Resurrection Challenge results

May 14, 2009 at 6:59 pm 35 comments

OK. As I promised, I tried the Resurrection Challenge. That’s an effort to harmonize the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus as depicted in the four Gospels, the beginning of Acts, and a short passage in I Cor 15.  Of course it’s impossible to harmonize them, so what I’ve done is list each event in the order they occurred and given them numbers to show that order. Where more than one thing happened at one time, or where I couldn’t tell what happened, I added a letter to the number.  So for events 1,2,3 the accounts accord OK. Then you hit 4a-d where more than one story comes out of the different accounts. As you’ll see, these differing accounts are usually mutually exclusive.  Really and truly these contradictions cannot be reconciled.

Resurrection rectification effort:

1- Some women went to the tomb early Sunday morning. (Mary, Mary, Salome, more?)

2- Before the women got to the tomb, the stone was rolled away. This involved an angel descending, an earthquake happening, and guards being stunned. The guards recovered and ran off.

3- The women arrived at the tomb.

4a – (Matt) The women saw an angel outside the tomb and he told them to go in a see that it was empty.

4b – (Mark) The women saw an angel inside the tomb and he told them it was empty.

4c- (Luke) The women went into the tomb, saw it was empty and then two angels appeared and told them it was empty.

4d – (John) The women saw the empty tomb and nothing else. (That saw “nothing else” is indicated by the fact that in the John account they told the disciples, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” If they’d seen those angels, they would have known at least that no one had taken Jesus, and they’d have known he was risen and said so; which is just what the other accounts say they did.)

5a – (Matt, Luke) The women went to tell the disciples.

5b – (Mark 16:8) The women didn’t tell anyone.

6a – (Matt) Between the tomb and the where disciples were, the women met Jesus.

6b – (Mark) Jesus appeared to Mary and she went to tell the disciples. (Wait a sec. Didn’t verse 8 just say the women told no one?) (Oh. I see. This is an unreliable passage that snuck into the Bible.)

7- (Luke, John) Once the women told the disciples (assuming they did tell them) what happened (whatever that was), Peter and John ran to the tomb, snooped about a little and left.

8- (John) Once Peter and John left, Jesus appeared to Mary. Now supposedly he had already appeared to the women, but maybe Mary had gotten ahead of the others and missed him. But, Mark says Jesus appeared first to Mary. But Paul (I Cor 15:5) says Jesus appeared first to Peter (…and then to the 12, except there were only 11. Guess Paul forgot that and the Holy Spirit didn’t remind him.)

9a – Later that day Jesus appeared to two guys along the road. A little later he appeared to the disciples in the “upper room”, talked with them, then led them to Bethany and ascended to Heaven.

9b – (Matt) The disciples went to a mountain in Galilee to meet Jesus.

9c – (John) Jesus waited a week to show up for Thomas.

9d – (Acts) Jesus hung around for 40 days and showed up before 100’s of people before ascending.

- LeoPardus

Entry filed under: LeoPardus. Tags: , , , .

Lord Of The Rings’ Heretics Religious Disenchantment Narratives and the Arts Dissertation

35 Comments Add your own

  • 1. orDover  |  May 14, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    You know, there are a lot more inconsistencies than I would have thought, just based on my shabby memory. But at the same time, I can’t help but know that these inconsistencies would not matter in the slightest to your average born-again Christian. All that matters to them are the things that the stories manage to get (sort of) right: there was an empty tomb, Jesus appeared resurrected to some people (doesn’t really matter how many, who, and when, right?), and then ascended up into heaven in front of people (again, numbers and specifics aren’t important).

    I guess I could understand that view, the knowledge that after time and translations some things are bound to be not-quite-right, and all that really matters it the main message, but what I can’t get is how someone can say, “All that matters is the main message,” and then claim that the Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God. I was always taught that yes, there were some minor inconsistencies in the texts, but that they didn’t matter because the Big Picture was everything. Of course that discounts the fact that even the different Big Pictures disagree, which is what I later learned.

    But really, you can’t have it both ways. It’s either infallible, or it’s not. It’s either the product of God, perfect and complete, or it’s the product of man, messy and inconsistent.

