Joined: Jan. 2009
|Quote (Seversky @ April 09 2011,12:25)|
|I think JemimaRacktouey touched a nerve:|
I am now finished with Ms Jemima Racktouey, who has now definitively crossed over into the realm of the uncivil closed minded propagandist, not a serious participant in serous dialogue. (For just one point, has she in her fulminations above shown a single sign of having read much less bothered to reflect on say this discussion of the minimal facts relevant to the credibility of the NT documents, which was previously linked?
An interesting response from someone who lays claim to supreme moral authority by virtue of his religious beliefs. Dismissing the life's work of hundreds of thousands of scientists as being, at best, misguided or, at worst, conspiring to promote an atheist agenda is polite behavior. Raising questions about the historicity of New Testament documentation is "uncivil". Do we see a double standard here?
And while the value of Scripture to believers in theological terms is for them to decide, its weight as evidence for historical events must be questionable when we observe discrepancies such as the following in accounts of just one event, the Resurrection:
|What are the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts? They are these:|
1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?
That list, by the way, comes from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington and includes a lengthy attempt to reconcile the differing accounts.
There are several unanswered questions, though. The Resurrection of the Son of God, if it actually happened would be an event of huge significance on so many levels. This was a person who, during his lifetime, demonstrated miraculous or supernatural powers and then rose from the dead. Yet the only accounts come from his supporters and, presumably, promoters with the earliest fragment of text dating from the second century AD. No one else noticed, apparently. These texts are presumed to be at least divinely inspired accounts. You would think an all-powerful, all-knowing God would be able ensure they got his story straight at least. On the site KF links to there is a quote from a British barrister. It made me wonder how many lawyers would want to go to trial when their only evidence is testimony recorded decades after the event in question and which differs in so many details. I suspect opposing counsel would have a field day eviscerating that weak a case.
Not to mention the invasion of Jerusalem by the walking dead, according to Matthew 27. You'd think this would garner at least a little extra-Biblical notice.
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes. I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it. Okay? So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L