Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

Would you please explain why there is no problem squeezing Jesus and the Eleven into a trip to Galilee into the passage in Luke 24?

Because reading John 21:14 in conjunction with John 20:17-27 makes the exercise unnecessary.

Also, your references to the James killed by the high priest (whether an apostle or the brother of Jesus) still does not prove why he was killed. The question is: Was he killed for swearing that he had seen a resurrected Jesus with his own two eyes, given the opportunity to recant, refused, and was therefore executed? If so, please provide your source.

Millions of religious dissidents have been executed. That is not proof that their beliefs are true.

So why make it an issue?

[Gary]

Because reading John 21:14 in conjunction with John 20:17-27 makes the exercise unnecessary.

So why make it an issue?

Definition of CONFLATE

transitive verb


1 a : to bring together : fuse

b : confuse

2 to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

Luke cannot stand alone and still believe that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee. One must read into Luke, statements in Matthew and John. If you don't see a problem with this, there is no hope in our discussion.

[tabibito]

Definition of CONFLATE

transitive verb


1 a : to bring together : fuse

b : confuse

2 to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

Conflation is not inherently wrong. It is what any author who writes an essay based on the writings of other persons does. That is why we have bibliographies.
The point is whether the conflation is valid or invalid.

Luke cannot stand alone and still believe that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee.

The account of Luke is wholly self consistent - it is only when Luke's writings are compared with the writings of others that questions arise. Your claim is: the writings of other authors are in conflict with Luke's. It is therefore necessary to compare the writings in question with those of Luke. An examination - and evaluation - and appropriate application - of the relevant passage shows that there is no conflict.

One must read into Luke, statements in Matthew and John. If you don't see a problem with this, there is no hope in our discussion.

John 20:17 compared with John 20:27 should have alarm bells ringing - there is an apparent inconsistency that can't be internally resolved, so it becomes a matter of seeking resolution from relevant outside sources. The resolution is provided by making wholly logical connections between John 21:14 and the passage in Luke 24.

[Gary]

Conflation is not inherently wrong. It is what any author who writes an essay based on the writings of other persons does. That is why we have bibliographies.
The point is whether the conflation is valid or invalid.

The account of Luke is wholly self consistent - it is only when Luke's writings are compared with the writings of others that questions arise. Your claim is: the writings of other authors are in conflict with Luke's. It is therefore necessary to compare the writings in question with those of Luke. An examination - and evaluation - and appropriate application - of the relevant passage shows that there is no conflict.



John 20:17 compared with John 20:27 should have alarm bells ringing - there is an apparent inconsistency that can't be internally resolved, so it becomes a matter of seeking resolution from relevant outside sources. The resolution is provided by making wholly logical connections between John 21:14 and the passage in Luke 24.

No. The only possible way to read John and Matthew's Galilee appearances into Luke chapter 24 is to interpret the word "then" in a very, very odd manner. In Luke chapter 24, we see a series of events connected with statements such as "that same day" or "later that day" all the way up to the last paragraph which begins by saying "Then Jesus led them to Bethany...".

This is the only place that Christians can "shoehorn in" a Galilee appearance in this passage! And Christians do this by trying to convince us that "then" did not mean "then" that day, but "then" forty days later.

This is preposterous and shows the absurd lengths that Christians are willing to go to hold this ancient tall tale together.

[tabibito]

No. The only possible way to read John and Matthew's Galilee appearances into Luke chapter 24 is to interpret the word "then" in a very, very odd manner. In Luke chapter 24, we see a series of events connected with statements such as "that same day" or "later that day" all the way up to the last paragraph which begins by saying "Then Jesus led them to Bethany..."

This is the only place that Christians can "shoehorn in" a Galilee appearance in this passage! And Christians do this by trying to convince us that "then" did not mean "then" that day, but "then" forty days later.

I make no such claim. It takes no more than to realise that Luke's account does not continue beyond the day of resurrection (which you yourself have stated in your objection) and it all falls into place. For a DISPASSIONATE reader, that is.

[One Bad Pig]

No. The only possible way to read John and Matthew's Galilee appearances into Luke chapter 24 is to interpret the word "then" in a very, very odd manner. In Luke chapter 24, we see a series of events connected with statements such as "that same day" or "later that day" all the way up to the last paragraph which begins by saying "Then Jesus led them to Bethany...".

