Saint4-
You have an odd sense of what is a demeaning statement, for if my stating I do not want to have to repeat my posts every time someone asks, is
demeaning, then you have no regard for what this ATSNN platform offers. Seven days ago I wrote these words:
The blatant deception of Jesus's divinity among others, was sculpted by the forefathers, by Paul, and by those who attempted to rewrite his
history as evidenced by their accounting of his divine and immaculate birth as well as his resurrection. The most damaging aspect to these gospels are
the words of the early church fathers which failed along with the apocrypha to have made it to the fires or some dusty shelf deep within the bowels of
the Vatican’s secret library. Such is what happens when news spreads by print, it becomes impossible to destroy them all.
And this:
The blatant deception of Jesus's divinity among others. 31 minutes later you replied with:
Support this statement
please.
Four days later I returned to the thread and responded:
I have supported the statement on the “blatant deception of his divinity.” Relative to his
resurrection on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... if you want the rest of it; i.e. his birth, I’ll be happy
to oblige.
Two days later you come back with:
Show me the inconsistencies, errors, etc. What's more difficult to recall? Things that are less
important.
Now I can only conclude two things here, that you did not bother to open the link I provided, and that you have no intention of opening your mind to
understanding what is written in the gospels. As far as the accounts of his resurrection go, when the four authors cannot agree on something simple
like which male arrived at the tomb when, first or when Jesus appeared to his disciples, then that is nothing short of inconsistent, and blatantly
contradictory. In no other position save for blind biblical apology, would such contradictory statements go unchallenged. Despite my having already
provided a synopsis of this and provided the link to you, I will this time only, detail it all for you, and trust you can find the relative verses on
your own.
The women at the tomb:
Matthew claims the two Marys went to the tomb. 28:1
Mark claims The two Marys and Salome were at the tomb. 16:1
Luke states Two Marys, Joanna and other women went to the tomb. 24:1:10
John claims Magdelena saw the stone moved and ran to tell Peter. that after Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved went home, Magdelena entered the
tomb 20:11:12
Inconsistency #1:- The women at the tomb were the Two Marys/ The two Marys and Salome/ The two Marys, Joanna and other women/ Magdelena.
Contradiction #1:- Magdelena entered the tomb before any of the males/Magdelena entered the tomb after Peter and the other.
What the women saw at the tomb:
Matthew claims the two Marys saw
ONE angel
sitting on the stone and invited them into the tomb. 28:2:5
Mark claims the two Marys and Salome saw
A young man presumably the angel
in the tomb, which is where he addressed them. 16:6
Luke claims The two Marys, Joanna and other women(24:10) arrived at the tomb, saw the stone moved,
entered in and saw
TWO men who spoke
to them.
John claims Magdalena came to the tomb saw the stone removed and ran to tell Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved.20:1:2
John then says that after Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved went home, Magdelena
saw two angels sitting inside the tomb 20:11:12
Contradiction #2 –There were two angels/a young man(angel?)/two men (angels?)/saw no one until after returning to the tomb.
Contradiction #3-. One angel was outside on the stone/a young man inside the tomb/two men in the tomb/two angels inside the tomb.
Contradiction #4- Magdelena and or women, saw the angel or angels or man or men before they told the disciples/Magdelena saw the angels only after she
returned to the tomb and Peter and the other disciple left.
Considering that the disciples themselves were told by the woman/women what was seen, there is no excuse for these contradictions.
When the women saw Jesus
Matthew claims Jesus appeared to the two Marys. 28:9
Mark claims Jesus appeared first to Magdelena, then to two of them. 16:9:12
Luke says nothing about Jesus appearing to any of the women.
John says that after Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved went home, Magdelena then turned around and saw Jesus 20:17
Inconsistency #2- I think the above is self explanatory.
What the women were told:
Matthew tells us the angel tells the two Marys to advise the disciples Jesus is to meet them in Galilee. 28:7
Mark tells us the young man tells the two Marys and Salome to advise the disciples to meet him in Galilee. 16;7
Luke claims after the two Marys, Joanna and other women entered the tomb, the two men reminded them of words Jesus said to them in Galilee. 24:2:6
Luke mentions nothing about the women being told to advise the disciples.
Matthew tells us Jesus told the women to tell the disciples he will see them in Galilee.28:10
Mark tells us Jesus appeared to Magdelena, no mention of a message. 16:9
Luke: no mention of Magdelena or any women having to deliver a message from wither angel/man or Jesus.
John claims when Jesus spoke with Magdelena he, Jesus, told her to tell his disciples; “I ascend unto my father…”20:17
Matthew claims after Jesus appeared to the two Marys,
they held his feet, where Jesus made no mention of objecting to this. 28:9
John Claims after Magdalena turned around and saw Jesus, and he
told her not to touch him as “I am not yet ascended to my Father.” 20:17
Inconsistency #3- Mary and or women are told to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee/The women were told only about what Jesus said to them in
Galilee./no message from the angel(s) man or men to the disciples./Jesus tells Magdelena to tell them he ascends.