  • 2. blueollie  |  May 14, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    How is this for a contradiction: dead people don’t come back to life.

  • 3. Virginia Schug  |  May 14, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    One thing about the Matthew record is that it says that the two Mary’s were coming to the tomb as the first day of the week was “dawning.” Well in the Hebrew culture the day “dawns” at sunset. That would put it on Saturday afternoon around sunset. They came and saw the stone, then after they left the stone was rolled away. Verses 2-4 are an insertion into what happened and the rolling away of the stone. The record picks up in John where Mary goes to the tomb very early Sunday morning and Jesus appears to her.

    There’s more but I have to go to bed. Cheers

  • 4. Skee09  |  May 15, 2009 at 12:12 am

    @blueollie

    That is essentially Bart Ehrman’s approach (which I just so happened to be reading about today). He maintains that a miracle is by definition an extraordinarily improbably event, so a historian cannot really say that a miracle probably happened.

    http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/apologetics/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead/
    Greg Boyd’s response (which I also happened to have read today) to arguments like Ehrman’s is to state that there is no justification for such an a priori assumption about the nature of historical events. Were the resurrection some ordinary event, we would not question its historicity.

    Even if we reject Ehrman’s assumption, I’m not sure this solves the underlying epistemological problem. What Boyd is really saying by accepting the resurrection as a historically valid is that it is sufficient to base an entire worldview on. These are two vastly different levels of acceptance. I may accept that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but I certainly wouldn’t bet my life on it. It’s the best explanation for the available data, but that does not mean it’s 100% probable, or even 50%. It has an unknown probability of being correct. That’s the point. If the Christian narrative is true, God sure went about spreading the word in a clumsy way. Word of mouth is notably unreliable, as evidenced by all the discrepancies listed above.

  • 5. LeoPardus  |  May 15, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    orDover:

    Yep. That’s what they’d say. Just getting the general gist of it is fine and dandy. So what if there are some irreconcilable contradictions?

    Then the same folks who say that will go on to say that the book that can only get its most important story right in a general way is a book that can tell you every detail of how to live your life. And they’ll probably do a detailed analysis of the word relationships in the original and exclaim how marvelous it is that God inspired the writer’s to be so exacting.

  • 6. Jenkins  |  May 15, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    You raised my interest, so I went back and gave the four accounts a look. There are a couple of points you bring up that I don’t see as contridictions when you look at the text. I’ll just point out the issues you raise in points 4a-d. There’s nothing in the Matthew passage that indicates the angel was outside when the women saw him. He sat on the stone when he rolled it back when the guards got frightened, but there’s nothing to say that he didn’t go inside afterwards. If that’s the case, then there would be no problem between Mat and Mark. For Luke, I don’t think the addition of saying there was an second angel is contradictory; Matthew and Mark didn’t state that there was absolutley only one angel there. As far as John goes, what happened in 20:1-2 could very well have happened and just been left out of the other accounts. She saw the stone rolled away, freaked out, said the quote you mentioned to the disciples and then gone back and had the scenario laid out in the other gospels take place. Thoughts?

  • 7. Quester  |  May 15, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Hello, Jenkins.

    Not to disparage LP’s attempt at the Resurrection Challenge above, but you might also want to look at http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone if you’re thinking that there aren’t many meaningful contradictions.

  • 8. Jenkins  |  May 15, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    Thanks for the link; I’ll check it out.

  • 9. Joe  |  May 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    This article is pretty good:

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/555

    I had shared somewhere else on the site as to how four different people would view an event. I mentioned how in one Gospel it mentions the story of “blind Bartemeus” and his healing. It sounds like only he is following behind Jesus—-but in another Gospel it says “two blind men” were following him. Or, the men on the cross—–one says they were BOTH reviling Jesus, yet Luke says only one was—–time is the real issue there—–Luke is speaking of a repentant thief who WAS reviling, according to the other Gospels, but eventually saw who Jesus was and asked Jesus “Remember me”.

    It really is important to remember these things—many apparent contradictions are really not contradictions at all.

