Please Make This Make Sense?

[POI]

According to John 20, Mary went to the tomb and finds it empty. It is clear that she is presented to be alone here, as John 20:1 only mentions Mary, and also that John 20:2 states that she ran, rather than stating that they ran. Alternatively, Matthew 28:1 states Mary was with another, and also that Matthew 28:8 states that they left.

Theists will argue, "well, some of these (small) details don't really matter. All that really matters is that Jesus was found missing and later appeared to others." For which a skeptic might reply... "It does matter because Christians argue that THIS collection of events is said to be the most important storyline presented within mankind's history. If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?"

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

[RBD]

Being that this is not just some mundane claim, in where maybe it did happen, but no one really cares to remember any of the details, we are instead talking about THE most important event in human history.

This keeps being emphasized, but I don't see how this does anything to help your case.
To be sure, it is very important to determine whether a claim this big is correct. But that only makes it more important to use a reasonable approach—rather than a prejudicial one, which, in other contexts, we'd dismiss as an obviously poor method.

Very spot on and well said: you know the difference between an objective skeptic and a confirmed disbeliever, by the accusations being made through means, that they normally wouldn't use on any other book of literature, history, philosophy, or even religion.

The means being sloppy reading with obvious dismissal of context. I.e. The Bible won't catch a break at their hands, that they gladly extend to any other author.

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I don't think we are going to need to enlist the services of Sherlock Holmes on this one.

Matthew 28 clearly states that Mary Mags was at the tomb before sunrise with 'the other Mary.'

?? Matthew 28 is at the beginning of dawn, no before. John 20 is while early yet dark, no morning.

John 20 stands alone before dawn, while the other three are at dawn in the early morning.

And Mark 16 states that Magdalene was the first early to see Jesus. Not first in line...

It does at least take Holmes' attention to detail.

[RBD]

Even many Christians don’t take the Bible that seriously, because for them only the Lord Jesus Christ matters—not the Bible or any other scripture.

Many Christians don't take Jesus Christ of the Bible seriously. They prefer another Christ than Jesus' of Scripture:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


And confirmed disbelievers just love to quote their fellow disbelieving believers. But why should they have any more relevance than the unhypocritical disbeliever? Afterall, since it's the Bible they don't believe, then they're just more disbelievers. "There are even many disbelievers don’t take the Bible that seriously," Sort of self-explanatory.

[RBD]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Wow. Here we go again. Just can't help yourself, can you?

Just can't stay away, can you?

Here we have it; a fresh, new thread...straight from the bakers oven.

So, POI..

If someone makes this make sense, as the OP requires...will you become a Christian?

If the answer is no, then what's the point?

The aim is to attempt to lead unbelievers to conversion...and if that's not gonna happen regardless of the outcome of your question being answered...then all we're doing is satisfying your compulsive, obsessive need to involve yourself in things which simply doesn't concern you.

You seriously need to detox yourself off Christianity, bruh.

I like them playing the devil's part. I learn much from showing by Scripture exactly how their accusations are false. Granted, most of them are just surface gotcha word games, but even those take a certain amount of contextual teaching to dismiss. But sometimes, they do come with some serious accusations, that need disciplined study to counter. And that's when some of the best learning of Scriptures can be found.

It was a well-known practice of those strong in the Scripture to dispute with the accusers, rather than only sing to the choir;

Act 9:29
And Stephen spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

I know I've grown strong in my unshakable trust, that the Scriptures are in deed and in truth by study and accuracy, the inspired words of the perfect and true God and Son Jesus Christ. There is no error nor flaw in all the words written by all His many prophets and apostles over thousands of years from many different places. That makes believing all Scriptures are true very simple and easy to do.

[RBD]

As above, this reading seems to start with a presumption of naturalism. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that it concludes to naturalism.

What you are observing and rightly pointing out, is that some people are too personally committed to a cause, that they do not allow themselves to investigate their own cause.

And so, they argue all things from their cause, not from investigation of the facts: if anything disagrees with the cause, it must be wrong. And it's shown to be wrong by arguing from the cause alone.

I.e. The cause: The sun is green, and the grass is blue. No, if you observe, that the sun is yellow by definition and comparison, while the grass is green for the same reasons. Impossible! The sun is not grass, and yellow has nothing to do with it!

The cause affects everything, and is the only effect that matters with blind faith in a cause.

Circular reasoning isn't quite a strong enough description, when it comes to personal causes that people live by. And the one thing about natural atheists, is that they all live by it. I've never seen a natural atheist live otherwise.

[RBD]

The context and language is that she was alone in the dark. Which Mark 16 confirms she was the first to see the Lord alive, and was at the tomb. With all the later visits to the tomb, it would be hard to think she was the 'first in line'.

If you mean to say that she was alone in this moment, that is plausible. I was asking whether she was said to be alone for the entire trip, as the OP claims.

Clears up the same thing. Magdalene's entiore trip was two parts: the first alone, the last with other women.

After some discussion, one hopes that it will become clear which view is better supported.

The fact that John 20 records Mary at the tomb in the dark before dawn, and Matthew 28 records Mary with others at the tomb in the dawning light, clears up any supposed conflict between activities in the dark, vs later activities in the morning.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the text.

I'd say that it is wrong to simply insist that Mary was alone for the entire trip—

Of course. She was obviously with other women on the second part of her trip.

What I've found in Scripture is that the simplest answer is always the best, and that Scripture actually provides it, while people argue around it. All we have to do is see the baseline, or cornerstone, from which all the rest falls into place.

In this case, it's simply that Magdalene was first at the tomb in the dark before morning, and amidst the back and forth with Peter and John, she was then the first person to see Jesus alive at the tomb. Not the first person in line...

