Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

The jury is in � Luke was right,again! Another win for Biblical accuracy.


Luke's usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by some historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio's true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, "As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia..."

Here then was indisputable corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as some scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.

It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, "Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record."




BTW, here's the Delphi(or Gallio) inscription:

www.kchanson.com...

Enjoy, and Best Wishes to all.









[edit on 7-12-2004 by Logician]

"And that better be the ONLY son of god, you understand what I'm saying honey?!"
-Sam Kinison (Imitating Joseph)

We now have a complete and undamaged seal of one of the biblical Jewish Kings further confirming the veracity of the Bible.

The clay seal was used for sealing a papyrus letter and was stamped with the inscription: �Ahaz (son of) Yotam King of Judea.�

Ahaz reigned from 727 � 698 BC and is mentioned twice in the Bible.

The second book of Chronicles, chapter 28, verse 1 reads: �Ahaz was 20 years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem 16 years.�

The writing on the seal is of a high calligraphic order, Mr Robert Deutsch of Tel Aviv University said.

Mr Deutsch is author of the book Messages from the Past, which reveals that the seal has been identified.

At the edge of the clay daub is a finger print. �We believe it is the king�s and that it was made unintentionally as he imprinted the seal with his signet ring,� Mr Deutsch said.�

This small seal confirms the accuracy of the Bible in that it confirms the existence of one of the lesser know kings that are recorded within its pages.

Yet there is more! Following are partial quotes from the work of Frank Moore Cross, Biblical Archeology Review, March-April 99. [I don't want to bore/confuse the layperson with the full details.]:

------
" Not long ago, a clay impression of the seal of a Hebrew king came to light for the first time: The seal of 'Ahaz, king of Judah from about 734 to 715 B.C.E., had been pressed into a small bit of clay (called a bulla) that once sealed a papyrus roll.* On the back we can still see the impression of the strings that tied the roll and of the fabric of the papyrus. The seal, inscribed in Old Hebrew letters, reads simply: l'hz y/hwtm mlk /yhdh "Belonging to 'Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah."**....

Now an even more astonishing bulla has come to light--that of 'Ahaz's son, the great Judahite monarch Hezekiah. I say more astonishing because unlike the seal of 'Ahaz, which is purely epigraphic, Hezekiah's seal is also iconic--it depicts a two-winged beetle (called a scarab) pushing a ball of mud (making it a dung scarab). Moreover, for reasons I will explain, there can be little or no doubt as to its authenticity.....

For some time we have possessed seals and bullae of the servants of Israelite kings, but of the more than twelve hundred West Semitic seals now published, only two bullae--those mentioned here--bear recognizable stamps made by the seals of the kings of Judah�.


All the features of the script are in agreement with a date in the reign of Hezekiah (c. 715-687 B.C.E.).(4) The script is almost identical to that on the royal jar handles known from the inscriptions stamped on them as l'melekh (belonging to the king) handles. These handles date to the reign of Hezekiah, as shown by David Ussishkin's excavations at Lachish.(5) The script on the bulla is also similar to that of the Siloam Tunnel inscription, which is also attributed to Hezekiah's reign.(6)....

Interestingly, the two-winged beetle on the seal is seen more clearly on the Hezekiah bulla with the more fragmentary inscription. The dung beetle pushes the circular ball of dung, which symbolizes the movement of the rising sun.(7) The meaning of the symbol is clear from Malachi 4:2: "For you who revere my Name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings." In other words, the winged sun disk is a symbol of the deity bringing salvation.(8)....

Two- and four-winged sun disks also appear on Hezekiah's l'melekh handles, so the two-winged scarab with the sun disk is wholly appropriate on Hezekiah's seal. There appears to have been a tendency to solarize Yahweh in Judah in the eighth century and later.(9).....

In any event, it is quite extraordinary to be able to look at original impressions formed by the seal of one of Judah's most important monarchs 2,700 years ago."...

Selected Bibliography:



1 See Ruth Hestrin and Michal Dayagi, "A Seal Impression of a Servant of King Hezekiah," Israel Exploration Journal 24 (1974), pp. 27-29;

5 See David Ussishkin, "The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars," Tel Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 28-60. (Back)

6 See Jo Ann Hackett et al., "Defusing Pseudo-Scholarship: The Siloam Inscription Ain't Hasmonean," BAR, March/April 1997 (Order this issue). (Back)

9 Discussion and literature may be found in E. Lipinski, Theologisches W�rterbuch zum Alten Testament 8 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), pp. 306-314. (Back)








[edit on 7-12-2004 by Logician]

Originally posted by Logician
'Inbetween' person,

Please take a deep breath: relax.