  • 10. LeoPardus  |  May 15, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    Jenkins:

    What you say is possible I suppose. If it is, then the construction and ordering of the passage(s) is just awful beyond belief. Like on the order of what you get from early grade schoolers, who tend to write ‘stream of consciousness’. Unbelievably bad for an all-knowing being who wants to communicate the most important event in history to all future generations.

  • 11. Eve's Apple  |  May 15, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    I don’t know if it was Josh McDowell or one of the other apologists who said that the fact that the accounts did not agree made them even more valuable as testimony, because the discrepancies were proof that the resurrection story hadn’t been made up! Because human memory is fallible, etc, and a story told identically by several different people leads itself open to a charge of collusion or some such. So, ok, I can buy that. But then they turn around and say that the Bible is the inspired, inerrent Word of God! Or as the nuns used to say back in my catechism days, “the Holy Spirit told the apostles what to write.” They never explained why or how it was that the Holy Spirit couldn’t get the story straight, but at least they never claimed that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.

    Anyway, I have always been a bit skeptical about what exactly went on that weekend. According to the Gospels (and Christian tradition), the disciples all split when Jesus was arrested. Yet we have detailed descriptions of what went on with the Sanhedrin, with Pilate, with Herod–who recorded all that stuff, if the disciples weren’t there? Even Peter only got as far as the outer courtyard. Some of the disciples might have come back in time to see the execution, as John suggests, since it was designed to be a public spectacle–but are the Gospels really reliable about anything that happened after the arrest? Then you have the matter of the tomb being unguarded from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown (if it was guarded at all, or even if there was a tomb). The clincher to me is the fact that the resurrected person himself never appeared in public after the supposed event, even though he repeatedly promised almost to the point of bragging that that was exactly what he was going to do after three days. He said “I will rise”, not “my followers are going to announce my rising a month or more after the fact.” If someome says to me that they are going to show up at a certain place and time, I expect that is what they are going to do. I don’t expect a third party to tell me several weeks later that this person did show up at the appointed time and place, even though I saw nothing of the sort. Why did Jesus need other people to say he rose from the dead? Why couldn’t he have done it himself?

    Because–and it pains me to say it–people do not come back from the dead. I don’t claim to know what the disciples experienced, but I am pretty sure that it was not what most of us would consider when we think of resurrection. Even J. B. Phillips admits that the resurrection was a subjective, not an objective experience, and that is quite an admission coming from an apologist.

  • 12. OneSmallStep  |  May 16, 2009 at 9:12 am

    **There’s nothing in the Matthew passage that indicates the angel was outside when the women saw him.**

    The problem I have with this is that if we were just taking the Matthew story alone, what would be our impression? Wouldn’t we feel, based on the structure of the story, that the angel is still sitting outside on the stone? No, it doesn’t specifically say that he was talking to them while sitting on the stone. But why couldn’t we then say he talked to them while hovering above the empty tomb? Or talked to them while standing on his head?

    That’s my biggest problem with trying to squish all these stories together — the individual stories lose all sense of cohesion. They no longer work on their own, in the effort to make all five accounts reconcile.

  • 13. paleale  |  May 16, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    I’ve been sitting back watching this thread develop and trying to think it all through. I have a question. Are you using the challenge as a method to disprove the actual event of the resurrection or merely ‘discredit the witness’?

    There are too many gaps in the challenge itself for it to be useful to say that Jesus never rose from the dead. As Joe said in post #9, some of the apparent contradictions aren’t contradictions at all, merely omissions or added attention to detail. It’s true that the accounts don’t line up exactly. In my opinion, however, this does not make the resurrection event any less plausible (It’s pretty damn implausible already). At the same time, if they did work out in such a way that the timelines were correspondent with one another it would not make the event any more plausible. The absence of collusion does not lend any credibility to the story either. If the authors of the gospels were Peter, James and John and their stories matched identically then we’d have some serious problems. But the temporal distance between the events and the writing of the gospels make collusion a near impossibility.

    The challenge could be useful in making the case against the inerrancy of scripture and one could argue that such a world changing social bomb as the son of God’s resurrection would warrant a more verifiable means of communication. It also makes it pretty clear that God did not dictate to the writers as some would have us believe. But it still doesn’t disprove the event.

    In the end one must simply use reason to conclude that there is no more credibility to this resurrection claim as there is to Muhammad splitting the moon or Joseph Smith’s magic goggles.

  • 14. paleale  |  May 16, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    In my reference to Joe’s #9

    I meant to say that those apparent contradictions can easily be interpreted as omissions or additions.

  • 15. LeoPardus  |  May 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    paleale:

    You’re right. The Res Challenge doesn’t directly demonstrate that the Res didn’t happen. It does undermine scriptural inerrancy and thus casts great doubt on the reliability of the accounts of the Res. When you combine the high degree of improbability of the Res and the considerable unreliability of the texts, then I think you get a pretty decent case for dismissing the historicity of the event.

    As many of us have heard in our Christian days, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The Gospel accounts of the Res make extraordinary claims to be sure, but as historical documents they are quite poor.

  • 16. Ubi Dubium  |  May 16, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    I think the real use of this challenge is to get those people who hold so tightly to biblical literacy to really read their text, for once. Not this fuzzy “read an isolated verse and analyze how it applies to my life” stuff that gets called “bible study”, but read it, looking for narrative and consistency, If they don’t like Leo’s version, let them try the challenge and see if they can do better. And in the process, they will be taking a fresh look at their book, from a new point of view. And that’s a good thing.

  • 17. Sarah Schoonmaker  |  May 16, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    A common Christian response I hear points to the fact that the Gospel accounts (even if one discredits Mark due to its ending), all agree that Jesus was crucified, died, and was resurrected. I can agree with Christians on this point however, the extra-biblical evidence in support of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are close to non-existent even if one grants Josephus’s questionable comments about Jesus as valid.

  • 18. Quester  |  May 16, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    Yes, this challenge doesn’t help much in discrediting the resurrection, just discrediting the inerrancy of the Bible. I think that’s worthwhile in it’s own right.

  • 19. atimetorend  |  May 16, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    Great comments here, and I think looking at the bible in this way is very important, as long as it is not seen as a proof case against all Christianity.

    Once the inerrancy of the bible thing is done away with, I think there is room for Christians to hold to their faith as a personal belief that doesn’t have to be something inflicted on everyone in the world as a life or death choice. If the accounts are so unclear, and the extra-biblical evidence lacking (which is much more significant in this day and age then in the past), how can it be thought that God made it so clear that anyone believing otherwise is destined for Hell?

  • 20. Quester  |  May 17, 2009 at 3:51 am

    It’s not proof that Christianity is wrong about everything, but to borrow a bit of your phrasing, atimetorend, if the accounts are so unclear, and the extra-biblical evidence lacking (which is much more significant in this day and age then in the past), how can it be thought that God:

    1) has made God’s will known to us?
    2) intervenes in human affairs?
    3) is a perceptible or meaningful part of the world as we know it?
    4) can be defined or understood in any meaningful way?
    5) exists?

  • 21. orDover  |  May 17, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Eve’s Apple wrote,

    I don’t know if it was Josh McDowell or one of the other apologists who said that the fact that the accounts did not agree made them even more valuable as testimony, because the discrepancies were proof that the resurrection story hadn’t been made up! Because human memory is fallible, etc, and a story told identically by several different people leads itself open to a charge of collusion or some such. So, ok, I can buy that. But then they turn around and say that the Bible is the inspired, inerrent Word of God! Or as the nuns used to say back in my catechism days, “the Holy Spirit told the apostles what to write.” They never explained why or how it was that the Holy Spirit couldn’t get the story straight, but at least they never claimed that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts.

    That’s a great point! I’ve heard that same line trotted out, that what we’re hearing in the Gospels is the eye-witness account of people. I have no problem with that. I could actually believe it. It does seem like an eyewitness type of narrative, anyway. But the point of the flawed eyewitness style is that it is recounted by HUMANS susceptible to error. So that makes it seem as if the Bible is a book that contains human error, and it can no longer be called infallible.

  • 22. LeoPardus  |  June 3, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Just a BTW, DID ANYONE NOTICE that jflower said she’d take the challenge after I said I would do it myself? And DID ANYONE NOTICE that she ain’t showed up again? And DID ANYONE NOTICE that I did what I said I would, but the “christian” just vanished into the ether?

  • 23. Anonymous  |  June 3, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    She’s still working on the reconciliation. Given all the inconsistencies, she may be working for some time :-)

  • 24. BigHouse  |  June 3, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    I think jflower is still working on it! Given all of the inconsistencies, she may be even a while longer :-)

  • 25. BigHouse  |  June 3, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    23 was me too, oops.

  • 26. schizofool  |  April 19, 2010 at 4:20 am

    I am a lay man. When I read with the following assumptions it didn’t cause me too much trouble.
    #1 A group of people (usually containing dependents/friends/disciples) can be referred to by the leader(s).
    #2 There was some distance between the entrance to the garden (in which the tomb is situated) and the actual tomb. (or Bethany is little far away).
    #3 The angel in Matthew proceeded to stand at the right side after rolling the stone by the time the women arrived at the actual tomb.
    #4 Luke and Acts was authored by same person and is a continuation from former to latter.
    #5 If Acts says ‘ascended visibly’ at one place and Luke says ‘ascended’ in another place, it is normal to assume the ‘ascended’ in Luke was not visible (#4)
    #6 Mark and Luke ends at the day when the Lord has resurrected.

  • 27. schizofool  |  April 19, 2010 at 4:26 am

    #7 Appearance to women and appearance to Mary was two different appearances (Possibly Mary and other women were separated. – followed John’s narrative)

  • 28. Joe  |  April 19, 2010 at 11:17 am

    schizo (#26)–

    I’m glad you approached it this way. I had been asking why if there were “problems” with the story, why one didn’t go point by point through the problems and address them one at a time. That makes far more sense than saying “I tried to put he story together, but I couldn’t do it”. :)

  • 29. Joe  |  April 19, 2010 at 11:18 am

    “the” story, not “he” story—typo #28

  • 30. Joe  |  April 19, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    In reference to #3 here is one short state about how many angels there were. This is in response to Bart Ehrman and his “problem” with the angels:

    “I found myself virtually screaming out the words, “Will someone please help Professor Bart Ehrman figure out how many angels were at the tomb!” It is a problem he brings up ad nauseum and ad infinitum as his way of showing the Bible is riddled with discrepancies. This problem is cited in his book “Jesus Interrupted” and involves again the angels at the tomb of Christ.

    After reading the synoptic gospels, Ehrman was unable to figure out whether the women saw a man, as Mark says (Mark 16:5), or two men as Luke says (Luke 24:4), or an angel as Matthew says (Matt. 28:2). I’m left to wonder why one of professor Ehrman’s students didn’t pause for a brief moment to unpack the mystery for him because as Professor Ehrman himself has figured out, wherever there are two angels there is also one angel, always, always, always, without exception. The fact that Mark only references the angel who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic for someone who has made a virtual art form out of exploiting discrepancies and secondary details of the Gospels.

    Furthermore, even though Luke does not specifically refer to the two men as angels; the fact that he describes these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting” should have been a dead give away. Moreover, as a historian addressing a predominately Gentile audience, Doctor Luke—no doubt—measured his words carefully so as not to give rise unnecessarily to pagan superstitions.

    Finally, as with Mark, the fact that Matthew only references one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present. After reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke or John, for that matter, there is ample data by which a real historian can determine that the man described by Mark was indeed an angel and that “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting” were angelic, and that though Matthew only mentions an angel, he clearly does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

    Contra Ehrman then, what credible scholars look for is a core set of reliable facts that either validate or invalidate historical accounts. Here, as elsewhere in the Gospels, one can objectively conclude that the core set of facts presented by the Gospel writers are authentic and reliable.

    And there are reasonable and scholarly explanations for all of the “problems” that occur, if one is able to look at them point by point, rather than accepting they are invalid due to arguments from those who “generalize” in their interpretation of the events.

  • 31. schizofool  |  April 21, 2010 at 1:11 am

    Joe, I have not attempted the original post but as just number my assumptions. In the next comment i have tried my story. I have never read a apologist’s book. I am trying to show a possible explanation may exists. The name schizo means schizophrenia and fool mean trying a foolish attempt.