Everything else beginning at dawn with the early morning light, then follows from that first trip of Magdalene to the tomb beforehand in the dark.

[OneJack]

Even many Christians don’t take the Bible that seriously, because for them only the Lord Jesus Christ matters—not the Bible or any other scripture.

Many Christians don't take Jesus Christ of the Bible seriously. They prefer another Christ than Jesus' of Scripture:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


And confirmed disbelievers just love to quote their fellow disbelieving believers. But why should they have any more relevance than the unhypocritical disbeliever? Afterall, since it's the Bible they don't believe, then they're just more disbelievers. "There are even many disbelievers don’t take the Bible that seriously," Sort of self-explanatory.

Jesus calls on all to come to Him to have life. He never encourages anyone to know Him through the pages of the bible, but only through Himself, the real and forever living God.

[RBD]

I expect that others would stress that differences in detail is generally taken as a sign of authenticity.

Difference in detail is what disproves the claim of the Author being the perfect Almighty God inspiring every detail of Scripture.

I'm not sure that it does, nor am I sure why we can insist that God is the author of these books. Setting aside the debate over religion, that is more of a muslim view of scripture than one that I'd recognize from the christian scholars I know. I'd say that this is mostly irelevant.

Sola Scriptura was long before Muhammed:

Mat 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Scripture says that Scripture is the only revelation for Jesus Christ. Someone either believes the Scriptures, or they don't believe Jesus Christ. Nor anyone that doesn't believe all the Scripture:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

If anyone wants to challenge any part of the Bible not being the Scriptures of Jesus Christ, then prove they contradict any Scriptures in the Bible, and they can be struck from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It proves all Scripture is not inspired by Jesus Christ, and if not all, then which is?

I'm not sure that follows. Can something be inspired, but have a mistake introduced to it on the way to being written down? I don't claim to know.

Then why question it? And object to insisting all the books of the Bible are Scriptures of God?

Mat 14:31
And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

1Ti 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

In any case, if any of the Bible is suspect, then prove any book/verse contradicts any Scriptures.

And of course, since no words of the Bible do contradict any other words, then they are all words of God's Scriptures. That is the reason many people seek to find contradiction, in order to prove not all words are Scripture, and the Bible is not the unerring words of the perfect and true God.

He that doubts the Scriptures of Jesus Christ, must doubt Jesus is the risen Christ of God.

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

To me, the main question is "are the central claims true". Debates about innerrancy are important, to be sure, but less important than that.

The two go hand in hand; otherwise, any of the words in detail can be dismissed as unimportant to the claim that Jesus is the true Christ of God, and risen Lord of heaven and earth.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

People either believe all the scriptures of God, or they don't. Even as transgressing one commandment, transgresses them all, so also rejecting one Scripture rejects them all.

Jas 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

Rev 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

There is no believing Jesus Christ 'in general' and not believing all His written words in detail. The letter of the law does not save and justify, but the Spirit of the law never doubts His own written letters...

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

When a Book's authenticity is based upon it's inerrancy, then any fallen dominoes fells them all...The whole house of cards collapses by any fractured stone;

I agree, but don't yet see that inerrancy is the basis of biblical authenticity. If it were, I'd have no idea how we'd establish it as inerrant before we'd even considered its central claims.

Back to proving any verse of Scripture contradicts Scripture, so that some verses or even books, do not belong with Scripture of God.

Only then can anyone teach the 'central' claims of Scripture. The claim of Scripture, is that if any words of God are rejected, then all His 'central' words of commandment and gospel of Jesus Christ, are broken:


Deu 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.


The point is simple and obvious: No one can believe Jesus Christ in general, while disbelieving Him in practice.

Luk 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

[RBD]

Even many Christians don’t take the Bible that seriously, because for them only the Lord Jesus Christ matters—not the Bible or any other scripture.

Many Christians don't take Jesus Christ of the Bible seriously. They prefer another Christ than Jesus' of Scripture:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


And confirmed disbelievers just love to quote their fellow disbelieving believers. But why should they have any more relevance than the unhypocritical disbeliever? Afterall, since it's the Bible they don't believe, then they're just more disbelievers. "There are even many disbelievers don’t take the Bible that seriously," Sort of self-explanatory.

Jesus calls on all to come to Him to have life. He never encourages anyone to know Him through the pages of the bible, but only through Himself, the real and forever living God.

Oh, I forgot you're one of those disbelieving believers. We've been down this rabbit hole before.

I'll just end it at the beginning this time:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

No one is believing Jesus Christ of the Bible, that does not believe all the Scriptures of the Bible:

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

[OneJack]

Even many Christians don’t take the Bible that seriously, because for them only the Lord Jesus Christ matters—not the Bible or any other scripture.

Many Christians don't take Jesus Christ of the Bible seriously. They prefer another Christ than Jesus' of Scripture:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


And confirmed disbelievers just love to quote their fellow disbelieving believers. But why should they have any more relevance than the unhypocritical disbeliever? Afterall, since it's the Bible they don't believe, then they're just more disbelievers. "There are even many disbelievers don’t take the Bible that seriously," Sort of self-explanatory.

Jesus calls on all to come to Him to have life. He never encourages anyone to know Him through the pages of the bible, but only through Himself, the real and forever living God.

Oh, I forgot you're one of those disbelieving believers. We've been down this rabbit hole before.

I'll just end it at the beginning this time:

Luk 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

No one is believing Jesus Christ of the Bible, that does not believe all the Scriptures of the Bible:

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life

Refrain from fulfilling what Jesus said in the shaded text in bold.