You don't even know where you belong('somewhereinbetween'), how then CAN you even begin to fathom a coherent discourse. Frankly your post makes absolutely no sense at all. For this reason, and as I said before, I'm not interested in dialogueing with you. I can barely put up with Amadeus, as is.

Best wishes and have a good day.

You know, I would invoke platitudinous statements also if I were you trying to defend that which cannot be defended.

When might I expect something of substance from you?

Originally posted by Logician
The jury is in � Luke was right,again! Another win for Biblical accuracy.


Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul.

Does that mean then that if I write today of Gallio being a proconsul, my post has to be dated circa AD52?

19 years after the death of Jesus, Luke decided to write did he? Perhaps you can recount for us exactly the words you spoke 17, 18 and 19 years ago. Credibility indeed, only to those who desperately hang on by a thread.

Originally posted by Logician
We now have a complete and undamaged seal of one of the biblical Jewish Kings further confirming the veracity of the Bible. The clay seal was used for sealing a papyrus letter and was stamped with the inscription: �Ahaz (son of) Yotam King of Judea.�

Ahaz reigned from 727 � 698 BC and is mentioned twice in the Bible.

The second book of Chronicles, chapter 28, verse 1 reads: �Ahaz was 20 years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem 16 years.�

What a find! That corroborates the entire Old Testament I must say. Just two things: was Jesus mentioned in the OT by name anywhere? and, how many years from 727-698 BCE? Is it more, less, less than or equal to 16 years, close, close but not close enough?

Even minute details from the OT are coming alive right before our eyes. Following is just a small sample:

In 1975, a collection of nearly 250 clay seals were found about 44 miles southwest of Jerusalem. These small lumps of clay that are impressed with a seal, in ancient times served as an official signature for an individual. The clay seals were then attached to documents to identify the sender. Amazingly, among the seals that were found were the names of four biblical figures mentioned in the 36th chapter of the book of Jeremiah. The first clay seal is impressed with the following inscription: Berekhyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe. This is the seal of Baruch son of Neriah who was the scribe to the prophet Jeremiah

Another seal was also found inscribed with the identical impression as the first, bearing the name "Baruch son of Neriah the scribe." Amazingly enough, this piece of clay also holds the actual fingerprint of Baruch impressed to one side of the seal. Evidently, Baruch was holding down the clay with his finger while applying his seal. He is mentioned in Jeremiah 36:1-4:

A second clay seal has been found that was impressed with the name of the scribe Elishama. It reads as follows: 'Elishama' servant of the king. According to the Bible, Elishama was a scribe who served the king. He is recorded in Jeremiah 36:10-12:

Another clay seal that was found is inscribed with the name of king Jehoiakim's son, Jerahmeel. It reads as follows: Yerahme'el, son of the king. He is recorded in Jeremiah 36:26.


Another important seal found in Jerusalem dates from the seventh century before Christ and is inscribed as follows: "Belonging to Abdi Servant of Hoshea." This seal made of orange chalcedony, used to authenticate royal documents for security, belonged to Abdi, a high official of King Hosea, the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel before it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 721 B.C.
Asahiah, servant of King Josiah: Another large seal on red limestone was found bearing the inscription "Belonging to Asayahu, servant of the king�. The name �Asaiah� is a short form of the name Asayahu, occuring twice in the Old Testament. "Asaiah a servant of the king's" 2 Chronicles 34:20 and "Asahiah a servant of the king's."� 2 Kings 22:12


Various facets of the Old Testament history regarding the captivity have been confirmed. Records found in Babylon�s famous Hanging Garden have shown that Jehoiachin and his five sons were beign given a monthly ration and place to live and were treated well (2 Kings 25:27-30).


Best of Luck to all,




[edit on 8-12-2004 by Logician]

Have these clay seals been authenticated? This is as much political as historical. Do you have any links to these clay tablets? I'd like to see for myself what they actually found. Judaic kings, eh?

Hi Justanotherperson,

I hope this helps.

www.geocities.com...

Best wishes,

P.S. Don't worry, all the archeological evidence presented has been authenticated by experts.

The Bible is based upon a very solid foundation ; high time people start realizing it's not just 'fables' and 'fairy tales'.




[edit on 8-12-2004 by Logician]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Good cover Saint4God, but unfortunately not all of your fellow Christians agree with you. Since you cannot agree amongst yourselves, then whom are we supposed to believe in your house divided?

