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

[cleanhippie]

Celebrating Easter? Which Contradicting Biblical Account of Jesus’ 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 Bible’s 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 Jesus’ 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 Easter’s central character, Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul hadn't even met Jesus, and they hadn’t 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 Mark’s 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

[CFLDem]

1. It must be Easter...

[rug]

2. Lol, you're so earnest.

[intaglio]

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.…

[cleanhippie]

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.

[mike_c]

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

It produces too much cognitive dissonance.

[cleanhippie]

6. Unfortunately, you are correct.

It's really sad that things are this way.

[edhopper]

7. Wait, Saints?

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

[okasha]

17. Saints means "believers" in this context.

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

[edhopper]

20. Thanks for the info

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

[Goblinmonger]

8. Already watched my Easter zombie movie this morning

Good stuff.

[cleanhippie]

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...

[Goblinmonger]

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.

[cleanhippie]

13. Zombie Strippers? NICE!

Sometimes I wonder how life can get ANY better.

[Goblinmonger]

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

Here

[okasha]

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?

[cleanhippie]

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.

[okasha]

14. LOL

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

[cleanhippie]

15. Pot, meet kettle.

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

[okasha]

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.

[cleanhippie]

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.

[okasha]

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.

[cleanhippie]

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

[okasha]

23. See post above.

nt

[cleanhippie]

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

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

[okasha]

25. So offer some corroberation

of the assertions in your OP.

[Ligyron]

26. Wait a minute

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

[okasha]

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.

[cleanhippie]

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.

[skepticscott]

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.

[okasha]

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?)

[skepticscott]

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.

[cleanhippie]

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

Color me unsurprised.

[cleanhippie]

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=125014

You were saying?

[okasha]

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.

[cleanhippie]

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.

[okasha]

38. QED.

NT

[kwassa]

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!

[SevenSixtyTwo]

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.

[rug]

32. Welcome to DU!

Happy Easter!