HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Celebrating Easter? Which...

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 11:59 AM

Celebrating Easter? Which Contradicting Biblical Account of Jesusí Death and Resurrection...

Celebrating Easter? Which Contradicting Biblical Account of Jesusí Death and Resurrection Are You Going to Pick?

Although pre-Christian religions are replete with the stories of dying and rising gods, the Easter tradition is founded in the Bibleís New Testament. Unfortunately for devotees of the Christian faith, the New Testament is replete with irreconcilable discrepancies.

The question is, which contradicting biblical account of Jesusí death and resurrection are you celebrating this Easter?

Of the nearly 600 irreconcilable discrepancies and contradictions found in the Bible, a majority are found in the New Testament. This is understandable given the books of the New Testament were written no less than 50-100 years after the purported death of Easterís central character, Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul hadn't even met Jesus, and they hadnít met the people who had allegedly met Jesus. In other words, the New Testament contains not a single eyewitness testimony, much less even a secondhand account, nor is any account corroborated outside of the Bible.

Without going too far down the theological pathway, Mark, whoever he was, was the first to write a biography of Jesus, some 50 years after the crucifixion. Both Matthew and Luke, whoever they were, copied from Markís written account some 20 to 30 years later, each adding their own theological motives with the help of respective external sources, while John wrote his gospel nearly a full half-century after Mark.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/bible-one-big-mess-contradictions-about-easter



39 replies, 3365 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Celebrating Easter? Which Contradicting Biblical Account of Jesusí Death and Resurrection... (Original post)
cleanhippie Apr 2014 OP
CFLDem Apr 2014 #1
rug Apr 2014 #2
intaglio Apr 2014 #3
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #4
mike_c Apr 2014 #5
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #6
edhopper Apr 2014 #7
okasha Apr 2014 #17
edhopper Apr 2014 #20
Goblinmonger Apr 2014 #8
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #9
Goblinmonger Apr 2014 #11
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #13
Goblinmonger Apr 2014 #16
okasha Apr 2014 #10
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #12
okasha Apr 2014 #14
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #15
okasha Apr 2014 #18
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #19
okasha Apr 2014 #21
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #22
okasha Apr 2014 #23
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #24
okasha Apr 2014 #25
Ligyron Apr 2014 #26
okasha Apr 2014 #27
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #28
skepticscott Apr 2014 #29
okasha Apr 2014 #30
skepticscott Apr 2014 #33
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #34
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #35
okasha Apr 2014 #36
cleanhippie Apr 2014 #37
okasha Apr 2014 #38
kwassa Apr 2014 #39
SevenSixtyTwo Apr 2014 #31
rug Apr 2014 #32

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:41 PM

1. It must be Easter...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:49 PM

2. Lol, you're so earnest.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:58 PM

3. I actually quite like the undead invasion of Jerusalem in Matthew

Mt 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
27:53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.Ö

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:01 PM

4. I don't think its irrational to think that if that event happened, there would be mention of it...

I mean, if the Saints come out of their graves and everyone saw them, wouldn't that have made the "news"?

But we are talking about an absurdly unlikely event that millions of people are celebrating today, and thinking critically about this is not on the agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:15 PM

5. critical thinking is rarely a feature of religious life....

It produces too much cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:17 PM

6. Unfortunately, you are correct.

It's really sad that things are this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:23 PM

7. Wait, Saints?

how could there be Saints without a Vatican to canonize them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:56 PM

17. Saints means "believers" in this context.

Many modern Christians still use it in this sense. I don't think the Vatican canonizes Mormons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 02:25 PM

20. Thanks for the info

I was obviously being snarky, but that is interesting none the less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:26 PM

8. Already watched my Easter zombie movie this morning

 

Good stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:33 PM

9. Which one?

Considering that it's also 4/20, Im getting ready to have a 3-way with my couch and my bong. Zombieland is first in the que...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:48 PM

11. I try to watch one I haven't seen

 

which limits it. mr blur recommended Zombie Strippers but that didn't stream so when I searched for that it recommended Zombie Hunter which had Danny Trejo in it. Pretty low budget but it's a cool riff on Film Noir. With a little Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If you have Netflix, give it a go...it's only 90 minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:50 PM

13. Zombie Strippers? NICE!

Sometimes I wonder how life can get ANY better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:53 PM

16. You can buy it streaming on Amazon for $9.99

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:45 PM

10. Given that there are at least seven factual errors

in the last two paragraphs of this excerpt, why should anyone accept this essay as anything but fantasy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:48 PM

12. So you don't think the Resurrection story is fantasy, but this essay is?



Given your posting history of factual errors, I defer to your expertise on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:51 PM

14. LOL

You certainly should, especially since the only defense you can make of the piece is a personsl attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 01:53 PM

15. Pot, meet kettle.

99% of your responses to OP's in this group are hit and run personal attacks.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 02:01 PM

18. If we include your post,

We now have at least eight factual errors, several of them at the level of first grade math. I see you've already settled in with your bong.

You have a nice day, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 02:05 PM

19. At least your consistent in your hypocrisy, too.



Sorry you didn't get the Host gig, but there is a reason there was so much opposition to your nomination. Perhaps some reflection is in order. YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 05:00 PM

21. Factual errors:

1. Jesus was crucified sometime between CE 30 and 35. Paul's early letters date from the 50"s. That's a difference of 20 to 25 years, not 50.

2. Paul did meet people who had known Jesus, including his brother James and the Apostles Peter and John, son of Zebedee.

3.The generally accepted date for Mark is the early 70's, which places it no more than 35-40 years after Jesus's death; and

4. places it well within the lifetimes of people who had in fact known Jesus.

5. This means that eyewitness testimony cannot be excluded as a source. Actual mainstream scholars also believe that there was a source for eyewitness testimony in John, in the person of the "beloved disciple."

6. No serious scholar places the date of John as late as 130 CE.

7. What does the author mean by "account? If he means a crucifixion narrative outside the NT, he's correct. If it means, as it seems to, that there's no corroborating written evidence, he's wrong. There is now also the possibility of inscriptinonal evidence, since the inscrption on the "James
ossuary" has been established as genuinely ancient.

Since nonsense like this excerpt is usually posted by someone who purports to be interested in facts, you'd think they'd do some fact-checking, instead of relying solely on faith that those "facts" have at least a loose relationship to actual, er, facts.

6. No serious NT scholar places the date of John as late as 130CE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 05:21 PM

22. So tell us, okasha, just what the FACTS really are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 05:26 PM

23. See post above.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 05:33 PM

24. You have a peculiar definition of what a "fact" is.

The first problem lays with these events having any factual basis whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 05:36 PM

25. So offer some corroberation

of the assertions in your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:01 PM

26. Wait a minute

I thought the James ossuary was established by the Israeli Antiquities as a fake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ligyron (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:11 PM

27. Nope.

The IAA embarrased itself pretty badly when at least two of their major witnesses caved on their testimony at the forgery trial of Oded Golan. Golan was found not guilty, though the verdict has had a minimum amount of converge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:22 PM

28. You go first. Start with a person named Jesus actually existing, then move to the resurrection.

You'll be there a while, so I'll wait until your done.

Remember, we're talking "facts" here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:41 PM

29. What, you're asking

 

for, like, evidence that Jesus was a real person, and that he had disciples, and that he was crucified, and that he came back to life for real? The liberal religionistas here are above having to provide something so petty. Proving any of it as fact is so last century. People like okasha just get to assume it's all true, and argue from there. That's her version of intellectual and academic rigor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 06:43 PM

30. You made the assertions in the OP,

even if they're no more than cut and paste. The existence of Jesus is nowhere a topic in your post. That deals specifically with the dating and information sources of the NT.

The burden of proof lies on you. (And how about leaving those goal posts where you originally put them?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 07:52 PM

33. You made the assertion of "factual errors" in post 21

 

starting with:

Jesus was crucified sometime between CE 30 and 35. Paul's early letters date from the 50"s. That's a difference of 20 to 25 years, not 50. This assumes, without evidence, that there was actually a person named Jesus who was actually crucified between CE 30 and 35. Without that evidence (which you are unable to provide) most of your assertions are meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:42 PM

34. Apparently, that small detail was lost on our friend.

Color me unsurprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:43 PM

35. I like to cut and paste. It saves unnecessary effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:53 PM

36. We all know that.

We also know that you're refusing to take responsibility for your post because you don't have facts to back it up.

Carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:56 PM

37. As expected, and as usual, you resort to personal attacks when your point comes up empty.

Personal attacks are all you have left. They are all you have ever had.


And that is just. plain. sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 11:01 PM

38. QED.

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 11:33 PM

39. She asked for factual support, and you declare it a personal attack. Too funny.

and atheists claims to rationality are what, exactly?

edit to add:

HAPPY EASTER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 07:10 PM

31. Beats me...

 

As long as the food's good, I'm ok with it! I said Happy Easter to a Muslim gal today on Clearwater Bch. She replied, "Happy Easter!". I guess we were on the same page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SevenSixtyTwo (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 07:39 PM

32. Welcome to DU!

 

Happy Easter!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread