Contradictions in the Resurrection Account

Contradictions in the Resurrection Account April 9, 2012

A Swiss Army knife with dozens of crazy "blades"Since Easter was yesterday, I’d like to rerun a post about the resurrection story.

How many days did Jesus teach after his resurrection? Most Christians know that “He appeared to them over a period of forty days” (Acts 1:3). But the supposed author of that book wrote elsewhere that he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51).

When Jesus died, did an earthquake open the graves of many people, who walked around Jerusalem and were seen by many? Only Matthew reports this remarkable event. It’s hard to imagine any reliable version of the story omitting this zombie apocalypse.

The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three).

  • What were the last words of Jesus? Three gospels give three different versions.
  • Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
  • How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?
  • Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
  • Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
  • Was the tomb already open when they got there? Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
  • Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.
  • Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”
  • Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course! She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew says that she did. But John and Luke make clear that she didn’t.
  • Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.
  • Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him? In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?
  • Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
  • Should the gospel be preached to everyone? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.” But hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5). Which is it?

Many Christians cite the resurrection as the most important historical claim that the Bible makes. If the resurrection is true, they argue, the gospel message must be taken seriously. I’ll agree with that. But how reliable is an account riddled with these contradictions?

I’ve seen Christians respond in three ways.

(1) They’ll nitpick the definition of “contradiction.” Contradictions, they’ll say, are two sentences of the form “A” and “not-A.” For example: “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” and “Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.” Being precise helps make sure we communicate clearly, but this can also be a caltrop argument, a way of dodging the issue. These sure sound like contradictions to me, but if you’d prefer to imagine that we’re talking about “incongruities” or “inconsistencies,” feel free.

(2) They’ll respond to these “inconsistencies” by harmonizing the gospels. That is, instead of following the facts where they lead and considering that the gospels might be legend instead of history, they insist on their Christian presupposition, reject any alternatives, and bludgeon all the gospels together like a misshapen Swiss Army knife.

  • How many women were at the tomb? Obviously, five or more, our apologist will say. When John only says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, he’s not saying that others didn’t come, right? Checkmate, atheists!
  • Why didn’t all the gospels note that a group of 500 people saw Jesus (instead of only Paul)? Why didn’t they all record the earthquakes and the zombie apocalypse (instead of only Matthew)? Our apologist will argue that each author is entitled to make editorial adjustments as he sees fit.
  • Was the tomb already open or not? Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus or not? Did Jesus remain for 40 days or not? Should the gospel be preached to everyone or not? Did the women tell the disciples or not? Was Jesus crucified the day after Passover or not? Who knows what he’ll come up with, but our apologist will have some sort of harmonization for these, too.

Yep, the ol’ kindergarten try.

(3) They’ll try to turn this weakness into a strength by arguing that four independent stories (the gospels aren’t, but never mind) shouldn’t agree on every detail. If they did, one would imagine collusion rather than accurate biography. Yes, biography and collusion are two possibilities, but another is that this could be legend.

Let’s drop any preconceptions and find the best explanation.

Photo credit: ThinkGeek

Acknowledgement: This list was inspired by one composed by Richard Russell.

Related posts:

Related links:

"Why?None of them are considered a mental illness...you on the other hand, have got some ..."

Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? ..."
"Hahahaha. First ever root canal done a few years ago. I go get lunch after.I’m ..."

The Design Argument (Fiction)
"Eating Sugar Puffs breakfast cereal makes yer wee smell of Sugar Puffs and drinking cocktails ..."

The Design Argument (Fiction)
"I've just ordered it on your recommendation."

The Design Argument (Fiction)

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ehijator I. Josef

    To understand the Nature of Resurrection of Mashiach, you must understand the Gospel of the Resurrection; You must appreciate the time of Restoring all Things as it is revealed to prophets and spoken of by Paul, the Apostle [Acts Ch. 3 v 19 – 21], You must know the relevance of the Forty Days and Forty Nights, and why Mashiach Fasted Forty Days only to meet a Temptation and so continued his fast past the forty. You must also know the ideal of Mount Zion, and how it relates to the Resurrection and then the Salvation. The Resurrection is the Hope of a Believer, that Churches don’t know, confirms that the apostasy is set, For the Resurrection which all men shall experience, is the purpose of the manifestation of the Messiah, because the Resurrection leads to Salvation and that is why the Hope of Salvation is entwined into the Hope of a Better Resurrection, On the day of the Lord, the day of the Signs of the Son of Man, the day that shall Burn with fervent Heat, when Hell and Earth shall merge, and all will awake from the dust in the valley of the shadow of death.
    The Valley of the Shadow of death is a real place, which was revealed to Job, Jacob and David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and even Paul the Apostle, and to Peter and all the Disciples, as it is revealed to all true. All the Just that shall resurrect at the Resurrection of the Just, when all things shall be restored, at the Resurrection of the Just, all Just Men shall wake into a cover of the Darkness and of Dark Clouds and Tumult, fervent Heat, Stars falling {Angels} Holy and Unholy, the Noisome Pestilence, the Thunder, the Famine; this is known as the Sign of the Son of Man, Hell shall be opened and Principalities and Powers shall rise from Hell to stop the ascension of the Resurrected Just and to avert them reaching the Light that parteth, the Dayspring which is Yehoshuah Mashiach, if ou can consider this prophecy you may understand the mystery of the Resurrection: “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations” At the Resurrection of the Just, those who lack the Holy Ghost in their souls shall fail and fall into Hell, because whatever a Man worships or may have worshipped on earth i.e. the things in his heart, they will manifest to him when he shall be resurrected, some will see the Pride, most shall see the Mammon, many will see the Ego, Carnal Uncleanness, the Slaughterer shall appear to Murderers, but the sons of Elohiym shall see the Angels of their souls and if they have lived in a manner that their Angels are strong enough in Righteousness, so that the angels can only attain if the men they shall carry in the ascension, have themselves lived righteously; to ascend and traverse the Valley of slaughter [Jer Ch. 19 v 16] where they shall fight the Principalities, the Powers and Rulers of the Darkness, hence it is called a Day of Battle, when the Righteous must command morning by faith, or fail and fall as stars will fall.
    If the man and his angel, that shall be sent for the Gathering [Matthew 24 v 31] have the Name of Truth and the Spirit of Light, and if the Man have Love and Charity that casteth out Fear, then they shall rise to Zion, the Mount of Elohiym, and go further to the North where Holiness shall receive them in the Glorification. Learn from the Story of Elijah who ascended, Noah who was saved, Lot who was saved, Moses who received the promise of the salvation of the seed of Jacob, and the Messiah, who transfigured and ascended as the son of Elohiym, those who live by the word and the Name in the Spirit of the Name, shall wake up with the full Armor to fight on the Evil Day, when we all shall resurrect, and these shall have enough power for the duration of the Darkness, because the Suun shall become Black and the Moon shall not Give Light, till the morning when Yehoshuah shall appear and Zion ,those that have the Religion but follow the world shall be cut off, these are the lambs that shall fall with the goats and the rams, on the day of slaughter “The sword of the Lord is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea”, this is why the Lord came with the gospel of the Resurrection so that the sons may know to prepare for the passage, because at the passage, thereshall be a separation of the things above and the things below, this shall be the separation of the Goats and Sheep, before the righteous shall rise to the gate of Mount Zion, to be justified by the Justifier i.e. if truly they were virtuous servants of the Truth they shall become Sons of Elohiym, and this is why Satan is teaching the Rapture through the goats, who shall be cut off in the darkness into darkness, reserved for the second resurrection, the Resurrection of the unjust, to be judged in Righteousness by Righteousness .
    I am an itinerant son of Elohiym, called to teach these things in these Latter Days, made a destitute of the covenant of sacrifice, to the Glory of Elohim, through Mashich, our Hope of Salvation and I circulate a free Newsletter which I can send to you on demand, where these issues that are the core of the Gospel of our Salvation, shall be expounded and elaborated in prophecy as the Master and the Teacher determines, I think, this will assist you understand these things better, may Elohiym Bless You.
    Joseph
    therapturebook@reborn.com

    • MNb

      The only thing I need to understand is that there is no god and hence Jesus was not his son. Then I can safely skip everything you write after the first two sentences.

    • Most people here want evidence, not theology.

    • Rik Holets

      You can’t use the source to answer the question.

  • Rik Holets

    It is illogical and invalid to use the source for the answers

  • Josh Zeringue

    I’m not saying I buy the apologists’ rebuttal, but it is logically possible, right? Maybe you could clarify your rebuttal to his rebuttal? Thanks!

  • YoOhioGirl

    The Bible is clear that there were some doubt (Matthew 28:7) Mary Magdalene may have met the resurrected Christ, but the scripture doesn’t tell us she was aware of who he was according to the gospel of Matthew…. in the same manner she wasn’t aware in the gospel of John chapter 20 vs 14. She mistaken Him as a gardener. We do know, according to scripture, that the Lord’s resurrected appearance could be unrecognizable (Luke 24:13-16).

    • Jethro

      According to Luke 24:7-9, they understood that Jesus is risen (‘they remembered his words’, so what the angels said to them must made sense), so they returned to tell the eleven about the resurrection, which sounded so bizarre to them that ‘their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.’ So even if you can manage to harmonize Matthew 28 with John 20, the account in Luke 24:7-9 contradicts John 20, where Mary’s words (‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!’) should make good sense to Peter and the other disciple. More importantly: Mary Magdalene told them about the resurrection according to Luke, while about body being stolen according to John. Finally, according to Matthew 28, it is also clear that Mary must have understood that Jesus is risen, for Matthew 28:8 says that they departed quickly with fear and great joy. The contradiciton can not be harmonized easily unless Mary was crazy and mentally unstable.

