Questions for Atheists

[fonso]

Hello.

I don't know if this is the right forum for this message since atheism isn't a religion of any sort, so please feel free to move this post to where it's most appropriate.

I'd like to ask some questions to atheists out of curiousity.

- Does the fact that you do not believe in God, necessarily equate for you that there is no afterlife as well (after life, there is only non-existence)?

- In the absence of a deity who dishes out punishment and rewards the "good", has this, in any way, encouraged you to do any or some things that God-fearing people would not? (i.e. If I can get away with stealing someone's wife or money, it's ok cos I won't be penalized anyway) Please don't think that I think bad of atheists. I'm genuinely curious as to how an atheist thinks.

- Do some atheists who don't believe in God, still believe in a universal system of reward and retribution (like karma?), or does it follow that if you're an atheist, you do not believe in this?

Any other stuff you can tell me about yourself and your beliefs would be very appreciated. Thanks.

[bernee51]

For clarification purposes:

Thank you, bernee51, for putting my questions under a microscope. 8)

you are welcome.

I did not do so to imply an ulterior motive on your part...merely as an observation on my part.

I would point out the inherent contradiction for an Athiest to claim to "know" that there is no God, rather than believe that there is no God.

The simple definition of an atheist is someone who lacks a god belief. That is all. Some atheists may have other related ideas. For instance...personally I do not know that there is no god at all. I have not yet seen a definition of god which is accopanied by evidence to support existence.

As fo the JCI god, based on his own claims, I would claim to know that the biblical god does not exist. Why? He defeats himself wioth logic. He claims much but delivers nought. The only conclusion is that, in my case at least, he does not exist. This I know.

If you would claim to "know" there is no God, you would have to know all things. Knowing all things, in some people's opinion, would make you a type of god. Not believing that God exists leaves, in your view, infinite possabilities to be proven wrong.

Please expalin the contradiction to me.

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

I would point out the inherent contradiction for an Athiest to claim to "know" that there is no God, rather than believe that there is no God.

Knowing a negative is an interesting concept but takes us no further on here. The key issue is knowledge of a positive - ie that something exists rather than that it does not and having objective evidence such that what you have is knowledge not belief.

I don't know that there is no God - I have never said this. What I do know is that nobody has ever provided me with objective evidence that a God exists.

I am tending towards the belief that nobody ever will.

My problem with many of these debates is that Christians try to use logical arguments that lack the essential building blocks of evidence. It doesn't work. I would be happier if people simply admitted that they believe in God because of their faith - if that is the case then where is the problem? Don't wrap up pork and say it is chicken...

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper:

Cheers to an agreement! 8)

If you searching for objective evidence of God, from Christians, I agree that you will (probably) never get any!

As it is being discussed in The Evidence War thread - I have not been trying to offer objective evidence of God's existance - I have only been offering objective evidence that supports my belief in God as being rational.

Now, if one were to say that supplying objective evidence supporting a belief in God does not make the belief rational... well then, we're just going to have to put down our arms and go home from the battle. Because I disagree.

Now, if a person of another religion supplied to me objective evidence that supports a rational belief in a god - I would not criticize that person for making that rationalization. I would only offer the means for that person rationally call into question the decision they have made.

Fair enough? If Athiests and Agnostics used this method more instead of always trying to be on the attack... I think discussion would progress a lot faster. Nobody ever asked me if I think I can convince or show a person that God exists.

[bernee51]

If you searching for objective evidence of God, from Christians, I agree that you will (probably) never get any!

why? Is it because none exists?

As it is being discussed in The Evidence War thread - I have not been trying to offer objective evidence of God's existance - I have only been offering objective evidence that supports my belief in God as being rational.

and when that evidence is called into question you do not answer...like with the so-called evidence of the Christ's existence. You offered no critique of the contrary opinion - just made a condescending remark re, my reference and stated, simply, I don't agree - no reason offered.

Why should I take you seriously?

Now, if one were to say that supplying objective evidence supporting a belief in God does not make the belief rational... well then, we're just going to have to put down our arms and go home from the battle. Because I disagree.

Just because the evidence you use is 'rational' does not make it correct.

Now, if a person of another religion supplied to me objective evidence that supports a rational belief in a god - I would not criticize that person for making that rationalization. I would only offer the means for that person rationally call into question the decision they have made.

well fancy that...exactly what I and others have been doing.

Fair enough? If Athiests and Agnostics used this method more instead of always trying to be on the attack... I think discussion would progress a lot faster.

Answering questions would help as well. When can I expect an answer to the questiosn I have posed. If you don't want to or can't, please say so. Personally I have no issue myself with saying "I don't know".

