Evidence that substantiates ANYTHING that happened in the Bible.

[Lucian]

911 never happened? You mean the emergency telephone number for the US was never implemented?

And, please, learn to use the point of interrogation, as well as the rest of the English language.

So you're saying you believe in miracles?

 

[TimCallahan]

Ok, someone gave alleged contradictions after the crucifixion and here is a logical explanation:

http://www.josh.org/resources/answe...ain-contradictions-in-the-resurrection-story/

Can you image all the contradictions there would have been from twenty New York
911 wtnesses (some in tower 1, some in tower 2, and some from outside) if the attacks were not filmed. Would all those contradiction had meant 911 never happened.

That said, I have still not seen an alleged contradiction in the Gospels that can't be explained.

I wouldn't have a problem reconciling Matthew's account that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" are the first to meet the risen Christ with John's account that Mary Magdalene alone is the first to meet him. However, I cannot reconcile these accounts with Luke and 1 Corinthians omitting any mention of the risen Christ appearing to the women. It's also a bit of a strain reconciling Matthew's account that the women first meet the angel at the tomb, are rushing to tell the disciples the news, when they meet Jesus and then do tell the disciples what they have experienced; with Mark saying that the women were terrified at the sight of the angel and the empty tomb, ran away and told nobody. Another problem that can't really be reconciled is that in Luke the disciples meet Jesus in Jerusalem, and in Acts 1 he tells them not to leave Jerusalem; while in Matthew he tells the women to tell the disciples he will meet them in Galilee and does indeed met them there.

Were all the accounts exactly alike we would indeed suspect that there was one source copied by all the others. So we would expect minor discrepancies. However, major, flat-out contradictions are quite different matter. In any case, we know from Luke's own admission that he was not an eyewitness to the events in the life of Jesus. Thus, his witness is hearsay.

There is also some evidence with later tampering. In 1 Corinthians we are told that the risen Christ appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). It is generally thought by believers that Luke was one of Paul's traveling companions. Yet Luke - along with all the other gospel writers - neglects to mention the 500 + brethren who witnessed the risen Christ at one time. Did paul neglect to pass on this detail to Luke? It doesn't sound like something one would leave out. Or, did he tell luke of the 500+, but Luke left it out? Again, this seems unlikely. Regardless of whether or not Paul and Luke were traveling companions, 1 Corinthians was written before the gospels, and the gospel writers may well have had access to the epistle. Therefore, there are only two possible explanations for why the gospels, particularly Luke, failed to mention the 500+ brethren. One is that they did not consider the story credible. The other is that they never mentioned because Paul never wrote it. Rather, it was an interpolation, the insertion of a later editor or copyist.

 

[DOC]

I wouldn't have a problem reconciling Matthew's account that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" are the first to meet the risen Christ with John's account that Mary Magdalene alone is the first to meet him. However, I cannot reconcile these accounts with Luke and 1 Corinthians omitting any mention of the risen Christ appearing to the women...

Back then in that area woman were second class citizens who couldn't even testify in court. They didn't even count women as part of crowds. It would make sense in that culture for some to only mention men, while others writers might have been more liberal just like today. Heck, woman didn't even have the right to vote in the US until 1920.

 

[Akhenaten]

Back then in that area woman were second class citizens who couldn't even testify in court.

As irrelevant as this is, do you have a citation?

They didn't even count women as part of crowds.

Again, what is your reference for this claim.

It would make sense in that culture for some to only mention men, while others writers might have been more liberal just like today.

No, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the characters in a story were women then that's how they were described throughout the whole rest of the Bible, regardless of social mores and prejudices. Are you seriously trying to claim that this one particular incident in a couple of books of the NT just happens to be the exception?

How utterly absurd.

Heck, woman didn't even have the right to vote in the US a hundred years ago.

So bloody what?

Apart from the irrelevance of the situation in the US 100 years ago to events taking place in 1st Century Palestine, are you implying that women were at one time not allowed to appear in American literature or news reports and that this was somehow related to women's suffrage

Can you genuinely not see how bizarre that suggestion is?

