TSJones wrote:But we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls and lo and behold, "Gosh, they're pretty darn accurate!". Not bad for a bunch of old time scholars, eh?
Doesn't compute.
The Dead Sea scrolls provide a glimpse into the
divergent views held by the early members of the Christian cult, until the Romans forced a standard edict down their gullets.
Yeah, a lot of them were fairy tales about the baby Jesus performing super human acts of bravery. These were like Hollywood scripts today.
The Gospels were chosen from those stories that clicked with personal knowledge handed down over the intervening years.
Virgin birth, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding 5000 people with one fish and a loaf of bread,- they ain't fairy tales ?
They were "personal knowledge" of a sorcerer at work ?
Jesus' body was taken down from the cross by Joseph of Arimathea, and placed in a tomb carved into rock. Again, Jesus' mother and one or two other women were the only ones present. These same devoted women came to his tomb the following Sunday morning to anoint his body with spices. When they arrived, they were astonished to find the stone covering the entrance to the tomb had been rolled away, and the tomb was empty.
The four Gospels vary somewhat in their reports as to what happened next, but all generally agree that the women told the other disciples but their story was not believed. But the risen Jesus later appeared to the disciples, where he passed through a locked door yet demonstrated he was not a ghost by eating and allowing himself to be touched. He made several other appearances among various groups before ascending into heaven.
No soup.
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.
2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."
3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Jesus in Galilee.
5. To whom did Jesus appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Jesus appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.
6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?
7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!
8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus there, not in or near Jerusalem!
9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).
10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).
Well, if you want to see God in rocks and trees and animals or even your ancestors, that is certainly your choice
I would LOVE to have that choice.
But most evangelists of Christian and Islamic denominations won't let me have that choice, if THEY had a choice!
but I will beleive in One who gives us rules that insists we follow a moral imperative in our relationship to others.
Nobody here prevents you from believing in the Pink Elephant on the Dark side of Uranus!
Of course, if you were trying to claim that your belief is any more logical than that of those who see "God" in rocks and trees, I can provide logical repostes that would puncture that balloon.
However, since this is NOT a religious debate, I'll refrain.
Free will and right to choose is the very basis of our republic.
What does that unscientific prattle hope to prove ?
It only shows that a bunch of well-intentioned people wanted to draw a free and fair social contract for the citizens of this country.
It has no relevance to the logical and scientific construct that "free will" and "individual" are BOTH a chimera in the absolute scheme of things.