It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus: Ressurection Pop Quiz - How many did you get correct?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Perhaps i'm a bit late as Easter is over, but check out this interesting Pop Quiz. (designed by David Fitzgerald.)


1. When did Jesus get crucified?

a. At the 3rd Hour (9am), on Friday, the morning of Passover.
b. Shortly after the 6th Hour (noon), on Friday, the day before Passover.
c. He didn’t really get crucified, his identical twin Thomas Didymus did.
d. He didn’t really get crucified, he only appeared to be crucified.
e. We don’t know for sure, since the gospels disagree irreconcilably.



2. What supernatural events occurred at his death?

a. An earthquake hits Jerusalem (actually, two); strong enough to break stones.
b. Supernatural darkness covers all the land.
c. The sacred temple curtain spontaneously rips in half.
d. A mass resurrection of all the Jewish holy men, who crawl out of their graves and appear to many in Jerusalem.
e. All of the above, depending on which Gospel you read.



3. What historical evidence do we have for those supernatural events?

a. Every major ancient writer of the time worldwide mentioned them.
b. Many important writers in Judea discuss them.
c. Several writers in Jerusalem mention them.
d. No one mentions them, but we do have archeological evidence for them.
e. There is not a single lick of evidence for any of them, written or otherwise.



4. How many women went to the tomb?

a. Three: Mary Magdalene, James’ mother and Salome.
b. Two: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary.”
c. Lots: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James’ mother Mary and other women.
d. Just one: Mary Magdalene.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.



5. What did they find there?

a. A young man, sitting inside the tomb on the right.
b. Two men, standing inside.
c. Two angels sitting on each end of the bed.
d. An armed guard of Roman soldiers standing watch, when suddenly a great earthquake occurs, and an angel descends from heaven, his face blazing like lightning and his clothing white as snow; the Roman guards are utterly terrified and all faint dead away; the angel rolls away the stone and sits on it.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.



6. What happened after the visit to the tomb?

a. The women ran away in terror and never told anyone what they saw.
b. Jesus appears, is initially mistaken for the gardener, and then is tenderly reunited with Mary.
c. The women tell the disciples, who don’t believe them.
d. Peter runs and beats everyone to the tomb; or possibly gets beaten by one of the other disciples.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.



7. Where/when did the risen Jesus first appear to the disciples?

a. On a mountain in the Galilee (60-100 miles from Jerusalem), just as the angel told them he would.
b. We don’t know; we aren’t told anything after the women run from the tomb.
c. He appears to two followers (not disciples) on the road to Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem)
d. He materializes in a locked room in Jerusalem as the disciples are at dinner.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.



8. When/Where did Jesus ascend back to heaven?

a. Jesus returns to heaven on the same day he arose, right after dinner, from a room in Jerusalem.
b. We don’t know exactly, but it’s at least 8 days after the resurrection, when the despondent apostles have gone back to being fishermen on the sea of Tiberias.
c. After his resurrection, Jesus spends at least 40 days of teaching his disciples in Jerusalem before ascending to heaven from the Mt. of Olives.
d. Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven; he met his disciples in the mountains of Galilee and told them he would be with them always.
e. We don’t really know; Luke is the only gospel writer who actually mentions the ascension.



9. Who wrote these gospels, anyway?

a. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John – I mean, come on, it says so right there.
b. Actually, none of the gospels even claim to be written by eyewitnesses – all were originally anonymous and written at least a generation later.
c. Well, it’s more like the end of first century for Mark and sometime in the early to mid 2nd century for the others, if you must know.
d. Hold on – Not only that, but Matthew and Luke just reworked Mark gospel, adding their own material and tweaking Mark’s text to better fit what they thought it should say.
e. Get this – if all that weren’t enough, all the Gospels have been edited and added to by later editors, and for the first 200 – 300 years, we have no way to determine how faithfully the originals were preserved.



10. Where does the word “Easter” come from?

a. From the Aramaic word for Passover.
b. It originally was “Eastern Holiday” – referring to the Passover celebrated by Jews in the eastern part of the Roman empire.
c. From est ova, Latin for “Where are the eggs?”
d. From an ancient Celtic pun that means both “Bunnies” and “Chocolate.”
e. from Eastre/Eostre, the pagan Goddess of Spring.


ANSWERS HERE: www.skepticmoney.com...

So, how well did you do? Do you disagree with the answers? Why?

Please feel free to discuss and even suggest other answers.
edit on 11/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
YEY!!! I got them all correct. What do I win?


And despite all of that, people still to this day stake their lives on that book, convinced that it is the true word of their god, just because thats how they were raised to think. Astounding.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
ooh, I did quite well


now going to be sitting over there with popcorn to watch the potential show.

Hey, since Jesus was a hoax, can we toss all christian based threads into the hoax bin (after all, blossom goodchild ruined GFL topics.)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Just another athiest trolling for replies...
...and like most athiests, a religious zealot...

