Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

[benchwarmer]

[AchillesHeel]

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, the denial of what the Bible actually says. The ignoring of serious contradictions as little disagreements. And the elephant in the room - the belief that if they deny everything, they win. It has to be bigger than that. The debunks of the lies that the Bible apologists have been telling for decades have to get out. It isn't even about winning the debates here.

So much seems to have been missed, particularly about the resurrection. I swallowed the idea that it was substantially a reliable report for a long time, until I actually compared them. But once one realises that Luke really does debunk Matthew's claim that the women ran into Jesus, and so does John, that the aftermath diverges with Matthew having the disciples go to Galilee (as the message said) while in Luke they stay in Jerusalem, with the message altered to say that (even aside from realisation that it was seeing Paul's letters that changed the narrative) and that Like debunks John's tall tale of Thomas by saying the 'eleven' (minus Judas) were there, then waving it away as little differences is seen as not just denial but treating others as fools.

Even the stuff about the draft of fish is denial. It is in Luke at the calling of disciples, but in John after the resurrection. Even worse, it crops up as a poetic simile (yes, we know them when we see them) in Matthew (Parables of the Kingdom). I'd say the go -to answer is 'floating stories'. Some simile or parable going the rounds comparing the church to a fisherman who nets fish for Jesus. The simile is even turned into an actual even with a prophecy stuffed into Jesus' mouth. I have said that I credit not a word of the gospels as Jesus' actual words. It is all Pauline Christian propaganda.

It is pretty obvious when you see it, like a trick you though must 'really be magic' until it is explained, and then you won't be fooled again, and fooling us is what the apologetics try to do, even when we know how the trick is done.

[1213]

It is a misperception based on the false belief that the Bible is the default hypothesis and all that is needed is to deny everything and the Bible wins.

It is the basic logical flaw that makes pretty much all Bible apologetics invalid, logically.

There fact of an equally valid rebuttal theory means that there is no good reason to believe the faithclaim, ...

You should understand that this is more about correcting the false accusations that atheists make, than about making people to believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a misperception based on the false belief that the Bible is the default hypothesis and all that is needed is to deny everything and the Bible wins.

It is the basic logical flaw that makes pretty much all Bible apologetics invalid, logically.

There fact of an equally valid rebuttal theory means that there is no good reason to believe the faithclaim, ...

You should understand that this is more about correcting the false accusations that atheists make, than about making people to believe.

From someone who posted a combined resurrection narrative but with the bits omitted that validated my case, you don't get to point the accusing finger at atheists.

[1213]

...but with the bits omitted...

There was no part omitted. Everyone who has the skill to read the text, can see it easily.

[TRANSPONDER]

...but with the bits omitted...

There was no part omitted. Everyone who has the skill to read the text, can see it easily.

As I recall, you omitted where Luke said it was Mary Magdalene and the others who saw all the things that happened. There is refutation of the 'They split up' argument. I think you may heve left out John's bit where Mary saw nothing and didn't know what had happened to Jesus. I can't recall, but the fact is therse with matthew contradict. The contradiction is real, serious and terminal, and the fact that you knew which bits to omit shows that you know it, too. I'd say you have been totally shown up.

If you want to ID the post you made of the whole thing, I'll check and apologise if I misremembered, but I'm sure I remember.

[1213]

As I recall, you omitted where Luke said it was Mary Magdalene and the others who saw all the things that happened. ...

Luke says:

Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24:10

That is not the same as Mary saw all the things.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Difflugia]