Please re-read my post SomehwereinBetween. Did it not say 'most Christians'? The only question is to what degree God was involved.

The 'house' is not divided- we know who God is, who Jesus is, there is no dispute there. I know no-one 'in the house' who agrees with the title of this post. To stand on the 'outside' and shout it at 'the house' is a waste of breath.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I reiterate: This book is an accounting of the last three years of Christ, the supposed divine son of God, and brought to us by those who witnessed those three years. Their accounts are fraught with disagreement and inconsistency in reporting. Considering this then, which of them do we believe if we are to believe any at all? And if these at odds stories contain errors, then why on God�s green and watery earth should we believe any of the other stories, including the words attested to him, for I ask you, which is more difficult to recall, what one did or what another said?

Show me the inconsistencies, errors, etc. What's more difficult to recall? Things that are less important.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I quote your fellow ATSers...

Big deal. I can quote ATSers all day long, it means nothing.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Your apologetic posts for the fallible scriptures

I apologized for nothing.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
would expect those who read them to forego the very significant errors and just accept the four gospels as truth. That defies logic. For if someone told you a story and you confirm that half of it was not true, would any amount of imploring you to accept the rest as truth cause you to place your faith in the tale?

I believe because of experience. Talk to God, ask for answers...just as the book says.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
And we are not speaking here of washing my hair, since I have not written a gospel which is being presented to the world and all generations as truth. I was not chosen by Jesus to be his disciple and spread his word, and that last fact alone demands that word be consistent and precise, when matched with other chosen disciples, so there really is nothing superfluous about my position since I do not reduce Jesus to my brand of shampoo.

You miss my point entirely. I did not reduce Jesus. Nor would it matter if I did. Fact remains he is the Son of God, Saviour of mankind and teacher of the truth. If you hear different, then there's some weird filter between us.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Yes, the apocrypha is available to read, and no, I do not suggest there is something contradictory in there, I state it outright.

Still waiting to see the contradictions...

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Buying them? You are not familiar with the texts of the first through third centuries or the epistles of the church fathers, or the various councils, are you?

What's your point?

[edit on 8-12-2004 by saint4God]

I think there's only one malcontent left somewhere in betwen these boards . The other has quietly got out of the kitchen..


Regards,

P.S. We will stay put to guard the honour of the scriptures , for as long as it takes.



[edit on 8-12-2004 by Logician]

kitchen..






[edit on 8-12-2004 by Logician]

Originally posted by Logician
Hi Justanotherperson,

I hope this helps.

www.geocities.com...

Best wishes,

P.S. Don't worry, all the archeological evidence presented has been authenticated by experts.

The Bible is based upon a very solid foundation ; high time people start realizing it's not just 'fables' and 'fairy tales'.

Okay Logician, you win the tangential arguments you are obviously having with your phantom poster even though you respond to me.

Your clay tablet proof of seals of Old Testament kings just buries my argument that the New Testament gospels we have today were not the only gospels, used 1900 years ago, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.


Have a good evening.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Yes, the apocrypha is available to read, and no, I do not suggest there is something contradictory in there, I state it outright.

Still waiting to see the contradictions...

You make your way around these Biblical threads as I do, you have seen those already posted, if you haven't saint4, then you have the option of clicking on my post history, for I will not be reproducing them when they are already available. Why you only have to look back in this thread even and you will find one or two. Is that too much to expect of you, or should I or anyone else be repeating ourselves to each of the thousands of ATS users, just because they can be bothered to seek and find?

What's your point?

If you can't understand the point as outlined in my quote, as supported by the quotations from the church fathers which I have already provided in this thread then I must assume that you have not read them; read them cannot rebut them; forgotten them; wish to not know about them, and in all cases, my point will forever remain out of your reach.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
You make your way around these Biblical threads as I do,

I do. I've been following the ones you have linked, read them, etc.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
you have seen those already posted,

Again, looking for substance to back your claims.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
if you haven't saint4, then you have the option of clicking on my post history, for I will not be reproducing them when they are already available.

Is available, already been through them. You said early that if people wanted, you could expand regarding his birth, etc. Looking for it.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Why you only have to look back in this thread even and you will find one or two. Is that too much to expect of you,

Nice demeaning remark.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
or should I or anyone else be repeating ourselves to each of the thousands of ATS users, just because they can be bothered to seek and find?