This is the only place that Christians can "shoehorn in" a Galilee appearance in this passage! And Christians do this by trying to convince us that "then" did not mean "then" that day, but "then" forty days later.

This is preposterous and shows the absurd lengths that Christians are willing to go to hold this ancient tall tale together.

One need only glance at Acts 1:3 to see how "preposterous" this is.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Obviously, either "Luke" couldn't keep his story straight when he wrote the second book, or it was really written by someone else.

When people bring up such "contradictions" as this, I'm convinced that they're looking for excuses not to believe.

[tabibito]

One need only glance at Acts 1:3 to see how "preposterous" this is.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Obviously, either "Luke" couldn't keep his story straight when he wrote the second book, or it was really written by someone else.

When people bring up such "contradictions" as this, I'm convinced that they're looking for excuses not to believe.

And too many "apologists" (as opposed to - apologists) hand them even more excuses on a silver platter
by
seizing on the first half baked "explanation" that comes to mind instead of taking the allegation seriously and investigating the matter properly.

Case in point - the "resolution" offered by all too many "apologists", and referred to by Gary:

No. The only possible way to read John and Matthew's Galilee appearances into Luke chapter 24 is to interpret the word "then" in a very, very odd manner. In Luke chapter 24, we see a series of events connected with statements such as "that same day" or "later that day" all the way up to the last paragraph which begins by saying "Then Jesus led them to Bethany...".

This is the only place that Christians can "shoehorn in" a Galilee appearance in this passage! And Christians do this by trying to convince us that "then" did not mean "then" that day, but "then" forty days later.

That kind of "resolution" is an outright embarrassment.

[William]

And again, the Bible quite firmly shows that where only one author says something, it isn't necessarily so.

are you referring to the stuff about "by word of two or three witnesses?"

Old Testament numbers: certainly, there are mistakes. Judas:That would be because the harmonisations are neither necessary nor make sense.

right. This makes me curious to hear your position on all of it.

The bulk of these accounts is in accord, with some some points possibly being in conflict, and it does seem that a few discrepancies may indeed be irreconcilable.

the devil's in the details. When different people give accounts of the same event, there will be some differences based on vantage point, and which details caught there eye. Memories are not static, so some may get certain details wrong, like specific numbers or colors, etc. But when enough details are wrong, and details that actually conflict, then it has the appearance of collusion, where the parties had an understanding of the bigger points, but failed to iron our every detail - so when each "witness" was giving their account of an event they really didn't witness, or that never even happened, we get wide variances on the details they never worked on together.

but i would agree, some of the conflicts seem irreconcilable, even surrounding Jesus Birth and Death, and Resurrection. Why then should the claim of such a huge supernatural event be believable when surrounded by such irreconcilable discrepancies?

There are indeed quite a few scholars making the claim. I don't find their arguments compelling. Quite simply - how would you know whether they were borrowing (whether from Mark or from the mythical Q manuscript) from the same manuscript or witnesses to the same events. In some places, it is necessary to put together the accounts of two authors before a complete picture of events, or the full context of some of Jesus' statements, emerges.

I can agree here. And neither do I find the scholars' (of those who actually believe this as not all do) arguments in support of an actual Resurrection. and that was actually my point in mentioning the Q gospel.

[One Bad Pig]

And too many "apologists" (as opposed to - apologists) hand them even more excuses on a silver platter
by
seizing on the first half baked "explanation" that comes to mind instead of taking the allegation seriously and investigating the matter properly.

Case in point - the "resolution" offered by all too many "apologists", and referred to by Gary:

That kind of "resolution" is an outright embarrassment.

It is only a "contradiction" if it is ASSUMED that "then" means "immediately following." That meaning is not required in Greek OR in English. Further, a consultation with my NKJV shows the start of a new paragraph in Greek at "Then." This is only a contradiction because people want it to be one. Don't be taken in by Gary's hyperventilating. It is not "half-baked" to consider possible interpretations which are grammatically acceptable, in accord with further material by the same author, and resolve the apparent contradiction.

[William]

[William]

oh, and something hit me last night. I had mentioned somethig much earlier about Jeremiah saying a Levite will always give burtn offerings on teh alter, and I believe someone asked where that was... I meant to reply but just got sidetracked. It hit me last night.

Jeremiah 33:17-22

[William]

...and the only way that the Galilee vs Jerusalem isn't a contradiction is if someone invents a "resolution" that isn't in the bible itself. Any contradiction can be resolved this way.

when taking them as they're written, Luke says that they were to wait for something in Jerusalem while Matthew says that they were to go and meet Jesus in Galilee. Those are not only differences, but obvious ones.

Maybe Matthew left out the part about Jerusalem. maybe Luke left out the part about Galilee while overselling the "wait" part. Maybe it's just not real.

[tabibito]

are you referring to the stuff about "by word of two or three witnesses?"

99% yes. Even Jesus said (something along the lines of) - "Even if I am the only person attesting to me, my witness is still confirmed by the Holy Spirit. You have two witnesses." Just to make doubly sure - this is by no means presented as an accurate translation of what he said - it's about the same standard as you'd get from a Good News Translation (or maybe just a shade worse).

right. This makes me curious to hear your position on all of it.

Pretty sure that I posted the explanation of the Acts account of Judas' death, but it won't hurt to repost, I suppose.
https://www.facebook.com/seidousoush...type=3&theater
As to the discrepancies in the statistics recorded in the Old Testament:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...4185532&type=3
I'll be transferring copies of these (among others) to another site in due course, so that people who don't have facebook can access them.

the devil's in the details. When different people give accounts of the same event, there will be some differences based on vantage point, and which details caught there eye. Memories are not static, so some may get certain details wrong, like specific numbers or colors, etc. But when enough details are wrong, and details that actually conflict, then it has the appearance of collusion, where the parties had an understanding of the bigger points, but failed to iron our every detail - so when each "witness" was giving their account of an event they really didn't witness, or that never even happened, we get wide variances on the details they never worked on together.

but i would agree, some of the conflicts seem irreconcilable, even surrounding Jesus Birth and Death, and Resurrection. Why then should the claim of such a huge supernatural event be believable when surrounded by such irreconcilable discrepancies?

Discrepancies get divided into categories of broad and of detail. If the conflict is only in the fine detail, then there is no problem. It also happens that where one author might be wrong on a given point, two or more authors may be right - and this is the reason I have posted the points regarding the pillars, Jachin and Boaz: the resolution in such cases is simple - scrap the inconsistent witness(es). Such procedures do, however, infuriate those who believe the "Bible contains no errors" story.

I can agree here. And neither do I find the scholars' (of those who actually believe this as not all do) arguments in support of an actual Resurrection. and that was actually my point in mentioning the Q gospel.

To be honest, I hadn't noticed mention of manuscript Q on this thread. But - there seems to be a word or two missing in your statement. Guessing that you mean you don't find stories of the resurrection compelling.

[tabibito]

It is only a "contradiction" if it is ASSUMED that "then" means "immediately following." That meaning is not required in Greek OR in English. Further, a consultation with my NKJV shows the start of a new paragraph in Greek at "Then." This is only a contradiction because people want it to be one. Don't be taken in by Gary's hyperventilating. It is not "half-baked" to consider possible interpretations which are grammatically acceptable, in accord with further material by the same author, and resolve the apparent contradiction.

The gospel of Luke finishes on the night following the day of the resurrection.

When Mary attempted to touch him, Jesus told her not to do so, as he had not yet ascended to the Father ... yet a week later, Thomas was permitted to touch him. So - what happened on the night following the resurrection that changed things? The answer to that question is made apparent by the fact that subsequent to the resurrection, and before Pentecost, Jesus appeared to the disciples, only for the third time: that third appearance being in Galilee.

ETA
That "then" is translated from the Koine Greek "de (δε)", which means "but" or "moreover" - so written in all major manuscript groups. This "then" is a dynamic translation, not a literal equivalent: dynamic translations of this kind always present the risk of leading people up the garden path.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It's ok if you don't believe in Hell, Nick. It is nothing to be ashamed of.

All I asked was that you answer a question first. My position however is already known to most people on this forum. If you knew how to research, you could figure it out.

But then, you did just do anything to avoid answering questions about your position.

Maybe you don't answer them because you're a man of faith and can't handle questions, especially questions that will reveal you haven't read the main sources.

Of course, this is the person who also said why he would be hesitant.

For me to accept evidence now, contrary to my new, current worldview, would be a blow to my ego, and my self-esteem, for (foolishly, it would turn out) having abandoned my previously cherished faith for inaccurate evidence.

Yeah. We already know your ego is involved by your own admission so naturally, you won't answer questions.