It takes way more faith to be an athiest than it does to believe obvious truths.

You can say there is no nose on your face, but we're all looking at it...



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


First of all, i'm not a zealot, I'm encouraging discussion and debate - Especially over such a serious matter - Where in some countries children are threatened with hellfire and men and women's sexuality are opressed because of a faith in dogma.

As there is no evidence (other than existence itself) it takes more faith to believe a theory with such extraordinary claims.

Note there is some debate over where "existence" can be considered evidence - it's an assumption that reality has a cause, and an even more extraordinary assumption to to claim that the cause is a deity.
edit on 11/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


That was good. I actually got my pen and paper! But after I answered the second one, I realized I had been duped! But I got them all right!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


Amen brother!
(designed by David Fitzgerald.) thats for sure nice way to cherry pick verses and take them out of context. That is easy for anyone to do and the sad part is people believe this crap having never opened the Bible or doing one bit of research for themselves.
Fore example

At what hour was Jesus crucified?
The third hour (Mark 15:25) - "And it was the third hour when they crucified Him."
The sixth hour (John 19:14-15) - "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!"

John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day: from sundown to sunup. The Roman system was from midnight to midnight. "John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning.

But I'm sure you already knew that. I don't have time to go through each of them right now let alone feed the Trolls but if you are truly interested PM me I will be more than happy to explain.

this guy



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Like I said...Trolling
...and I still see your nose...



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
Just another athiest trolling for replies...
...and like most athiests, a religious zealot...

It takes way more faith to be an athiest than it does to believe obvious truths.

You can say there is no nose on your face, but we're all looking at it...


Is that the offical response from the fundy side?
no answer...nice.

Well, no points for you today. To think, there could have been people sitting on the fence truely wondering about these questions...you had the chance to speak out and give them enlightenment...you decided instead to give a pointless comment and they will think your irrational comment is the stance of christianity.

You basically committed them to hell.

Nice job.

(typical fundy...ignore questions that are hard)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Gnostic was the true doctrine he and the apostles taught, but it was esoteric and for those who truly sought spiritual ascension and freedom from this world. The newly established "church" deemed the writings heretical sometime in 2nd or so century, and so it had to be hidden to be saved from being totally destroyed. What we have today is a watered down, edited, and "dumbed" version, which is why it's easy to find disagreements in the gospels as well as contradictions throughout. Regardless, the underlying lesson is to love all equally and be detached from all things of this world - and yet most don't do this.

They also believed in reincarnation, unlike what we're taught today.

Cheers.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


First of all, i'm not a zealot, I'm encouraging discussion and debate


I agree, this is a trolling.

See Awake, Christians cannot debate...to ask them to debate and discuss does equal trolling overall. The religion itself cannot hold up in the realm of logic and science, so it was pushed by the edge of a sword and removal of knowledge for over a thousand years.

Those that wanted to "discuss" it typically did so on a pike.

Now adays, the main source of christian talking points have been removed (aka, they cannot murder people whom want to discuss it)...so they are a bit lost in how to formulate discussions overall...meh, give em a few hundred years and the 4 guys left that call themselves christian will figure out how to approach a rational discussion.

until then, well...expect just alot of noise and anger when you ask them some questions.

watch this:

Hey Christians...how bout that radiometric dating, huh?

its cute how they get all red faced and angry.

Gotta remember, they watch the flintstones and think its a documentry.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AdamsMurmur
 


Perhaps they were "knowing" at the time, Perhaps they were visited by "GOD" (or space aliens) but there is certainly no evidence to suggest so. (yet)

And certainly...their knowledge of thermodynamics, disease and geological events were clearly lacking.

I know Abrahamic scripture derrives from earlier mythology and legend deriving from Eygptian mythology and legend (or even Sumerian legend). The character of Jesus has been replicated for many thousands of years (born of a virgin, ressurected, savior to man)

edit on 11/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
The character of Jesus has been replicated more many thousands of years (born of a virgin, ressurected, savior to man)

HERE is a quick graph of the different jesus's throughout various religions.
Krishna comes pretty close...would perhaps start a lawsuit for plagurism



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Thanks bud, enjoyed Zeitgeist too


Here's another interesting graph highligting the contradictions in doctrine. (by the Reason Project)

outofthegdwaye.files.wordpress.com... - 7.3MB file.

4.bp.blogspot.com... - Smaler 2.0MB file.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Yay!!! 100% as well

It is a good story if you like that sort of thing though.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


Hey ho, another Christian with a BIG hangup.

Just because you believe does not make it a universal truth. 'Blessed is he that has not seen yet believes' and all that could be translated as 'Fool he is who is brainwashed into believing everything he is told where there is no solid evidence.'

As to


You can say there is no nose on your face, but we're all looking at it...


To be able to do that you need to be able to see beyond the end of yours.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thomson



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


• My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


Nice, quote from a guy who believes the temporary suspension of the natural order is possible (magic and miracles)

He argues for supernaturalism.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join