Demeaning remark #2

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
If you can't understand the point as outlined in my quote, as supported by the quotations from the church fathers which I have already provided in this thread then I must assume that you have not read them; read them cannot rebut them; forgotten them; wish to not know about them, and in all cases, my point will forever remain out of your reach.

Demeaning remark #3

Feel better now? Logician was wise to steer clear of empty arguments.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
..if you want the rest of it; i.e. his birth, I�ll be happy to oblige.

Hey, would you look at that? Since you made the offer, care to oblige?

Originally posted by Logician
The Bible is based upon a very solid foundation ; high time people start realizing it's not just 'fables' and 'fairy tales'.

Really?? The Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, Jonah and the Whale, Soddom and Gomorrah, Noah's Arc, Moses, The 10 Commanments, The Jesus Story featuring Zombies, Water into Wine, Bread and Fish mutliplying, Walking on Water, Demon Slaying, Telepathy, Dimensional Teleportation and more..........you still have quite a while to go before claiming that the bible is not just fables and fairy tales.

Not saying there isn't some historical figures and cities in the bible but the most important stuff, the stuff I described above, is a far cry from historical.

Hi SethJaneRob

Really?? The Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve,

What's so unscientific about the allegory of Adam/ Eve and the Garden of Eden? Can you do a better job of explaining the origin of man? The bible uses basic language to wrestle complex issues, namely because humanity is STILL in no position to comprehend them . For instance, do you know how primitive our contemporary ideas on the 'big bag theory' , 'human psychology' etc. are ? Just ask a person living in the 23rd century (if you could reach that far ahead in time), for instance. I believe when the smoke finally clears, the bible version would come closest to the 'ultimate' truth, as it were. Passing fancies like 'chaos theory', 'multiple-univerese theory', 'string theory' i predict would not survive the test of time. But 200 years from now(speaking purely in the 'secular' sense ) people will STILL be debating the bible! .. Infact 20th century science is forced to agree with the bible on many fundamental issues-- that there was a creation even, i.e. the big bang, that there will probably be an end to the Universe, that there must be a God(Einstein's famous 'God does not play dice' saying), that man has a 'soul','spirit',a 'collective subconscious' (Jung, Freud, etc) etc.
Knowledge, as in "the tree of knowledge," might mean consciousness in the sense that Julian Jaynes uses the term (the bicameral mind.) Regarding the 'six day creation week' Ensign proposed (1998) that "Periods of time for the creation may have lasted... even millions of years", etc.

Jonah and the Whale,

What's impossible about Jonah and the 'Whale'? Besides it doesn't say Whale but a 'sea creature';could have been a Whale though.

Soddom and Gomorrah,

Sodom and Gomorrah have been archeologically attested for my friend. Just as is written in the bible, the sinful cities were destroyed by 'brimstone and fire'.

Noah's Arc,

Deluge stories abound in the psychology and written craft of virtually ALL human races! Scholars do not doubt that in man's primordial past there was a flood of titanic proportions which wiped out everything in it's path.

Moses

There is little doubt that Moses existed.

The 10 Commanments

What's your point?

The Jesus Story featuring Zombies, Water into Wine, Bread and Fish mutliplying, Walking on Water, Demon Slaying, Telepathy, Dimensional Teleportation and more

That's why we mantain Jesus was not a mere man but the Son of God. Read C.S. Lewis's trilemma, 'Liar, Lunatic or Lord'.

Besides, you're missing the point entirely. Listen carefully:

We have shown, time and time again, that virtually ALL the historically varifiable claims of the bible are accurate. Therefore it's supernatural(unvarifiable) claims must not also be dismissed off hand. It comes down to the issue of reliability.


P.S. At one point archeologists assumed that cities mentioned in the bible like Jerico, Sodom, Gomorah, Pi Ramses etc. were figments of someone's fertile immigination. Today no one doubts their existence.

you still have quite a while to go before claiming that the bible is not just fables and fairy tales.

Actually, you have a steeper hill to climb; because with each new archeological discovery the Biblical is invariably proved right! Haven't you learnt your lesson yet?





Blessings










[edit on 9-12-2004 by Logician]

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.

Originally posted by Logician
Hi Justanotherperson,

I hope this helps.

www.geocities.com...

Best wishes,

P.S. Don't worry, all the archeological evidence presented has been authenticated by experts.

The Bible is based upon a very solid foundation ; high time people start realizing it's not just 'fables' and 'fairy tales'.




[edit on 8-12-2004 by Logician]

I don't want to bash geocity websites, but do you have any link that actually works and is not someones pet thesis?