 

[DOC]

As irrelevant as this is, do you have a citation?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

The fact that woman were second class citizens who couldn't testify in court supports the claim the resurrection story was not made up. If it was made up it would seem all the writers would have men finding the empty tomb first, not people who couldn't testify in court.

 

[Akhenaten]

As irrelevant as this is, do you have a citation?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

Here's the heading from the page you've linked to:

The status of women in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)

Has it slipped your mind that the story of the alleged Jesus' alleged resurrection is actually in the New Testament?

As a related question, DOC, who ran the trial of the alleged Jesus? The Romans, wasn't it?

The fact that woman were second class citizens who couldn't testify in court supports the claim the resurrection story was not made up.

You have established neither of these things.

If it was made up it would seem all the writers would have men finding the empty tomb first, not people who couldn't testify in court.

This nonsensical mumbo-jumbo is an example of what you claim to be 'logical explanations' for biblical contradictions, is it?

Spectacular fail, as usual, DOC.

 

[zooterkin]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

That link is not relevant, as it is about the Old Testament.

The fact that woman were second class citizens who couldn't testify in court supports the claim the resurrection story was not made up. If it was made up it would seem all the writers would have men finding the empty tomb first, not people who couldn't testify in court.

Nonsense. Now, please explain why the stories differ.

 

[Hellbound]

Just for fun, let's accept Doc's explanation that the differences are just like differing witness stories; not everyone saw things the same, they each had their own experiences, etc.

This stil tells us something very important, and I don't think Doc would like the direction this points to.

This would mean that the Bible is NOT inerrant. It definatively shows that the writings in the Bible are affected by the human failings, prejudices, and misperceptions of it's authors. The text within the Bible came from those who wrote it; the claim of divine authorship is thus disproven.

That beign said, it also means the Bible cannot be considered an authoritive source. COnsidering that the text is compromised, we can now only accept as valid or factual those events within it that can be confirmed by other sources.

That being said, the ressurection is right out.

 

[eight bits]

DOC

The fact that woman were second class citizens who couldn't testify in court supports the claim the resurrection story was not made up. If it was made up it would seem all the writers would have men finding the empty tomb first, not people who couldn't testify in court.

Why? Except for Mark, whose ending appears to have been lost just at the crucial moment, the other three Gospels all have boys, either male guards watching the women's visit and then testifying to the priests about it, or else one or two male disciples promptly on the scene, checking on the tomb, and assuring us that "Yup, it's empty all right."

That would be Matthew 28: 4 and 11; Luke 24: 12; and John 20: 3.

It is simply false, then, that the Gospel authors much rely on female witness to the empty tomb. Women would plausibly visit the tomb first because, while they may not have been welcome in court, they were thought worthy to clean up after the boys, and that's why they went to the tomb. The Roman boys had made a big mess of Jesus.

In any case, in Matthew, the women and the male guards receive the same information about the tomb's contents simultaneously. What Mark reports, in the part we still can read, is that an unidentifed young man was already in the wide-open tomb when the women arrived (16: 5). We've lost anything about who he was and what other role he may have played.

It is simply false, then, that your scriptures consistently depict the women finding the empty tomb first, as if that mattered, given the availability of timely male witnesses in all four canonical Gospels.

Then again, matters or not, why do you misrepresent the situation?

 

[TimCallahan]

Back then in that area woman were second class citizens who couldn't even testify in court. They didn't even count women as part of crowds. It would make sense in that culture for some to only mention men, while others writers might have been more liberal just like today. Heck, woman didn't even have the right to vote in the US until 1920.