Inconsistency #4- Jesus tells Magdelena to tell his disciples he will see them in Galilee/Jesus tells Magdelena to tell them he ascends
Contradiction #5-The Marys touched Jesus’ feet/Jesus told them not to touch him
The men at the tomb:
Matthew says nothing about Peter or any single disciple alone seeing Jesus
Mark says nothing about Peter or any single disciple alone seeing Jesus
Luke claims the women then told the disciples after which “then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre.”.24:13
John claims Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved, raced to the sepulchre, and the latter got there first. They then went home. 20:4:10
Inconsistency #5-Peter ran to the tomb/Peter and another ran to the tomb, the latter got there first.
After the tomb:
Matthew recounts ELEVEN seeing him in Galilee. No mention is made of eating or ascending. 28:16
Mark tells us after they were told by the two Marys and Salome to Galilee, he then sat with the ELEVEN and ate. and after he appeared to them, he
ascended. 16:19
Luke tells us that Jesus appears to two disciples in Emmaus, one being Peter, stays to eat with them, then vanishes. 24;13:31
Luke then says the two returned to the eleven who were in Jerusalem and as they were telling about the encounter Jesus appeared to them.24:32:36 where
he then leads them to Bethany, then ascends. 24:50:51
John claims Jesus then appeared to the disciples the same day as he did to Magdelena. And refers to Thomas as
”one of the TWELVE.”20:19
John tells us Jesus appears to them eight days later. 20:26
John then tells of a third visit to seven of them at the Sea of Tiberias. 21:1 And oddly enough they had no clue who he was. Later he sat and enjoyed
their catch of fish with them.
Contradiction #6-After the women: Jesus appears to the eleven/he appears to two of them, then the others/ he appears to all of them
Contradiction #7-He appears to the 11 and ascends/he appears to 2 at Emmaus then the 11/ leads them to Bethany then ascends/appeared to the twelve the
day he rose, eight days later, and a third time, then he ascended.
Contradiction #8- Eleven see him/ twelve see him – note Iscariot is supposed to be dead.
Contradiction #9- He appears to them supposedly in Galilee/he appears to two in Emmaus, then the 11 in Jerusalem/No mention of the location for the
first two, however, since it was the first day it has to be Jerusalem, the third was to seven only, at Tiberias.
Now you would think that those were enough inconsistencies and contradictions for eye witnesses, but not so. We have the contradictions now from a
major pupil of the eye witnesses.
Paul, claims Christ after having risen was seen by Peter, “then of the TWELVE.” Then by 500 brethren at once, then by James, then by all of the
apostles.
This makes contradiction #10. and #8 The woman or women were the first to see him. There were ELEVEN disciples remaining, one was dead.
Contradiction #11 nowhere in any of the four does it mention anyone other than the women and disciples seeing him.
Contradiction #12 Nowhere does it mention James having seen him except to assume with the eleven.
Mere years after Jesus died, Paul couldn’t even get his story correct from the disciples themselves. Yet it doesn’t end there, because obviously not
everyone had been handed the gospels according to saint Constantine. The Irenaeus quote following, saint4, had you bothered to look back, would have
been found as posted by me:
St. Irenaeus, one of the fathers of the early church, born and died somewhere between…125 and 200. doesn’t seem to know the gospels either. This being
a mere 92 to 192 years after Jesus' death, if Iraneaus has no clue, how can I possibly expect you or any other Christian today to know what
transpired? For you are all of the opinion Jesus was 33ish when he died, yet Irenaeus did not hold that opinion, for in one of his epistles he argued
vehemently that Jesus did not die in his 30’s but as an old man, and further presents his case as being supported by the disciple John and others:
They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the
Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own
disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how
could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but
was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to
be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On
completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the
first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth
and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a
Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,
[affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3)
Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the
[validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never
even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
The
Trajan mentioned was the Roman Emperor from
98-117CE.
Deeply imbedded Irony is within Irenaeus’ question as to whom to believe? How does what he say not clearly contradict the very gospels you are
challenging me to contradict? Why are you obviously not familiar with this piece, it is not that you believe a saint would lie is it?
Now then, one would think that the divine son of God in order to prove that he rose from the dead need only appear to his disciples to prove this.
There was no need to roll away the stone, for being divine and having risen, as the son of God he can walk through stone, wouldn’t you say? There was
also no need for his corporeal self to rise also was there? For his spirit alone appearing before his disciples is enough to cement a resurrection,
don’t you think?
That is the fairy tale behind his divine resurrection, for the disciples and church fathers were obviously too dunce and stooped in mysticism way back
then to understand this. So sometime after Irenaeus, when the gospels were being edited, the ignorant among them thought it best to double prove his
resurrection and have him rise in body and in spirit. Yet the man wasn’t capable of walking through a substance his father made, a substance which
according to the church from which all of Christianity is tied, declared Jesus to be one with his mighty father.
Now I will leave this with you to digest as best as you can bring yourself to do, but I highly doubt you are amenable to any response other than one
claiming this information is not contradictory. If and when I see you open your mind to assessing such information, I will post the contradictions of
his nativity directly to you. Otherwise, you will just have to wait for the day I choose to post it as I see fit.