Forget the historical existence or otherwise of Christ...just tell me which version of the resurrection is correct.

To make it a bit easier for you, I have set out the options at the end of this post.

Nobody ever asked me if I think I can convince or show a person that God exists.

Consider yourself asked. Give it your best shot.

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

* Matthew: Yes (28:Cool
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:Cool
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:1Cool

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* Matthew: Yes (28:7-Cool
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at that first appearance?

* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)

* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?

* Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

[chrispalasz]

If you searching for objective evidence of God, from Christians, I agree that you will (probably) never get any!

why? Is it because none exists?

I don't know if any exists. It may.

As it is being discussed in The Evidence War thread - I have not been trying to offer objective evidence of God's existance - I have only been offering objective evidence that supports my belief in God as being rational.

and when that evidence is called into question you do not answer...like with the so-called evidence of the Christ's existence. You offered no critique of the contrary opinion - just made a condescending remark re, my reference and stated, simply, I don't agree - no reason offered.

Why should I take you seriously?

Never have you rationally made an argument that calls into question the evidence that supports a Christian view. When certain critiques of an opinion are self-defeating - no response is needed. In fact, no response is sometimes the best response. I recommend it.

Now, if one were to say that supplying objective evidence supporting a belief in God does not make the belief rational... well then, we're just going to have to put down our arms and go home from the battle. Because I disagree.

Just because the evidence you use is 'rational' does not make it correct.

Thank you for pointing this out. I very much appreciate it. I think responding to this should clear things up more, if you'll take a look. I am not trying to provide objective evidence for God. I provide evidence that supports the Christian worldview. Now that we have this established (again), we can move on, and everyone can stop asking for this evidence.

The Bible predicts that people will not see or understand the evidence of God. If evidence were provided and everyone saw it and believed... the Bible would be self defeating. It's just not going to happen.
Here are some Biblical passages that explain.

Matthew 7:13-15
13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[1] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

2 Corinthians 2:14-17
14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient[1] for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Matthew 13:13-17
10Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes

and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.'
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

The above Mth passage is taken from Isaiah's prophesy: Isaiah 6:9-11

Now, if a person of another religion supplied to me objective evidence that supports a rational belief in a god - I would not criticize that person for making that rationalization. I would only offer the means for that person rationally call into question the decision they have made.

well fancy that...exactly what I and others have been doing.

Yes, some have done this. But no, you have not... and many others (most, actually) have not either. Please make a note of that, and inform me when you feel you have started. Maybe you just don't see that you haven't been. I will be happy to point it out in in your post after you inform me of the attempt.

Fair enough? If Athiests and Agnostics used this method more instead of always trying to be on the attack... I think discussion would progress a lot faster.

Answering questions would help as well. When can I expect an answer to the questiosn I have posed. If you don't want to or can't, please say so. Personally I have no issue myself with saying "I don't know".

It's interesting that you proclaim to have no issue with saying "I don't know" when the very case is that you do. I have asked you many questions that you do not know the answer to, and you have been answering with paradoxal questions and/or simply criticized the question... but never have you once said "I don't know".

I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you to analyze your own responses before criticizing mine. It's easy to criticize the flaws in a response-post when, the reason you are an expert at finding them is because you are an expert at making them.

On top of that, you have offered no evidence for your own beliefs, which have been in question for some time. You have offered no basis and no defense for upholding your worldview, but rather, your responses have been littered with dancing-around-the-question rhetoric.

Nobody ever asked me if I think I can convince or show a person that God exists.

Consider yourself asked. Give it your best shot.

Thank you. My answer is: I know that I cannot convince or show a person (anyone) that God exists.

I will continue, in my next post, with a response to the ressurrection. But please, unless you thought of all this and typed it all from the top of your head, please cite your source, so I can view that also.

[chrispalasz]

The Bible is amazingly accurate considering there were many eyewitnesses and different accounts of the same event.

Here's the flaw in the majority of these "Biblical inconcistencies". If two people individually saw me eating dinner at a Olive Garden restaurant with some friends, one could say "I saw him eating at Olive Garden" and the other could say, "I saw him eating at Olive Garden with some friends." Both statements are correct. One has more details. It should not be assumed that because person #1 says, "I saw him eating at Olive Garden" that I was there alone. That is a faulty assumption.

On top of that, each gospel writer chose to focus on an entirely DIFFERENT aspect of the ressurection. Each has a different theme - so it makes perfect sence that the accounts will differ depending on what they chose to focus on. None of the informationin the resurrection stories contridict eachother - they just offer different details of the same event, and they can be brought together to form a more detailed look at the event.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

1. (Matt. 28:1) - "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave."
2. (Mark 16:2) - "And very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen."
3. (Luke 24:1) - "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared."
4. (John 20:1) - "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb."

I don't see much of a conflict here. They left when it was dark... the sun began to rise... the sun was risen when they got there. How long does it take the sun to rise where you live? It doesn't take long where I live.

Who went to visit? After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

1. The three women (Matthew 28:9) - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."
2. Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9) - "Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons."
3. The Disciples (Luke 24:15-18) - "And it came about that while they were conversing and discussing, Jesus Himself approached, and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17And He said to them, "What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?" And they stood still, looking sad. 18And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" (Luke 23:10) 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles,
4. Mary (John 20:14) - "When she had said this, she turned around, and *beheld Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus."
5. Cephas and the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) - "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."

This is no contradiction at all. The answer is simple. The first one to see Jesus after His resurrection was Mary Magdalene just as it says (Mark 16:9). Then the others saw Him afterward. The context of the other verses don't present any problem at all. Also, in the Corinthians passage, it says "The Twelve". It is not referring to the number of people. It is referring to the group of close followers of Jesus. The group was called "The Twelve", and the name stuck, regardless of the actual number of people. Don't bother with the number of miles away. I think it's safe to say, at this point, that the risen Christ can "appear" where He wants.

http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_9.htm

What was their purpose?

1. (Matthew 28:1) 1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2. (Mark 15:47) 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. (Mark 16:1) 1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
3. (Luke 23:55) 55 The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. (Luke 24:1) 1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared.
4. (John 39-40) 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

Well... here are the verses. What's the conflict? What's the question? I honestly don't understand what is confusing about these passages. If it is not clarified, please explain the question in greater depth.

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: Yes (28:2) 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
* Mark: Yes (16:4) 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back--it was very large.
* Luke: Yes (24:2) 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
* John: Yes (20:1) 1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

In all accounts, the stone had been rolled back. Matthew is not saying that this happened right in front of the women’s eyes, Matthew is simply saying that it did happened (probably while they were on their way to the tomb). It's okay, though. Greek is a very difficult language and, as an English speaker, it is not easy to understand what they meant, sometimes.

Who was at the tomb when they arrived and where were these messengers situated? (I have combined these questions because the explanation is answers them both)

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

1. An angel of the Lord on the stone (Matthew 28:1-2) - "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it."
2. A young man (Mark 16:5) - "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed."
3. Two men (Luke 24:4) - "And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel."
4. Two angels (John 20:1-2,12) - "Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2And so she *ran and *came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him. . 12and she *beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying."

There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2). The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12). Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue and it isn't one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one. This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb.

http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_5.htm

What did the messenger(s) say?

1. (Matthew 28:6-7) - "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7"And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going before you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
2. (Mark 16:6-7) - "And he *said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you.’"
3. (Luke 24:5-7) - "and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
4. (John 20:13) - "And they *said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She *said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him."

The different gospel writers recalled, or were told, that which was said. Just like real witnesses who all view the same event, each says a slightly different version of the same thing. If each sentence were identical, then the charge of collusion would be raised. But the fact that each writer records the words of the angels in a slightly different manner suggests that they really did witness these events, or heard of them, and recorded them. The slight differences are proof that there were different people seeing the event. In other words, it really happened and each person recalled a slightly, but non contradictory, account of the angel's words.
Follow the link for a suggested arrangement of words that might help to harmonize the words of the angels.

http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_6.htm

Did the women tell what happened?

1. They told what happened
1. (Matthew 28:8) - "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples."
2. (Luke 24:9) - "and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest."
3. (John 20:18) - "Mary Magdalene *came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her."
2. They said nothing
1. (Mark 16:8) - "And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

The best explanation is that the women initially said nothing (Mark 16:8) and then later told the disciples what they saw (Matthew 28:8; Luke 24:9). It would make sense that they were frightened and didn't know what to do or say. But then later, of course, they spoke up. It could also simply mean that they said nothing to anyone while on their way back to tell the others The John 20:18 account is chronologically later than the other references and is not relevant in this difficulty.

http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark16_8.htm

Also, take a look at the resurrection chronology:
http://www.carm.org/diff/table_resurrection.htm

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* (Matthew 28:7) Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you."
* (Mark 16:10-11) She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
* (Luke 24:6-9) He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise." 8And they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
* (John 20:2) So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

When Mary Magdalene saw the empty tomb, she did not know Jesus had risen. When she and the others returned is when she found out.

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9) "And behold, Jesus met them and said, 'Greetings!' And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him."
* John: Yes, but don't (20:17) "Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Yes (20:27) Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

In the Greek writing of John 20:17, the negative imperative "me mou haptou" implies discontinuance of an action already begun. This agrees with what Matthew says. I am not sure what the reason is that Jesus says "don't touch me" - but it is clear that He could be touched. Also, he does allow Thomas to touch Him when He appears to them AFTER His ascension (Luke 24:50-52).

Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13) And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
* Luke: ?? (24:34) saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"

What's the conflict here? I don't see one. Also, as a side note - if there is one, I will surely address it. However, please not that I personally do not believe that Mark 16:9-20 is scripture. The oldest copies of the Gospel According to Mark that we have do not include Mark 16:9-20.

What happened at that first appearance?

Go here: http://www.carm.org/diff/table_resurrection.htm
Scroll to the bottom. Read the Chronology of events.
This post is already too long.


Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?

# First: Mary Magdalene as she remained at the site of the tomb (John 20.11-17)
# Second: to the other women who were also returning to the tomb (Matt 28.9-10)
# Third: to Peter (Luke 24.34; I Cor 15.5)
# Fourth: to the disciples as they walked on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24.13-31)
# Fifth: to the ten disciples (Luk 24.36-51; John 20.19-23)
# Sixth: to the 11 disciples a week after the resurrection (John 20.26-29)
# Seventh: to the seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21.1-23)
# Eight: to 500 (I Cor 15.6)
# Ninth: to James, the Lord's brother (I Cor 15.7)
# Tenth: to the 11 disciples on the mountain in Galilee (Matt 28.16-20)
# Eleventh: at the time of the Ascension (Luke 24.44-53; Acts 1.3-9)
# Twelfth: to Stephen just prior to his martyrdom (Acts 7.55-56)
# Thirteenth: to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9.3-6; 22.6-11; 26.13-18)
# Fourteenth: to Paul in Arabia (Gal 1.12-17)
# Fifteenth: to Paul in the temple (Acts 9.26-27; cf. 22.17-21)
# Sixteenth: to Paul while he was in prison in Caesarea (Acts 23.11)
# Seventeenth: to the apostle John (Rev 1.12-20)

He didn't stay on earth for more than a day BEFORE ascending to Heaven. But after, He did make seperate appearances. The claim has always been that Jesus Christ died, rose from the dead, and appeared to people: not that HE died, rose from the dead, appeared to people, then ascended into Heaven.

Where did the ascension take place?

* (Mark 16:19) "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God."
* (Luke 24:50-51) "Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven."
* (Acts 1:9-12) "And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'"

First of all, I don't know why the Mark passage is included. It does not in any way indicate from where Jesus ascended. Even reading Mark 16:9-20 (note: this is the disputed scripture) in context it is easily seen that the details are skimmed over. Regarding the ascension in Luke and Acts: Mark seems to associate the Mount of Olives and Bethany. He writes, "And when the came nigh (near) to Jerusalem, unto (to) Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives....." (Mark 11:1)

Gary Jensen notes, "In Luke 24:50, the Greek is 'heos pros,' which means literally 'until toward.' In other words, they set out onto the Mount of Olives toward Bethany. It does not say 'into' Bethany."

Well, I believe that covers everything you listed. And I will say again, I beleive in the one true resurrection of Jesus Christ that is indicated in the Bible through the seperate accounts given by the gospel writers.

Also, regardless of your current or future position on this issue or my response: A lot of time and work was put into this post. I hope that your future posts will show similar effort.

[poorpilgrimpro]

Aeithism is a religion, it still involves God its just the disbeleif of him but yes it involves him

[mrmufin]

Hello poorpilgrimpro, welcome to the Debating Christianity & Religion forums!

Aeithism is a religion, it still involves God its just the disbeleif of him but yes it involves him

I disagree. A common disbelief is not the same as common affirmative beliefs. Atheists don't have scripture, places of worship, congregation, ritual or any of the other things commonly found in religions.

Regards,
mrmufin

[chrispalasz]

mrmuffin:

I would say that the term religion indefinately covers strong atheists, at least. Here's the definition of religion according to dictionary.com:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Many forms of Buddhism do not believe in a god, even though they are spiritual. I would say that many atheists are very "religious" in their beleifs.

[ENIGMA]

mrmuffin:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Many forms of Buddhism do not believe in a god, even though they are spiritual. I would say that many atheists are very "religious" in their beleifs.

On a similar note, considering that we are on page 5 of this thread, I think the whole notion that atheists are religious in their beliefs, is "retarded".

re·tard·ed
adj.
1. Often Offensive. Affected with mental retardation.
2. Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.

Wordplay is fun! 8)