One problem with this explanation is that, in the Gospel of Luke, women seem to count greatly. For example, while in Matthew Joseph receives an angelic visitation in a dream, Luke focuses on the Annunciation, the angelic visit to Mary. There is a further attention to women in the Lucan nativity story with respect to Elizabeth's miraculous conception of John the Baptist, as well as the attention Luke gives to Mary's Magnificat (Lk. 1:46 -55). Luke also relates that a number of women traveled with Jesus and the disciples, providing for then out of their own means (Lk. 8:1 - 3). In another passage, a woman named Martha receives Jesus into her house and is a bit miffed at her sister, Mary, for not helping her prepare dinner. Rather, she sits at Jesus' feet and listens to his teachings. Jesus praises her for that (Lk. 10:38 -42). So, Luke is very focused on women and would not discount them. Yet, there is no mention of women in the Lucan account of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, while women figure prominently in the resurrection accounts in all the other canonical gospels.

Another problem with your argument is that these gospels are supposed to have been divinely inspired. Was God's inspiration truly blocked by prejudices on the part of the mortal authors taking, as it were, divine dictation?

 

[TimCallahan]

On a related thread on the History, Literature and Arts forum I asked DOC these three questions. He hasn't yet answered them on that thread. Perhaps he'll answer them here:

1) Were, in your opinion, DOC, the resurrected saints of Matthew's passion account (Mt. 27:52, 53) literal or were they symbolic, as William Lane Craig suggests?

2) Likewise, were the 500+ brethren who saw the risen Christ at one time, according to 1 Cor. 15:6, real or symbolic?

3) If the over 500 brethren who saw the risen Christ at one time were real, and if Luke was indeed a companion of Paul's on his journeys, why didn't Luke mention the 500+ brethren?

 

[TimCallahan]

One more (double) question, DOC: Do you accept that the the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) shared common material, originally written in one gospel, then copied by the other two, or do you assert that all three were written independently. If you do assert they were written independently, what do you see as the motive of those who argue that one gospel was the main source for the other two?

 

[OCaptain]

I believe I have made a thread similar to this one for the existence of Jesus, but is there any evidence outside of the Bible that substantiates any events that supposedly occurred in the Bible? Whether they were outlandish events or small ones, what kind of outside sources are there to back up the Bible's validity in any way as a factual source?

Um, the Hittites were only mentioned in the Bible for the longest time and dismissed as myth, but archaeology confirmed them.

The Tel Dan Stela substantiates a royal House of David, mentioned by an Aramaean king.

There is fortification for the Babylonian Captivity on both sides of the conflict.

The Amorite Imperfective shows that the Patriarchal names have analogues in the actual time and place presented by the texts.

There are more, but I'll stop by introducing these and reading further into the thread.

 

[OCaptain]

No it isn't. It's just a story in an old story book. That is not evidence.

It could be evidence of grave-robbing.

 

[OCaptain]

Not that again. That must be the twentieth time that you have rehearsed that broken argument. Alexander and Julius Caesar actually existed and had no miracles attributed to them and were not supposed to have come back to life.

So, in your mind, any person who has supernatural claims made about them in antiquity, is actually less likely to have even existed because of it?

 

[OCaptain]

I don't occupy my time trying to prove that there are no gods, I just point out to believers who turn up here the irrationality of their belief.

I'm pretty sure that, when pressed, most believers will admit that their paradigm is not based on logic, but faith.

And I don't think that's a big obstacle for them.

 

[OCaptain]

Just for fun, let's accept Doc's explanation that the differences are just like differing witness stories; not everyone saw things the same, they each had their own experiences, etc.

This stil tells us something very important, and I don't think Doc would like the direction this points to.

This would mean that the Bible is NOT inerrant. It definatively shows that the writings in the Bible are affected by the human failings, prejudices, and misperceptions of it's authors. The text within the Bible came from those who wrote it.

There are some of the writings of Paul that admonish this very point (that he's speaking for himself, not God). Is this a new idea to you?

 

[Mudcat]

And married.

With at least one child.

 

[OCaptain]

With at least one child.

So says Dan Brown.

 

[Quad4_72]

Wow didn't realize this thread had been resurrected. I went back and skimmed through some of the posts from the point which is was resurrected, and I didn't find any factual information that substantiates any of the miracles or otherwise miraculous events that occur in the Bible. Did I perhaps miss something? If so, could someone please quote or present the evidence? I would love to read it.