  • 32. schizofool  |  April 21, 2010 at 1:16 am

    1- Some women went to the tomb early Sunday morning. (Mary, Mary, Salome, more?)

    A group of people (usually containing dependents/friends/disciples) can be referred to by the leader(s).
    eg. Abraham, Jesus

    2- Before the women got to the tomb, the stone was rolled away. This involved an angel descending, an earthquake happening, and guards being stunned. The guards recovered and ran off.

    Possibly after reaching the entrance of the garden. In John it states that Jesus asked Mary not to touch him

    3- The women arrived at the tomb.

    4a – (Matt) The women saw an angel outside the tomb and he told them to go in a see that it was empty.

    4b – (Mark) The women saw an angel inside the tomb and he told them it was empty.

    4c- (Luke) The women went into the tomb, saw it was empty and then two angels appeared and told them it was empty.

    4d – (John) The women saw the empty tomb and nothing else. (That saw “nothing else” is indicated by the fact that in the John account they told the disciples, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” If they’d seen those angels, they would have known at least that no one had taken Jesus, and they’d have known he was risen and said so; which is just what the other accounts say they did.)

    On seeing the stone rolled away Mary alone runs to disciples(They may have accompanied the women and was waiting in Jerusalem – Gates). John and Peter runs through a short way to the tomb

    5a – (Matt, Luke) The women went to tell the disciples.

    5b – (Mark 16:8) The women didn’t tell anyone.
    Mark says it is actually Mary (one of the women) who told the disciples

    6a – (Matt) Between the tomb and the where disciples were, the women met Jesus.

    6b – (Mark) Jesus appeared to Mary and she went to tell the disciples. (Wait a sec. Didn’t verse 8 just say the women told no one?) (Oh. I see. This is an unreliable passage that snuck into the Bible.)
    In John the light is on Mary. and in others, the light is on the women(including Mary)
    The Women entered the tomb and saw the angels. Afraid and happy runs to disciples
    Mary, John and Peter comes back (and the narrative of John)
    Mary saw Jesus
    Jesus ascends to heaven (just takes a little time)
    By this time the women reaches city gates and Jesus greets them (They ran, Suddenly Jesus met them)
    They goes and tells no one (afraid and happy)

    7- (Luke, John) Once the women told the disciples (assuming they did tell them) what happened (whatever that was), Peter and John ran to the tomb, snooped about a little and left.

    Luke says this verse in sense that Peter did go but not happening after. After all it is put in brackets in my bible in native language (I don’t no why)

    8- (John) Once Peter and John left, Jesus appeared to Mary. Now supposedly he had already appeared to the women, but maybe Mary had gotten ahead of the others and missed him. But, Mark says Jesus appeared first to Mary. But Paul (I Cor 15:5) says Jesus appeared first to Peter (…and then to the 12, except there were only 11. Guess Paul forgot that and the Holy Spirit didn’t remind him.)
    mentioned above

    In between this Jesus appears to Peter. (Only mentioned in one of the Gospels as a reference – Luke)

    9a – Later that day Jesus appeared to two guys along the road. A little later he appeared to the disciples in the “upper room”, talked with them, then led them to Bethany and ascended to Heaven.
    End of the Day the Lord resurrected. (Ascended not visibly – equivalent as saying went to the place he came from)

    9b – (Matt) The disciples went to a mountain in Galilee to meet Jesus.
    They were about 150

    9c – (John) Jesus waited a week to show up for Thomas.
    (11/12 disciples including Matthias and others – refer first argument)
    9d – (Acts) Jesus hung around for 40 days and showed up before 100’s of people before ascending.

    Read bible as one of your dearest has resurrected. You will be full of adrenaline

  • 33. schizofool  |  April 21, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Comments are without number in the previous post. Sorry for not so familiar in blogging

  • 34. schizofool  |  April 21, 2010 at 3:00 am

    #32 – after 6b
    Mary, John and Peter comes back (and the narrative of John)
    a typo, read it as Mary, John and Peter reaches the tomb (and the narrative of John)

  • 35. Joe  |  April 21, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Schizofool—

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,998,577 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers