publicly executed was found empty. Natural human reaction would be surprise.    Yes, that would surprise anyone.

 

The key to the whole event is who first found the tomb empty. In 1st Century Judea, women were not considered to be reliable witnesses.

 

The Holy women and Apostle worked very close together. what they were

going through wasn't a everyday thing.


Then I wrote this:

Until all of these people recieved the Holy Spirit, they did not fully understand what Jesus had told them would happen. There are many many places in the Gospel where the diciples misunderstood or over simplified Jesus' message. That explains why everyone was suprised when He disappeared.

 

John 20: 19-24

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."

20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

21 (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.

23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

24 Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.

 

 (22)  Jesus did give them the Holy Spirit then, That would help them until

the coming of the Holy Spirit later that they would fully understand everything

 

 

 

"Secondly, you need to understand that it is almost universally agreed that these books were not written until 40 to 70 years after the events took place. The average lifespan back them was 35 to 40 meaning that none of the books are "eye-witness" accounts of what happened. In fact, they may be as much as three generations removed. It's like you retelling a story about your great grandfather's war exploits."

 

Average life span doesn't mean that people only lived to be 40 years old. Infant mortality is included in that number, as well as other contributing factors. People in the 1st century could live into their 70's and 80's just as they do today, it was just less likely. So a 75 year old could very easily have written about something he witnessed when he was 30. That's leaving the fact that we're also talking about a culture that relied heavily on oral tradition.

 

So here is my question. Let's say you are going to concoct a story about a man coming back to life after everyone saw him executed in public. Who do you pick as the first witness to sell the story? The most credible person or the least credible?

 

 

 

No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

 

 Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.

 

.

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

 

 

No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

 

 Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.

 

.

Nice try. Incorrect, but nice try.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

 

 

No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

 

 Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.

 

.

Nice try. Incorrect, but nice try.

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

If it's incorrect,

Put your evidence up against what I can show you.

 

Iv

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

 

 

No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

 

 Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.

 

.

Nice try. Incorrect, but nice try.

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

If it's incorrect,

Put your evidence up against what I can show you.

 

Iv

When you show me something, I'll think about it.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

 

 

No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.

 

 Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.

 

.

Nice try. Incorrect, but nice try.

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

If it's incorrect,

Put your evidence up against what I can show you.

 

Iv

When you show me something, I'll think about it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I just did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,You've shown zero

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×