      • Wisdom Speak

        You’re confusing the timing…At Mary’s first arrival at the tomb..early
        while it was dark (Luke 20:1) she saw the stone removed and ran to
        only two disciples: Simon Peter and the other (John 20:2)..
        Later as she returned to the tomb is when she understood Jesus had risen
        to tell the 11 (John 20:11-18 and Luke 24:7-9 are in agreement..along with
        Matthew 28:16..with the 11).

        Wisdom Speak: You’re confusing the timing…At Mary’s first arrival at the tomb..early
        while it was dark (Luke 20:1) she saw the stone removed and ran to
        only two disciples: Simon Peter and the other (John 20:2)..
        Later as she returned to the tomb is when she understood Jesus had risen
        to tell the 11 (John 20:11-18 and Luke 24:7-9 are in agreement..along with
        Matthew 28:16..with the 11).

        • Wisdom Speak

          Jethro: You are the most likely one who is confused here. Luke 20 does not deal with resurrection.

          Wisdom:It’s in the personal interpetation..
          But it should have been John 20 (I corrected it)…
          And it’s John 20:1 that speaks of her eariler arrival at the tomb.
          And here is the scripture:
          Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that
          the stone had been removed from the entrance.
          2 So she came running to
          Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said,
          “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they
          have put him!”

          How is that not the ressurection? The body is missing..

          Jethro:no other things of interest could be interpolated, otherwise the scripture is raped like a little girl in India. Your previous attempt to harmonize Matthew and John can’t explain the contradiction of one saying Mary understood he is risen while the other saying Mary did not.

          Wisdom: As explained before..They do harmonize..You seem to be confusing Mary’s visits at the tomb.. When she first visited the tomb early in the morning she simply found the entrance stone removed and the body of Jesus missing.. She didn’t know it was the resurrection..She assumed someone took the body..so she ran to tell only 2 disciples (John 20:2).. It was later when she returned to the tomb and with that experience she realized the Lord had risen and that is when she went to tell the 11..This is confirmed in (John 20:11-18, Matthew 28:16, and Luke 24:7-9)..

        • Jethro

          Nice try but you are confusing everybody by twisting the scripture so much almost to the point of unrecognition in order to harmonize.

          BTW, my former reply is mysteriously gone and here is it again (revised a little bit for better wording, but the message remains the same):

          You are the most likely one who is confused here. Luke 20 does not deal with resurrection. It starts from Luke 24:1, and Luke 24:1-12 is a continuous account that ends with Peter running to the tomb after having heard what Mary told him, no other significant things could have transpired in between the lines here. Also note that your previous attempt to harmonize Matthew and John can’t explain the contradiction of one saying Mary understood he is risen while the other saying Mary did not.

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no twisting in the scriptures.. They are as clear as the words on the page..I cannot offer you anymore explanation than what I already given.

          It is not a continuous of Peter running to the tomb..Luke speaks of the eleven not the two (Peter is not mention):

          Luke 24: 9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.

          there is no contradiction in the scripture harmony..I don’t know how else to tell you that Mary’s first visit to the tomb was her finding the body missing and didn’t know what happen to it..she thought someone took it so she ran to tell Peter and another (only two)… .then she returns have an experience and with that experience of her second visit she realized the resurrection and she goes and find the eleven (And all gospels of the account speaks of that).

        • Jethro

          Your points are well taken, but you don’t seem to see the contradiciton. In Matthew and Luke, Peter ran to see the empty tomb after Mary brought him the message of resurrection and he did not believe, while Peter did the same run after Mary said the body was stolen in John 20. It makes no sense for Peter to run twice that morning for that matter, so the two versions of story contradict each other in stating very different reasons for the same run.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Now..I see where your agrument is….about the visit of Peter to the
          tomb..
          This is my understanding from studying all the accounts and correct me
          if you feel I am wrong here..
          That it wasn’t all done in the morning..
          Luke 24 tells us of a gap in time in vs 4:
          “AND IT CAME TO PASS”, as they were much perplexed
          thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

          As for what took place in the morning according to John 20..It states
          that Mary went to Peter (and another) over the missing body of Jesus.
          And though they both started out running; Peter arrived later (how much
          later isn’t stated). But we see in Luke 24:12 Peter arriving at the sepulchre
          alone (which agrees with John 20 of the other disciple outrunning him).
          They saw that the body was missing but have yet to believe the
          ressurection (Vs.9).
          Mary had to return to the 11 (which included Peter) with the report
          of the ressurrection..

        • Wisdom Speak

          What I’m stating is Peter did not arrive at the tomb when he first heard the body was missing with the other disciple…He came later according to John 20:6..

        • Jethro

          The contradiction happens before they started to run, how to interpret what happened near the end of the run does not seem to have a bearing on this issue though.

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no contradictions before they started to run..They were given a report of a missing body..And they started out together because of that report (where is the contradiction?)….but somewhere along the way..They did not reach their destination at the same time.. Peter came later a lone as what is stated.

        • Jethro

          Sure, both statements of Mary imply a missing body, just as both black and white indicate a color. If you insist there is no contradiction there, I would say that’s apology in its finest. If you think a body being stolen is equivalent to resurrection, I would have nothing else to say.

        • Wisdom Speak

          HUH?
          You said “the contradiction happens before they started to run”…..
          That is just not true and you cannot show that…
          Where is the contradiction before THEY started to run..I will wait..
          You’re reading in your own thoughts into something that is NOT written.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Nobody is equaling a thought of a stolen body to the resurrection…
          You stated this: “The contradiction happens before THEY started to run”

          And that is NOT documented (personal interpretation aside).. What is recorded is THEY started out running together because of a missing body report, but one of them (Peter) did not arrive at the destination at the same time… There is no THEY (as far as what we are talking about) arriving after the resurrection report..it’s just Peter..

        • Jethro

          If it says in John that the other disciple started out running with Peter, in order not to raise a new contradiction, it is often assumed by apologiests that the other accounts in Matthew and Luke simply focused on Peter and did not mention the other disciple.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Assumptions aren’t facts… We can assume anything we want based on our own bias, understanding, reasoning, and/or personal interpretation… But the written facts are.. THEY both are said to have started out together because of the report of a missing body (keywords: started out). The gospels agree that Peter arrived later. And according to Luke 24:12 ONLY Peter arrives at the destination after the report of the resurrection. There is no THEY in Luke 24:12. You would have to ASSUME someone else was with him to make a case for contradiction.

        • Jethro

          The contradiction is actually independent from the run in question: The inconsistent statements are made by Mary Magdalene when she returned from her first visit to the tomb, this timing is unmistakable in John, Luke, and Matthew.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Jethro
          If you don’t take it that way, then you have to make Peter run more
          than once that day, which is rediculous. For the faith to prevail,
          it is better that nobody can really understand the scripture. But
          when rationality prevails, the scripture is seen for what it is, so
          that we see the entire christiandom is created upon frabricated lies
          and has caused much grief to humanity.

          Wisdom:We’re not debating faith or reasoning…both of which is personal.
          We are examing documented claims and statements not how
          one choice to believe in them and another comes to understand them.
          One’s belief and the other’s understanding doesn’t equal the claim being
          truth or a lie. So we are left with only the written documents to study.
          According to what we have. Peter starts out running with a companion
          because of one report, but doesn’t finish till he hears the second report.
          that is what we are clearly being told in the accounts of the gospels;
          there is simply NO contradictions…Any conclusions on such statements (NOT)
          making sense is solely based upon the personal opinion of the reader..

        • Jethro

          This is hard to believe: Peter starts out running with a companion because of one report, but doesn’t finish till he hears the second report. In John 20, the other disciple waited for Peter, and entered the tomb only after Peter arrived and entered first, and they returned home afterwards, but Mary Magdalene remained and stood without the tomb(John 20:11), and Jesus appeared to her, and she returned with the second report. Thus, Peter finished his visit to the tomb before the things in the second report took place.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Jethro:This is hard to believe

          Wisdom: And there you have it….
          You were not arguing against the actual written claim being contradicting , because they are in harmony. You were attempting to make a case for your reasoning of such a claim. For you it doesn’t make sense and that is personal.

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no contradiction in the written documents.. There is also no inconsistent statements made by Mary or a mistake in timing. If you feel otherwise…you are free to show it. Personal interpretation of the written text is NOT the same as what is actually written..

        • Wisdom Speak

          The reason the events of the end matter..because in Luke 24:12 there is no “they”..it’s just Peter arriving at the tomb…which is why John 20 wanted the readers to clearly see that there is a difference in timing between the two men arriving at the tomb…It is pointing out that Peter came later..

        • Your former reply might have returned now.

        • Jethro

          Indeed, thanks! Just that it is now not appearing in the right chronological order.

  • YoOhioGirl

    It is clear that, Joseph of Arimathaea with Nicodemus took the body of Christ down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in the sepulchre (Matthew 27: 57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:53 and John 19: 39-42). They were both Jews and rulers (Mark 15:43 and John 3:1) and thus included in the mentioning of those in Acts 13:29 concerning the burial of Jesus…

    Obviously, Jesus couldn’t have been a stranger to the Jews and rulers who buried him if they also crucified him. Acts 13:27 teaches us that the people of Jerusalem, both citizens and leaders, didn’t recognize that Jesus was the Messiah of their scriptures, even though it is read every week. This may also have been true among some of his followers (note that when Christ asked His followers who do they think He is..only Peter is documented at that period of time as acknowledging/recognizing who Jesus was/is):

    Matthew 16:
    13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

    14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

    15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

    16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

  • YoOhioGirl

    Mary Magdalene own words in the Gospel of John testifies that she wasn’t alone when she arrived at the sepulchre:

    Chapter 20 vs 2:
    They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and WE (not I) know not where they have laid him.

  • YoOhioGirl

    Mark 16:1 gives us the identity of the three women who purchased spices, sometime after the sabbath ended (Saturday evening). The next scripture doesn’t give us the names of the women that actually went to the tomb on Sunday at sunrise. Looking at Luke 24:10.. We do not see Salome listed by that name as part of the women who been at the burial site, but the two Marys are…so it’s not clear if she made the travel with them. A closer look at John 20:2, you can see that Mary Magdalene, herself testified she wasn’t alone (WE {plural} know not where they have laid him).

  • YoOhioGirl

    Question: Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John says no; the other gospels say yes.

    Answer: Mary may have rushed to embrace him, for he told her not to touch him because he did not ascend to the Father yet (John 20:17). The Lord was not telling Mary she couldn’t feel Him with her hands, keeping in mind, she already did earlier (Matthew 28:9-“And they came and held him by the feet”). Physical
    touch wasn’t the issue, this is confirmed in John 20:27 when the Lord also
    invited Thomas to probe his open wombs.

    Jesus was telling Mary she could not adjoin herself to him yet. Mē mou haptou
    is the Greek phrase for “Touch me not”, it insinuates an emotional clinginess.
    With seeing the living Messiah, the scriptures seems to suggest that Mary
    Magdalene desired to keep the resurrected Lord with her, but Jesus informs
    her that He must ascend to God (John 20:17), where he would be more beneficial.

  • YoOhioGirl

    Question: Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according to John. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”

    Answer: With the elapsing of time (Luke 24:4-“And it came to pass”), The women’s
    jubilation (Matthew 28:8) was replaced with some confusion (Luke 24:4-“As they were much perplexed”).

  • YoOhioGirl

    Question: Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”

    Answer: Inside the tomb was an angel sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5).
    The angel acknowledged that the women are looking for the body of Jesus
    and informed them that the Lord had risen (Mark 16:6 and Matthew 28:5&6).
    The ones that experienced this fled from the site, possibly passed the
    other women who may have been standing outside of the tomb (Luke 24:5-
    “bowed down their faces to the earth”..Keyword is earth), without saying
    a word to “them” and/or others (Mark 16:8) focusing only on disclosing the
    news to the disciples(Mark 16:10 and Matthew 28:8) in keeping with what
    was requested (Mark 16:7 and Matthew 28:7).

    Question: And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.

    Answer: The book doesn’t end with them fleeing, saying nothing. Mark 16:9 states that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first and she went and gave the message that the Lord is alive to others (Mark 16:10 & 11)..The book of Mark continues from there as well.

    • Otto

      With your apparent knowledge I am guessing you are aware that Mark ended with 16:8 and the rest was added at a later date.

      • YoOhioGirl

        I think we can “all” agree that the original writings are unknown? With that being a fact..we have no idea whether Mark intended to end with 16:8 or those documents are unfinished work or additions. And here lies the debate..

        • Otto

          The earliest documents of Mark are not ‘unknown’. The consensus of scholarly textual critics are that the earliest most reliable documents of Mark end at 16:8.

          But if you are saying that there could be an earlier version that is unknown, ok…then we don’t know. But by all apparent indications Mark ends there and the rest was added. If you want to take the “we don’t know approach” isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say…”The book doesn’t end with them fleeing, saying nothing….”? I mean that certainly gives the appearance that you do ‘know’ contrary to your take on it now.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: The earliest documents of Mark are not ‘unknown’.

          ME: I said the original documents of Mark are not known…That is NOT the same as the earliest ones we currently have.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:But if you are saying that there could be an earlier version that is unknown, ok…then we don’t know.

          ME:That is exactly what I’m sayin…because the earliest copies we know of are NOT the original copies..

          YOU: But by all apparent indications Mark ends there and the rest was added.

          ME: That’s your opinion based on the earliest known copies ending there…You assumed the rest were added. My opinion is differently…I believe the earliest known copies are unfinished work by copyists because over 90% of Greek manuscripts and its tradition include the longer version.

          YOU:If you want to take the “we don’t know approach” isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say…”The book doesn’t end with them fleeing, saying nothing….”? I mean that certainly gives the appearance that you do ‘know’ contrary to your take on it now.

          ME: We don’t know..that’s just a fact.. We are only basing our opinion on what’s available to us. You can no more prove those were addon as I can prove they were not..without either one of us having the original writings before us. That’s just a rational truth.

  • YoOhioGirl

    Question: Who did the women see at the tomb? One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?

    Answer: Visions of angels were seen by the women (Luke 24:23). Some saw one and some saw two. Before their arrival there was an earthquake,
    in which an angel descended from heaven came and rolled backed the stone
    and sat on it (Matthew 28:2). Inside the tomb was an angel sitting on the right side (Mark 16:5) which they saw when they entered. Outside the tomb was two angels standing by those without (Luke 24:4). When Mary Magdalene returned to the sepulchre, she saw two seated angels inside, one at each end of the body where Jesus was laid (John 20:12).

    • In one gospel, he eats fish; in another, he materializes in a room with a closed door.

      I guess it’s a mystery.

      • YoOhioGirl

        I don’t see the mystery in him having the ability to eat fish and materializing in a closed door room?

        • One says that he has a physical body, and one says that he has a spirit body. Shouldn’t he have just one or the other?

        • YoOhioGirl

          Not all flesh is the same (1 Corinthians 15:39 & 40).

          In other words: Christ has a heavenly body that has the ability to eat and materializes in a room with a closed door.

          2nd Corinthians 5:3
          For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies (flesh).

        • Yes, Paul is big on the spiritual body/earthly body distinction. I don’t see that in the gospels.

        • YoOhioGirl

          It could be in a personal understanding of what we read. It’s important to study..especially with the original language of the gospel (Greek)..which does make distinction.

        • Mark Allen Church

          Not to mention that Matthew talks about a huge earthquake that caused ZOMBIFIED JEWS to get out of their graves and walk around Jerusalem. Not only do the other 3 disciples not mention it, but NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN mentions it either!

          How do people still believe in this FAIRYTALES to this day? We might as well continue believing in Santa!

        • Wisdom Speak

          Mark Allen Church:Not to mention that Matthew talks about a huge earthquake
          that caused ZOMBIFIED JEWS to get out of their graves and walk around
          Jerusalem.

          Wisdom Speak:Closer look at Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened;
          and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
          Keyword:bodies
          Reports of premature burial dates back to at least the fourteenth century.
          Depending upon the individual one can survive between minutes to a little
          over a day.

          Mark Allen Church:Not only do the other 3 disciples not mention it,
          but NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN mentions it either!

          Wisdom Speak:You’re taking the position of “argument from silence”..
          Going down that road would put more of the burden of proof on you
          because such a position requires a lot of assumption..We see this
          to some extent in our current law “Right to remain silent” or
          “pleading the fifth”…both would require YOU to ASSUME a conclusion.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Mark Allen Church:Not to mention that Matthew talks about a huge earthquake
          that caused ZOMBIFIED JEWS to get out of their graves and walk around
          Jerusalem.

          Wisdom Speak:Closer look at Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened;
          and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
          Keyword:bodies
          Reports of premature burial dates back to at least the fourteenth century.
          Depending upon the individual one can survive between minutes to a little over a day (up to 36 hours interesting enough)….given the fact that the ancient Hebrews did consider 12 hours a day (John 11:9-Relative hour , halachic hour, seasonal hour and variable hour)..Which brings us to the timing of Christ’ crucifixion to His resurrection “3 days later” (not to be confused with our modern 24 hours equals a day definition)….and fits in perfectly with Matthew 27: 53 And came out of the graves AFTER his resurrection…being that Christ is the FIRST (1st Corinthians 15:20)

          Mark Allen Church:Not only do the other 3 disciples not mention it, but NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN mentions it either!

          Wisdom Speak:You’re taking the position of “argument from silence”..
          Going down that road would put more of the burden of proof on you
          because such a position requires a lot of assumption..We see this
          to some extent in our current law “Right to remain silent” or
          “pleading the fifth”…both would require YOU to ASSUME a conclusion.

        • No, not an argument from silence fallacy.

          If something remarkable happened that historians of the time ought to have recorded–and they didn’t record it–then you’ve got a puzzle. A very straightforward explanation would be that there was nothing remarkable to record. The other gospels don’t even record it.

        • Pofarmer

          That may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the innerwebs, and that’s saying something.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Everybody has an opinion.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It is an argument of silence..You’re drawing conclusion from the position of assuming (which is proven by your very own statement)..that’s how such an argument works..just as many draw conclusions that a person must be guilty if they plead the fifth which is also fallacy..and typically doesn’t hold up in court…That’s just a fact..Now we all known historians don’t record everything (put to the side the fact they don’t have every information at hand..there many other reasons). We can also assume that the lack of interest is one reason and not because nothing remarkable happen.. It is a proven fact that the growth of the new religion known as Christianity was problematic to the long existing one for Jews and for the Roman empire..and though the new believers calling themselves christians are known to be among them-yet there lack historical documents…which common for people and events outside of the Bible..which is why such an argument just don’t hold weight period.

        • Which doesn’t respond to the point I made.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Of course it does…unless you just want us to be assuming all day on why another did or didn’t do something…and that leads to no facts.

        • If something remarkable happened that historians of the time ought to have recorded–and they didn’t record it–then you’ve got a puzzle. A very straightforward explanation would be that there was nothing remarkable to record. The other gospels don’t even record it.

          I predict that you’ll sidestep this again, at which point I’ll conclude that it was stupid of me to give you a second try.

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no sidestepping- you want to get into a conversation of merely opinions and not facts.. that is what arguments of silences offer. You are assuming that historian ought to record something remarkable (The clear giveaway is “ought too”)..the same way many assume if you’re innocent you ought to testify to plead innocent and not the fifth..When there are various reasons why innocent people do plead the fifth or exercise their right to remain silent..as well as a number of reasons why historians did not record everything-remarkable or not…To all logical thinkers silences or absence of evidence is not solid evidences..This is one of the basic legal grounds..

        • You like facts? It doesn’t look like it, but let’s go with that. I’m all about the facts, and I laid out some facts and a plausible explanation. Your challenge (which you’ve avoided so far) is to propose a more plausible explanation to those facts.

          When there are various reasons . . . why historians did not record everything-remarkable or not

          Then propose one that explains the facts better than my explanation.

          To all logical thinkers silences or absence of evidence is not solid evidences.

          “Not solid evidences”? Not sure what that means, but if your point is that absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence, I agree with you. That’s not what I said.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Bob: You like facts? It doesn’t look like it, but let’s go with that. I’m all about the
          facts, and I laid out some facts and a plausible explanation. Your challenge (which you’ve
          avoided so far) is to propose a more plausible explanation to those facts. Then propose one that
          explains the facts better than my explanation.

          Wisdom Speak: You laid out a hypothesis and so did I..
          We can also assume that the lack of interest is one reason or political and not because nothing remarkable happen.. It
          is a proven fact that the growth of the new religion known as Christianity was problematic
          to the long existing one for Jews and for the Roman empire..

          Bob: “Not solid evidences”? Not sure what that means, but if your point is that absence of
          evidence isn’t proof of absence, I agree with you. That’s not what I said.

          Wisdom Speak: Then we seem to be in agreement-that the silence of a said event is no proof
          that said event DIDN’T happen..which is my whole point against any silences of argument stance.

        • We can also assume that the lack of interest is one reason and not because nothing remarkable happen.

          So there was a lack of interest and something remarkable happened? Not sure how you’re weaving a plausible story here. Seems to me that any historian who wrote about Jesus and knew of zombies rising from their tombs and walking around because of Jesus would write about said zombies. What am I missing?

          It is a proven fact that the growth of the new religion known as Christianity was problematic to the long existing one for Jews and for the Roman empire.

          Which is relevant how? Mark, Luke, and John probably didn’t write about zombies because there weren’t any.

          Then we seem to be in agreement-that the silence of a said event is no proof
          that said event DIDN’T happen..which is my whole point against any silences of agrument stance.

          Since I never disagreed, I wonder why you’ve been wasting my time on this.

          And I’m still waiting for a more plausible explanation than mine above (bolded).

        • Wisdom Speak

          Bob: So there was a lack of interest and something remarkable happened?
          Not sure how you’re weaving a plausible story here. Seems to me that any historian who
          wrote about Jesus and knew of zombies rising from their tombs and walking around because of Jesus would write about said zombies. What am I missing?
          Wisdom Speak: We do not know if they knew.

          Bob:Which is relevant how?
          Wisdom: Because it was posted that historians didn’t write about them. Jewish or Roman
          historians had reasons not to document them…

          Bob: Mark, Luke, and John probably didn’t write about zombies
          because there weren’t any.
          Wisdom: With that logic..then Matthew wrote about them because there were some..

          Bob:Since I never disagreed,
          Wisdom Speak: Then what was your point of “No, not an argument from silence fallacy”?
          Silence of a said event is no proof that said event DIDN’T happen..so when I made this
          point to Mark Allen Church what’s the problem?

          Bob:I wonder why you’ve been wasting my time on this.
          Wisdom Speak: I’m not responsible for how you decide to use your time.

          Bob: And I’m still waiting for a more plausible explanation than mine above (bolded).
          Wisdom Speak: “a more plausible explanation” is opinion based. I gave one already, IMHO

        • Wisdom Speak: We do not know if they knew.

          Agreed. Now let’s set that aside and weigh the information we have. Do we throw up our hands and say, “We can’t know the correct answer, so let’s talk about the weather”? Historians can’t know pretty much anything for certain, but they don’t take this approach. They evaluate the evidence and find the most plausible explanation.

          Bob: Mark, Luke, and John probably didn’t write about zombies
          because there weren’t any.
          Wisdom: With that logic..then Matthew wrote about them because there were some..

          So whether an explanation is supernatural doesn’t weigh against it? When I find a rock on my sidewalk, “someone kicked it there” and “zombies put it there” are equally plausible?

          Wisdom Speak: Then what was your point of “No, not an argument from silence fallacy”?

          The fallacy is something like, “We have no historical record of X; therefore X certainly didn’t happen.” I never said this.

          Bob: And I’m still waiting for a more plausible explanation than mine above (bolded).
          Wisdom Speak: “a more plausible explanation” is opinion based. I gave one already, IMHO

          You’re kind of a waste of time, aren’t you? Maybe you should remove the “Wisdom” from your name.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Bob:You’re kind of a waste of time, aren’t you? Maybe you should remove the “Wisdom” from your name.

          Wisdom:Would it be wise for you to not “waste time on someone you think is wasting your time”..yet you keep wasting time…now how is that wise of you?

          Bob:The fallacy is something like, “We have no historical record of X; therefore X certainly didn’t happen.” I never said this.

          Wisdom: I didn’t ask you what you didn’t say, but what you did say…here is the question once more: Then what was your point of “No, not an argument from silence fallacy”?

          Bob:Agreed. Now let’s set that aside and weigh the information we have. Do we throw up our hands and say, “We can’t know the correct answer, so let’s talk about the weather”? Historians can’t know pretty much anything for certain, but they don’t take this approach. They evaluate the evidence and find the most plausible explanation.

          Wisdom: now since we both agree that we do not know if they knew..then we cannot assume what they knew.. Which leaves us with drawing conclusion (which doesn’t necessarily equal facts..which is a very important point which entertaining any plausible explanation).

        • Wisdom:Would it be wise for you to not “waste time on someone you think is wasting your time”..yet you keep wasting time…now how is that wise of you?

          Hmm. You do speak wisdom after all.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It is what it is

        • Wisdom Speak

          It is what it is

        • Pofarmer

          We can also assume that the lack of interest is one reason or political and not because nothing remarkable happen.. It
          is a proven fact that the growth of the new religion known as Christianity was problematic
          to the long existing one for Jews and for the Roman empire..

          There were new religions and sects popping up all the time. Josephus writes about several Jewish sects. The only thing “problematic” about Christianity for the Romans was they wanted you to burn incense for the Emperor. This was true of ALL the religions in the empire.

          yet there lack historical documents…which common for people and events outside of the Bible

          Except that’s really not the case, except in your imagination.

          The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the
          time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have
          lived and performed his wonderful works:

          Josephus,

          Philo-Judaeus,

          Seneca,

          Pliny the Elder,

          Arrian,

          Petronius,

          Dion Pruseus,

          Paterculus, [25]

          Suetonius,

          Juvenal,

          Martial,

          Persius,

          Plutarch,

          Justus of Tiberius,

          Apollonius,

          Pliny the Younger,

          Tacitus,

          Quintilian,

          Lucanus,

          Epictetus,

          Silius Italicus,

          Statius,

          Ptolemy,

          Hermogones,

          Valerius Maximus,

          Appian,

          Theon of Smyrna,

          Phlegon,

          Pompon Mela,

          Quintius Curtius

          Lucian,

          Pausanias,

          Valerius Flaccus,

          Florus Lucius,

          Favorinus,

          Phaedrus,

          Damis,

          Aulus Gellius,

          Columella,

          Dio Chrysostom,

          Lysias,

          Appion of Alexandria.

          Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list
          remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan
          literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish
          author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there
          is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

          And that’s not even a start.

          http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm#ch2

        • Greg G.

          Justus of Tiberius is notable because he was from Galilee. He wrote an account of the first century war between Judea and the Romans and a history from Moses to Agrippa II. Photius wrote in the 9th century that the latter work never mentioned Jesus.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Pofarmer: There were new religions and sects popping up all the time.

          Wisdom Speak: And? They were problematic as well

          Pofarmer:Josephus writes about several Jewish sects.

          Wisdom Speak: And Jesus and Christianity were among them..But that wasn’t what the conversation has been about, but about an event.

          Pofarmer: The only thing “problematic” about Christianity for the Romans was
          they wanted you to burn incense for the Emperor.
          This was true of ALL the religions in the empire.

          Wisdom Speak: So what’s the problem? I stated it was problematic and it was

          Pofarmer: (Wisdom Speak: yet there lack historical documents…which common for people and events outside of the Bible) Except that’s really not the case, except in your imagination.

          The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:

          Wisdom Speak:You seem confused..I stated there lack historical document for people and events OUTSIDE of the Bible..Examples: King Arthur, who isn’t mentioned in the only surviving source about the Saxon invasion.

          Pofarmer:Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

          Wisdom Speak: Of course one would claim forgy for the passages that do exist among those writers…But that’s not the same as they aren’t found among those authors because they are….your argument is they are only found among the records because of forgey (that’s totally different claim).

        • Pofarmer

          Examples: King Arthur, who isn’t mentioned in the only surviving source about the Saxon invasion.

          That example is very appropriate, because King Arthur, like Jesus, is a fictional character.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Pofarmer: That example is very appropriate, because King Arthur, like Jesus, is a fictional character.

          Wisdom Speak: Aww just the point to be had-yet the Welsh historian named Nennius documented a dozen of his battles…so that brings it to the question at hand-are historical documents reliable and if not-then the lack of documents of a said event also doesn’t mean it’s not factual.

        • Pofarmer

          Uh huh. From wiki.

          “Originally written as a history of the Britons in an attempt to document a legitimate past, the Historia Brittonum contains stories of legend and superstition alike.[14] The historical accuracy of the Historia Brittonum is at best questionable, “

        • Wisdom Speak

          wiki is not a reliable source.

        • Pofarmer

          I suggest you go through the cited books and journal papers, then.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I wouldn’t know which information you’re using to make your case. You would need to cite from the books and journal of your choice.

        • So if it’s in Wikipedia, you know that it’s false? You need to back that up. Or perhaps don’t run away from an argument with this caltrop and hope that your opponent won’t laugh at you.

          The source is right there: footnote 14 is “Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1974. 11″

          Not a reliable source? Explain yourself.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Don’t add to my statements please. Nowhere did I say if it’s in Wiki it is false. I said it’s not a reliable source because everyone know anyone can add or subtract information to it…be it true or false data..

        • And I say it is a reliable source because (1) studies comparing it to Britannica show it to compete quite well and (2) the sources used to make the statements in Wikipedia are often (as in this case) right there. It takes you about 3 seconds to go from “Wikipedia says” to ” ‘Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1974. 11’ says.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          Just the fact I can go to Wiki right now and edit Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1974. 11′ says.” makes it unreliable..

        • Wow. You slice through all that reason and evidence like it were the Gordian Knot. Impressive.

          There you have it, folks: proof that Wikipedia is unreliable.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Keyword: unreliable
          and it is…if I go change the information right now..would you be able to quote from it again as “evidence”? no you cannot..which makes it unreliable….which isn’t the same as claiming it has no available facts..

        • Wisdom Speak

          As far as “bodies sleep” (Example:catalepsy or coma in response to “ZOMBIFIED”)

        • Greg G.

          Like practically everything in the Gospels, the authors were borrowing ideas from other writings. I mentioned Isaiah 26:19 which has the dead becoming “awake”. Ezekiel 37:7-13 is another prophecy about the dead regrowing tissue and coming back to life. Matthew used many Old Testament prophecies to create fictional accounts.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The body in a state of coma or catalepsy is not a fictional idea that needs to be borrowed…it is an actual proven physical/medical experience that is not limited to any group.

        • Greg G.

          That several people in such a condition were buried at the same time and all came to with the ability to walk into the city and talk is nearly as ridiculous as dead people coming to life.

          It is all a fictional story. That’s why the early epistles say nothing about a preacher/teacher from Galilee because that stuff was not made up yet. They were still inventing the rising savior.

          The zombies were invented from the suggestions of the made up stuff in the Old Testament.

        • MR

          That several people in such a condition were buried at the same time and all came to with the ability to walk into the city and talk is nearly as ridiculous as dead people coming to life.

          One does marvel at the justifications people will make. It makes you want to be there in person so you can say, “Do you hear how stupid you sound right now?”

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no justification needed-as I have yet to give any personal position..I’m stating facts…if some have never studied the actual wording of the Bible and simply go by what is traditionally learned then that is foolish on their part.. The facts are most people do come out of comas and function somewhat normal (“ironic” enough-the chances are greater if it’s done within three days) @ and all came to with the ability to walk into the city and talk

        • MR

          And you deftly sidestep Greg’s point and come across as dishonest as well. Only a gullible person would buy your argument. One does marvel at the justifications people will make.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I’ve addressed all his points-you may disagree with them, but they have been addressed. But feel free to point out any point he made that wasn’t addressed..

        • Wisdom Speak

          He stated that:That several people in such a condition were buried at the same time
          I addressed the fact that vivisepulture was used as a method by ancient Rome.

          He stated that:all came to with the ability to walk into the city and talk I addressed the fact that most coma sufferers do come out of this relatively normal especially within three days

          He stated:nearly as ridiculous as dead people coming to life.
          I addressed that by reminding him people come back to life all the time (CPR being one avenue).

          His points have been addressed…you can disagree with them, but not with them being addressed.

        • MR

          I don’t think you realize how stupid you sound.

        • Wisdom Speak

          no need for insults or this conversation will not continue..

        • MR

          It’s not an insult. It’s an observation. If some other religion made a similar claim, I’m sure you’d scoff yourself if someone made the same justification. As far as this conversation continuing. I didn’t realize we were having a conversation. I was just pointing out how ridiculous you sound.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Calling someone stupid is an insult…anything further along those lines will end the exchange…I have no need to insult someone of a different belief than I..I can handle a healthy conversation with respect. same goes with telling someone they sound ridiculous..if you cannot do the same..then we have nothing further to discuss.

        • MR

          I didn’t say you were stupid. The argument is stupid. Obviously so. I just pointed that out. I don’t need a conversation, I’ve made my point. Any objective observer can see how ridiculous what you said is. You don’t even need to throw in Christianity or religion to see how stupid the argument is.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We all have opinions..they are neither here nor there.

        • MR

          False equivalence. It’s a stupid argument.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I thought you made your point?

        • MR

          I thought you weren’t interested in a conversation. You seem to want to defend a silly argument. I’m just pointing out the obvious.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I’m not interested in a conversation if you’re not going to be respectful. If you believe you made your point and the argument is silly-why are you engaging? Now if you want to continue the dialogue then do so without belittling my stands with insulting words.

        • MR

          I’m engaging because I think it’s important to point out when people make (and continue to defend) stupid arguments. As long as you keep justifying it, I’ll continue to point out how stupid it is. I’m not interested in conversation so much as pointing out to people how ridiculous these arguments sound.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Anything could sound ridiculous to anyone who doesn’t understand.

        • MR

          Any[thing] can sound believable to the gullible.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So you agree that when something can’t be comprehended it would sound ridiculous?

        • One example: the Trinity sounds ridiculous, and Christians defend it by saying it can’t be comprehended. I’m not sure if this example is relevant, but FYI.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I personally don’t see what’s so difficult with the concept of the trinity..God is not a name..it’s a title…just like our last name that is shared among our family…in the Godhead..you have an obvious father, son and then there is the holy Spirit.

        • That’s Partialism. Congratulations, you’re a heretic.

        • Wisdom Speak

          you would be incorrect

        • Wisdom Speak

          How did you get confused? You’re a Seidensticker and if you have a brother he may be one as owell and maybe your dad, maybe your son..all Seidensticker as a family and as individual men. The Father is God (title), The Son is God (title), and the Holy Spirit is God-all three are a family of God..you would have to purposely confuse yourself..

        • Greg G.
        • “We’re just simple people, Patrick.”

          “Yeah, Patrick.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          It’s only bad if you refuse to understand something so simple.

        • Greg G.

          You haven’t thought it through.

          https://pulpitandpen.org/list-of-heresies/
          https://www.monergism.com/topics/cults-heresy-heretics/trinitarian-heresies

          If you think it is simple, give a simple, unheretical definition of the Trinity.

        • Wisdom Speak

          What am I supposed to get from those links?
          And I just gave you an unheretical definition of the Trinity.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why are you showing me a link to modalism….when I stated that they were three distinct entities NOT one with different roles..That is why I used Bob and his family as Seidensticker and not just Bob playing different roles like father/son/grandson….you seem confused..

        • Wisdom Speak

          A The three-leaf clover would be an analogy for partialism..another bad analogy would have been a man being a father/son/grandson..which means one man playing different roles..which is inaccurate because Father/Son/Holy Spirit are three distinct entities..which is why mines is correct.. Seidensticker,his father, brother, son are all different people/Seidensticker of their own AND together they are Seidenstickers..real simple

        • Three leaves in a clover is an imperfect analogy, just like three people sharing a name is imperfect. Or yoke, white, and shell in an egg. Or ice, water, and steam. Or 3 lines that make a triangle. And so on. Some are the Partialism heresy, and some are the Modalism heresy.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Not name sharing…because you’re distinct entities as well as a family

        • Greg G.

          Seidensticker,his father, brother, son are all different people/Seidensticker of their own AND together they are Seidenstickers..real simple

          If you mean they are different people, then it is the heresy of partialism. If you mean the roles of father, brother, and son, then it is modalism. The father-son relationship is Arianism. Good thing I am not an old-fashioned Christian else I would have to burn you at the stake.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Wrong-that’s not what partialism is…partialism means they aren’t God on their own…they need to be God together…

        • Have you studied Greg’s video above? It’s a cartoon–you’ll like it.

        • Wisdom Speak

          so you agree or disagree with what partialism is?

        • Wisdom Speak

          You’re wrong about Arianism as well..I’ve previously stated a few good times that they are God on their own and and and and together…You have God the father (GOD), God the Son (God), and the Spirit of God (God)…all separate entities who are God on their own and and and and together..that biblical trinity which goes against partialism (which means they need to be together to be God), modalism (which means it’s one entity playing different roles), and arianism (which denies the divinity of Christ)…

        • You’re mapping the Trinity to 3 members of a family. That’s Partialism.

          Here’s a tip that I’ve seen echoed by theologians: if you think you understand the Trinity, you don’t understand the Trinity. (Y’know, like quantum mechanics except that quantum mechanics actually has evidence that it’s a thing.)

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s not Partialism…Partialism is they are only God together …meaning they are only part God separately . You’re a Seidensticker with or without your dad, brother, or son being one and they are Seidensticker on their own as well..And together yall are Seidensticker as well…sorry it’s not complex..

        • More complex than you appreciate, apparently.

          The Athanasian Creed says: “there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one.” There is no Seidensticker equivalent of the unity expressed in that second sentence.

          Why am I teaching you about Christian basics?

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s the The Athanasian Creed not the Bible…not one and the same..apparently you don’t know Christianity as you think

        • There’s Trinity in the Athanasian Creed, but there’s not in the Bible. Apparently you don’t know Christianity as you think.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You seem confused about what christianity is.. you mean the word trinity isn’t in the Bible..not that trinity isn’t..

          1 John 5:7
          For there are three that bear witness [a]in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

        • What does the [a] refer to? Go look up Johannine Comma. We’ll wait.

          Moron.

        • Wisdom Speak

          This conversation is over between us..there is no need for name calling..if you can’t handle a healthy exchange as an adult.

        • Another brilliant deflection! You switched topics so smoothly that I didn’t even notice that you ran away from the original question, which was your attempt to show that the Trinity is defined in the Bible.

          You’re good!

        • Wisdom Speak

          no need for you to hide behind a deflection claim when I made it clear..I don’t engage disrespect..if you want to continue..you would need to apologize for calling me a moron or this is the last post between us on this topic.

        • That puts a damper on our budding friendship. Dang.

        • Wisdom Speak

          And yes it is a Seidensticker equivalent of unity..that is what one is…same as a husband and wife shall be one. you and your wife-Seidensticker

        • Husband and wife are “one” in the same way that the Father and Son are “one”? You’ll have to share your innovation with Christian theologians. You can make up whatever bullshit you want (I’m not complaining–everyone else does), but don’t pretend that this stuff is traditional Christian doctrine.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Bob:
          Husband and wife are “one” in the same way that the Father and Son are “one”?

          Wisdom:
          you were talking about the equivalent of unity..

        • Greg G.

          The Family Analogy of the Trinity can be Partialism when you have each separate, Modalism when you have each in a different role, and Arianism with the father-son relationship as one must be a creation of the other.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Partialism is when you believe they are NOT God on their own..that they need to be together to be God.. that’s not the trinity.. The Bible clearly speaks of God the Father, God the Son, and the Spirit of God…they are all God on their own as well as God together..Just like Bob Seidensticker is Seidensticker as Bob, his son is a Seidensticker as (insert his name), and his father is a Seidensticker as (insert his name) AND together they are a family of Seidensticker….sorry you have to purposely confuse yourself on this one.

        • How is “the Spirit of God” God on its own? Perhaps a Bible quote is what I need.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re all spirits

        • MR

          I agree the argument is a stupid one.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So you don’t understand…which makes sense since none of us comprehend everything.

        • MR

          Words of advice from the gullible, thank you.

        • Wisdom Speak

          so you agree you don’t understand and comprehend everything…we all know that already..no need to thank me for pointing out the obvious..it’s true for all of us.

        • MR

          Get back to me when you’ve convinced someone.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s no answer

        • MR

          Yours is no solution.

        • Wisdom Speak

          What solution is needed?

        • MR

          Are you still on?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Are you?

        • Susan

          So you agree that when something can’t be comprehended it would sound ridiculous?

          Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it would sound ridiculous?

          Anything could sound ridiculous to anyone who doesn’t understand.

          What are you saying that you think MR doesn’t understand?

          Have you considered the possibility that he understands what you are saying but that he finds it ridiculous on its face?

          For instance, I don’t understand quantum theory but I don’t consider it ridiculous. Because when I dig deep, as a layperson, I can see the methodology and the justification for the theory behind it. Also, the evidence that supports it.

          Same goes for biology and many. many other subjects.

          But when someone makes some looloo statement on the internet without showing sound methodology, rigorous justification, and no particular support by the evidence, then it appears ridiculous.

          Are you familiar with the concept of special pleading?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Susan:
          Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it would sound ridiculous?

          Wisdom: Answering a question with a question is not an answer. But anything that you can’t comprehend or perceived as ridiculous would sound ridiculous.

          Susan:
          What are you saying that you think MR doesn’t understand?

          Wisdom:
          There is no way of telling what another understands..even we don’t know if we understand something..we only can assume we do.

          Susan:
          Have you considered the possibility that he understands what you are saying but that he finds it ridiculous on its face?

          Wisdom:
          We all assume we understood something before, but we all been wrong before about assuming.

          Susan:
          For instance, I don’t understand quantum theory but I don’t consider it ridiculous. Because when I dig deep, as a layperson, I can see the methodology and the justification for the theory behind it. Also, the evidence that supports it.

          Same goes for biology and many, many other subjects.

          Wisdom:
          You’re making my point..you don’t find the above ridiculous because you assume you understand something about it (It doesn’t have to be a full understanding of it)..you just said it is because there is evidence that support it and you can see the methodology and you digged deep…without those “understanding” parts of the theory that you believe you comprehend..it doesn’t sound ridiculous to you..

          Susan:
          But when someone makes some looloo statement on the internet without showing sound methodology, rigorous justification, and no particular support by the evidence, then it appears ridiculous.

          Wisdom:
          You’re correct in saying it “appears” ridiculous which doesn’t mean it is..Now..nobody else is responsible for what another person understands,logic,reasoning or what they comprehend…that is why you are the one who digged deep to find your own acceptances of the possibility of quantum theory…same applies to spiritual and religious understanding..

          Susan:
          Are you familiar with the concept of special pleading?

          Wisdom: Why?

        • Susan

          Wisdom: Answering a question with a question is not an answer. But anything that you can’t comprehend or perceived as ridiculous would sound ridiculous.

          Typing “wisdom” in front of points you don’t justify will not get people to concede those points. It’s pretty childish, actually. And dare I say, ridiculous?

          I answered you with an answer. I also asked you a question that you avoided answering.

          My answer was that no. Just because I don’t understand something doesn’t mean I perceive it as ridiculous. Not if it’s supported by solid models and lots of evidence. You ignored my answer.

          I gave you examples such as quantum physics and biology. I can also add Lithuanian, architecture, engineering, traffic systems and maintenance, piloting a 747, heart surgery, all sorts of things.

          That I don’t understand them does not mean they seem ridiculous to me.

          My answer is no.

          Now, will you answer my question? If something is ridiculous will it sound ridiculous to you?

          Now..nobody else is responsible for what another person understands,logic,reasoning or what they comprehend

          The person who claims to be using logic, reasoning to justify that they “comprehend” something is responsible for showing their logic, reason, and that they actually comprehend something.

          Or they could just be another looloo on the internet.

          Wisdom: Why?

          Interesting response from someone whose opening response was “Wisdom: Answering a question with a question is not an answer.”

          I’ll ask you again. Are you familiar with special pleading?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Susan:
          Typing “wisdom” in front of points you don’t justify will not get people to concede those points. It’s pretty childish, actually. And dare I say, ridiculous?

          Wisdom:
          Wisdom is my username which is typed in front of my replies in the same I type “Susan” in front of your comments.

          Susan:
          I answered you with an answer.

          Wisdom:
          No you didn’t..Here it is:
          ME:So you agree that when something can’t be comprehended it would sound ridiculous?
          YOU:Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it would sound ridiculous?

          Susan:
          I also asked you a question that you avoided answering.
          Now, will you answer my question? If something is ridiculous will it sound ridiculous to you?

          Wisdom:
          What question would that be? This one: Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it would sound ridiculous? My answer was: But anything that you can’t comprehend or perceived as ridiculous would sound ridiculous.

          Susan:
          Interesting response from someone whose opening response was “Wisdom: Answering a question with a question is not an answer.”

          I’ll ask you again. Are you familiar with special pleading?

          Wisdom: I don’t recall saying my reply was an answer to your question. I’m asking you why are asking because special pleading in my opinion has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

          Susan:
          My answer was that no. Just because I don’t understand something doesn’t mean I perceive it as ridiculous. Not if it’s supported by solid models and lots of evidence. You ignored my answer.

          I gave you examples such as quantum physics and biology. I can also add Lithuanian, architecture, engineering, traffic systems and maintenance, piloting a 747, heart surgery, all sorts of things.

          That I don’t understand them does not mean they seem ridiculous to me.

          Wisdom:
          I fully addressed your answer…and you’re actually agreeing with me but don’t seem to know it..You don’t find those things ridiculous because by your own witness you believe you understand or comprehend partial..we’re talking about finding something ridiculous because there is no comprehension of a matter..

          Susan:
          The person who claims to be using logic, reasoning to justify that they “comprehend” something is responsible for showing their logic, reason, and that they actually comprehend something.

          Wisdom:
          In other words you agree with my statement that nobody else is responsible for what another person understands,logic,reasoning or what they comprehend

        • Susan

          Wisdom is my username which is typed in front of my replies in the same I type “Susan” in front of your comments.

          My mistake. I was so busy trying to sort through a badly formatted comment that was aimed at suggesting that “things that look ridiculous”, only because they “can’t be comprehended”, that I missed your name. Sorry about that.

          If you look at the grey rectangle at the bottom of the comment box, you’ll see that you can click on the “quote” symbol and copy/paste that comment between the two pointy brackets in the middle.

          I’ll respond to the rest in my next comment (which, knowing Disqus, will appear before this one in the final comment history.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Susan: My mistake.Sorry about that.

          Wisdom: No problem

        • Susan

          No you didn’t..Here it is:
          ME:So you agree that when something can’t be comprehended it would sound ridiculous?
          YOU:Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it would sound ridiculous?

          Yes, I did… twice. I explained that just because I’m unable to comprehend something doesn’t mean that it’s ridiculous.

          It’s when something lacks solid models and evidence to support it, that it sounds ridiculous.

          I fully addressed your answer…and you’re actually agreeing with me but don’t seem to know it.

          No. You haven’t provided solid models and evidence. You’re a guy on the internet trying to pretend that his ridiculous statements only seem ridiculous because they are incomprehensible.

          MR is correct.

          That is not how “wisdom” works.

          You still haven’t answered. Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it sounds ridiculous?

          you agree with my statement that nobody else is responsible for what another person understands,logic,reasoning or what they comprehend

          No. If someone wants to use terms like “logic”, “reasoning” and “comprehension”, they need to show that they are using the first two and possess the last one.

          Or they’re just another guy on the internet making shit up and calling themselves “Wisdom”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Susan:
          Yes, I did… twice. I explained that just because I’m unable to comprehend something doesn’t mean that it’s ridiculous.

          It’s when something lacks solid models and evidence to support it, that it sounds ridiculous.

          Wisdom: that’s not what I asked.. I asked:
          So you agree that when something can’t be comprehended it would sound ridiculous? (when you answer this question-I’ll re-answer your question:You still haven’t answered (as you haven’t answered mines). Do you agree that when something is ridiculous that it sounds ridiculous?)

          Susan:
          No. You haven’t provided solid models and evidence. You’re a guy on the internet trying to pretend that his ridiculous statements only seem ridiculous because they are incomprehensible.

          Wisdom:
          You haven’t been paying close attention. my reply to Greg:
          Now back to the point of said claim…Wiki (for its fans) confirms that it was “commonplace” for “Revivals of supposed “corpses” (there’s your so-called zombies that one would need to tell themselves in order to feel confident in their rejection of biblical claims) to be triggered by a number of factors…this was not some fictional event..and that vivisepulture happened often in/by ancient Rome just like crucifixion..These are just facts…

          1.premature deaths did occur/vivisepulture was common (so it wasn’t a strange claim “that several people got buried simultaneously during the week before Passover”..

          2. And Revivals of supposed “corpses” are documented so then “all of them came awake at the same time and went visiting” just not as fictional as you want to belief.

          Susan: That is not how “wisdom” works. Or they’re just another guy on the internet making shit up and calling themselves “Wisdom”.

          Wisdom: why does this username bother you? That’s the real question for you..

          Susan: No. If someone wants to use terms like “logic”, “reasoning” and “comprehension”, they need to show that they are using the first two and possess the last one.

          Wisdom: so now somebody else is responsible for how your logic, reasoning, and how you’re going to comprehend information shared with you? That’s not how wisdom works…didn’t you just state earlier you did your own heavy digging and that is how you came to the conclusion that something didn’t sound ridiculous to you…now you want me to do some heavy digging for you when it comes to religion and God for it to not sound ridiculous to you ? That is spiritual laziness.. You’re responsible for your own soul.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I’m not interesting in a conversation of disrespect that’s not the same as not being interested in a conversation.. Lets focus on the actual arguments..calling them silly will not make your point of view hold anymore weight..

        • Wisdom Speak

          It’s not false..it’s very true..opinions aren’t here are there..that is why you keep calling a different one than the one you hold silly in a weak attempt to make your opinion sound like fact…but it doesn’t work..it’s still just a mere opinion..one and the same.

        • Greg G.

          His points have been addressed…you can disagree with them, but not with them being addressed.

          You haven’t addressed that Matthew got his ideas from the Old Testament such as in:

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4222590290

          and

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4222302697

        • Wisdom Speak

          How would I know where he got his ideas? I’m not into assuming..And what ideas would be exclusively found in the Old Testament since there is nothing new under the sun?

        • Greg G.

          How would I know where he got his ideas? I’m not into assuming..

          We can tell by the verbatim quotes that Matthew used Mark and the Septuagint as sources. We can tell that Matthew changed some of the sources, often for theological reasons. Since we know he was reading those works, we can infer that he makes allusions to other passages without quoting them verbatim.

          We can see that Matthew used Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews for his nativity story. Matthew made his nativity like Moses’ nativity with babies being killed by the ruler. But the reason for Pharaoh actions in Exodus was over concern for the numbers of the Jews in Egypt while in Antiquities 2, Pharaoh acted in fear of a prophecy. In Antiquities 17, Herod the Great had his son put to death out of fear of a prophecy, so Matthew appears to have put them together. Exodus has no warning in the father’s dream but Antiquities does and Matthew used it twice. Antiquities also says that Herod’s son was the ruler which Matthew uses to make it say that the family went to Nazareth to fulfill another OT verse. The Magi are probably invented from Antiquities 17 where the Pharisees are described as having the ability of foresight. Their gifts are described in Exodus 30 and in Antiquities 3. Out of six possible orders to mention the gifts, Matthew uses the same order as Antiquities, not Exodus.

          Matthew even quotes Septuagint verses as a framework for his story: Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2, Hosea 11:1, and Jeremiah 31:15.

          So we can infer that Matthew made up fictional stories using other texts. We should think again before accepting any account as reliable.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You do know you just gave a long reason why you’re assuming (“infer”) right?
          And that’s not what I asked.. I asked how would I KNOW because I’m not into assuming…

        • Wisdom Speak

          Then you need to study history closer- vivisepulture was used as a means of torture and execution.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg: nearly as ridiculous as dead people coming to life.

          Wisdom Speak: If only it was that simple….being that death (or better yet “recent” deaths) aren’t so easily defined…Clinical Death has shown to be iffy…We know of those who have been completely brain dead yet can gestate babies..then there is the heart stop beating on it’s on-dead? Yet we have machines who can revive the heart-alive? Then there is CPR…Dead people come back to life all the time…

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg:That several people in such a condition were buried at the same time

          Wisdom Speak:Then you need to study history closer- vivisepulture was used as a means of torture and execution….and yes even by ancient Rome.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Now back to the actual wording (and NOT the interpretations of others) of the scripture in question in the gospel of Matthew 27:52. It is written that the bodies of many (not all) of the saints which slept arose. No further information is given on when these bodies went to sleep (before or after being placed into their graves or what the cause or medical terms of such a physical conditions).
          What we do know that medically speaking-the body can appear to be in a death state (coma may be the most common one and often times is associated with “sleeping” because the body cannot be awakened.. Vivisepulture (of a relatively healthy person) can bring on a coma due to being deprived of oxygen.

        • Greg G.

          You are grasping at straws. Matthew says the bodies of the saints which slept arose. That is an indication that the “sleep” is a euphemism for being dead. Matthew used the same root word for “sleep” with the excuse the guards made but they didn’t say that their bodies were asleep. I count ten times in the epistles where that root word is used and it is always used as a euphemism, never as literal sleep. The same root word is used in John 11:11-12 referring to Lazarus.

          If the people were in an airtight grave, nobody would know whether they were alive and “sleeping” or dead, anyway. You are making things up, just as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg:You are grasping at straws. Matthew says the bodies of the saints which slept arose. That is an indication that the “sleep” is a euphemism for being dead.

          Wisdom Speak: That’s an assumption and a personal interpretation for Matt:9 vs 24 clearly states she’s not dead, but sleep.

          Greg:Matthew used the same root word for “sleep” with the excuse the guards made but they didn’t say that their bodies were asleep. I count ten times in the epistles where that root word is used and it is always used as a euphemism, never as literal sleep. The same root word is used in John 11:11-12 referring to Lazarus.

          Wisdom Speak: You do know that root word is not the meaning itself right?

          Greg:If the people were in an airtight grave, nobody would know whether they were alive and “sleeping” or dead, anyway.

          Wisdom Speak: You keep adding in your thoughts and assumptions. It’s not stated that the graves were airtight.

        • Greg G.

          You do know that root word is not the meaning itself right?

          The root of the word refers to “sleep”.

          You keep adding in your thoughts and assumptions. It’s not stated that the graves were airtight

          No, you said, “Vivisepulture (of a relatively healthy person) can bring on a coma due to being deprived of oxygen.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg: The root of the word refers to “sleep”.
          Wisdom Speak: Yes, but root words aren’t the same as the meaning of the word..it shows relations.

          Greg:No, you said, “Vivisepulture (of a relatively healthy person) can bring on a coma due to being deprived of oxygen.”
          Wisdom Speak: Graves don’t have to be airtight for that.

        • Wisdom Speak

          And please note the differences in cerebral hypoxia and cerebral anoxia when factoring in oxygen deprivation…

        • Greg G.

          Yes, but root words aren’t the same as the meaning of the word..it shows relations.

          Do you have any examples involving this particular word not being used in relation to “sleep” or as a euphemism or metaphor for “being dead”? Or are you just trying to derail the discussion?

          Graves don’t have to be airtight

          They have to be somewhat airtight to do what you are proposing. That is the point. You seem to be intent on derailing the conversation by obsessing over the strict meaning of the word when the implication is obvious.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg: Do you have any examples involving this particular word not being used in relation to “sleep” or as a euphemism or metaphor for “being dead”? Or are you just trying to derail the discussion?

          Wisdom Speak: Did you miss the part about The Lord clearly stated about the young girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 she wasn’t dead, but sleep?

          Greg:They have to be somewhat airtight to do what you are proposing. That is the point.

          Wisdom Speak: “somewhat airtight” isn’t airtight..so no that is not the point…that’s a huge differences. And please note the differences in cerebral hypoxia and cerebral anoxia when factoring in oxygen deprivation…

          Greg: You seem to be intent on derailing the conversation by obsessing over the strict meaning of the word when the implication is obvious.

          Wisdom Speak: No you want wiggle room for the meaning because that is the only way to allow in a personal interpretation than what the writer actually wrote.

        • Greg G.

          Did you miss the part about The Lord clearly stated about the young girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 she wasn’t dead, but sleep?

          I already explained to you that a different word is being used for sleep and the word in chapter 9 is never used as a metaphor for actual death.

          “somewhat airtight” isn’t airtight..so no that is not the point…that’s a huge differences. And please note the differences in cerebral hypoxia and cerebral anoxia when factoring in oxygen deprivation…

          Now you are being pedantic to dodge the point I made.

          No you want wiggle room for the meaning because that is the only way to allow in a personal interpretation than what the writer actually wrote.

          Here is how Strong’s Concordance counts the use of the word:
          https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2837&t=KJV

          It is used 19 times in 18 verses. Five of those times it actually refers to “sleep”. Every other time it is a metaphor for “dead” or for “unaware”.

          You need to pay attention to the context where a word is used. When the context involves tombs, it is absurd to refuse to consider that it is meant as being dead.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Geg: Now you are being pedantic to dodge the point I made.

          Wisdom:No I’m not.. “somewhat airtight” and “airtight” completely change the point…which is why I asked you to note the differences in cerebral hypoxia and cerebral anoxia when factoring in oxygen deprivation…

          Greg:Here is how Strong’s Concordance counts the use of the word:
          https://www.blueletterbible

          It is used 19 times in 18 verses. Five of those times it actually refers to “sleep”. Every other time it is a metaphor for “dead” or for “unaware”.

          You need to pay attention to the context where a word is used. When the context involves tombs, it is absurd to refuse to consider that it is meant as being dead.

          Wisdom: You just made my point..sleep isn’t always a metaphor for “dead”…it actually means sleep or unaware in the scriptures in some places…you’re asking me to assume in means dead when the context involves tombs even though we historically know people were buried alive throughout history? that is what sounds absurd to me.

        • Greg G.

          sleep isn’t always a metaphor for “dead”

          >Eye roll< I have never said that “sleep” always means “death”. Sometimes it is a euphemism. You have responded at least three times to me today after disappearing for two months. In one of them, you quote me saying specifically that “sleep” does not mean “death” in the passage, but you were trying to make it out that I was contradicting myself. Now you are doing a switcheroo and trying to make like you were arguing the point I was trying to make to you all along.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why do you care I haven’t posted in two months? I’m busy…
          You must have lost track of the whole conversation in those two months if you think I’m the one doing the switching.. anyone can go to the beginning of all exchanges in this conversation and see it was I who first introduced that sleep wasn’t always death in the scriptures…nice try

        • Greg G.

          You brought up “bodies sleep” in response to Mark Allen Church in https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4221505397

          I responded by pointing out Isaiah 26:19 which has cleary dead corpses coming “awake” in https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4222302697

          You began talking about comas and catalepsy in https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4222409489

          I brought up metaphor and euphemism in https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4223285473

          Now you have begun to mischaracterize what I said two months ago. I do not care that it was two months ago, it is the mischaracterization of what I said.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So you agree I brought up bodies sleep not always meaning death first-so how would I be the one switching up? My point about comas and catalepsy was made BEFORE you brought up Isaiah and it was directed to Mark Allen Church first so you’re the one mischaracterizing the whole exchange.

        • Wisdom Speak

          And if I’m not mistaken, As far as “bodies sleep” (Example:catalepsy or coma in response to “ZOMBIFIED”) was my first comment in this thread..then I repeated to Mark Allen..so that was stated by me twice before your Isaiah and metaphor and euphemism comments..so please don’t accuse me of mischaracterization when clearly you’re the one guilty of it.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The Lord clearly stated about the young girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 she wasn’t dead (even though the people assumed she was)..that her body was in some form of “sleep” state (like a coma), but with Lazarus; it is plainly stated he is dead (John 11 vs 14). When we look at Acts 20:10 we have another example of what may had appear as death-being stated that the life was still within the man.

        • Greg G.

          The root word for “sleep” in Matthew 9 is a different word that is never used as a euphemism for death in the New Testament, except Ephesians 5:14 where “being dead” is being used as a metaphor for “being unaware”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg:The root word for “sleep” in Matthew 9 is a different word that is never used as a euphemism for death in the New Testament, except Ephesians 5:14 where “being dead” is being used as a metaphor for “being unaware”.

          Wisdom Speak: You do know the root word is not the meaning of the word…

        • Greg G.

          The meaning of the word makes it available for use as a metaphor or a euphemism.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg: The meaning of the word makes it available for use as a metaphor or a euphemism.

          Wisdom Speak: That brings us back to personal interpretation and assumptions and not what is actually written..which is the whole point..most arguments is with the former (personal interpretations… like the people were dead) ..and thus people are confused with the latter (what is actually written like the BODIES were sleep). Now when we get to Lazarus ..it is actually written he is dead and when we get to the young girl..it is actually written that she is not dead, but sleep…

        • Greg G.

          In the verse in question, the subject is the bodies that are aroused. That is a dead give-away that Matthew is saying the saints were dead. The fact that the graves were opened and they came out of the tombs are more dead give-aways that Matthew is saying they were dead.

          With all of the references to the graves and the common use of the word as a euphemism for death, if Matthew meant “sleeping”, he should have used the word he used in chapter 9 to be clear.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg:In the verse in question, the subject is the bodies that are aroused. That is a dead give-away that Matthew is saying the saints were dead.

          Wisdom Speak: That’s your interpretation..the little girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 wasn’t dead, but sleep yet she arose in the next vs. as well

          Greg:The fact that the graves were opened and they came out of the tombs are more dead give-aways that Matthew is saying they were dead.

          Wisdom Speak: That’s your interpretation again..We just had a long conversation on premature burials

          Greg: With all of the references to the graves and the common use of the word as a euphemism for death, if Matthew meant “sleeping”, he should have used the word he used in chapter 9 to be clear.

          Wisdom Speak: The problem is in your own understanding and comprehension which is a give away in what you felt he should have used to be clear.. because his written words are very clear..It is the bodies that sleep..it is the girl who isn’t dead, but sleep..it is Lazarus who is dead…

        • Greg G.

          That’s your interpretation..the little girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 wasn’t dead, but sleep yet she arose in the next vs. as well

          Matthew 9 comes from Mark 5. In both stories, Jesus specifically says that the girl is “not dead” but that she is “sleeping”. It is not used as a euphemism. In Matthew 27, the word “sleep is used in conjunction with tombs which shows it is intended to be a metaphor.

          It is the bodies that sleep

          Bodies that are dead are not asleep but the word used for sleep is used to mean “dead” many times in the New Testament.

        • MR

          Religious belief is an intricate dance of justification after justification. When you’re constantly eschewing the obvious for… yet another justification…, at what point do people stop taking you seriously? Christians have always believed that the story is about people rising from the dead; it’s obviously about people rising from the dead. That he feels the need to change that narrative is already an indication something is amiss. It’s a narrative that neither atheists nor most Christians are going to buy. At least the Christians who don’t feel the need to justify their belief. To my mind he lost the argument by even raising it.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg:
          Bodies that are dead are not asleep but the word used for sleep is used to mean “dead” many times in the New Testament.

          Wisdom: Huh..did you just contradict yourself? If sleep in the Bible is used for dead..then how is it that bodies that are dead are not asleep biblically speaking?
          That’s not a biblical view you stated (since we are using the Bible) 1 Thessalonians 4:14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
          Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

          Greg: Matthew 9 comes from Mark 5. In both stories, Jesus specifically says that the girl is “not dead” but that she is “sleeping”. It is not used as a euphemism. In Matthew 27, the word “sleep is used in conjunction with tombs which shows it is intended to be a metaphor.

          Wisdom: So now you’re agreeing that the little girl in Matthew 9 wasn’t dead as I’ve stated and that your previous interpretation was incorrect? And what vs in Matthew 27 are you speaking of?

        • Greg G.

          Have you been ruminating on this for two months without reflecting on the concept of “euphemism”? Do you understand that when someone says they had to have their pet “put to sleep” that it means “killed”?

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s a rather odd statement since the whole two month conversation has been focus on the meaning of sleep.

        • Greg G.

          If you scroll up, you will see that I was referring to specific instances where “sleep” was used as a euphemism for death. Now you have suddenly reappeared to resurrect the conversation as if I had been saying that sleep always meant death. That is an odd thing. That and that you were arguing that “sleep” meant “oxygen deprivation”. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/#comment-4223402967

        • Wisdom Speak

          If you recall..I’m the first to introduce that sleep didn’t always mean death that is why the conversation has develop the way it has. please quote me correctly..I said “And please note the differences in cerebral hypoxia and cerebral anoxia when factoring in oxygen deprivation…which developed from our conversation on the tombs being airtight or somewhat airtight…not the same as sleep meant oxygen deprivation”. Keep it honest.

        • Greg G.

          Unless you are proposing that many saints were buried when they were simply suffering from oxygen deprivation just after Passover, then all coming to at the same time, we can drop that line of thought. It is more ridiculous than the story of saints coming out of the grave.

        • Wisdom Speak

          This brings us back to the previous conversation on premature burial.

        • Greg G.

          Is that your claim, that several people got buried simultaneously during the week before Passover then all of them came awake at the same time and went visiting?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Vivisepulture happened in the ancient (yes by Rome as well) …and since some are a fan of Wiki…here:
          “A person trapped with fresh air to breathe can last a considerable time ”

          If I’m not mistaken about “3 days” (on average-give or take depending on factors)..in which is the timeframe it took Christ to come back to life (although Jewish 3 days didn’t consist of 24 hours per day as we consider a day now..so that is even more possible survival time)..and that is why we had the whole conversation on was these tombs airtight?

          Also from Wiki for its fans:
          “Revivals of supposed “corpses” have been triggered by dropped coffins, grave robbers, embalming, and attempted dissections”.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_burial#Execution

        • Greg G.

          So what? It’s a fictional story drawn from the Death of Hector in the Iliad and a few Psalms.

          See Galatians 3:6-15 where Paul cites OT verses to show his logic that Jesus was crucified. His logic is peccable, though, very peccable. Paul mentions Jesus, Christ, and both combinations about every 5 verses but as much as he loves to talk about him, he doesn’t say anything that does not come from the Old Testament.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Your far removed point of view would not be perceived as fictional for the actual people who lived at the time of the recorded event. They would have had a better understanding of the meaning of such claim.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So what (then relying back to your opinion that its fictional) is no answer to the above..I think we already know what opinion you hold…that’s not what we’re discussing..

        • Wisdom Speak

          Now back to the point of said claim…Wiki (for its fans) confirms that it was “commonplace” for “Revivals of supposed “corpses” (there’s your so-called zombies that one would need to tell themselves in order to feel confident in their rejection of biblical claims) to be triggered by a number of factors…this was not some fictional event..and that vivisepulture happened often in/by ancient Rome just like crucifixion..These are just facts…

          1.premature deaths did occur/vivisepulture was common (so it wasn’t a strange claim “that several people got buried simultaneously during the week before Passover”..

          2. And Revivals of supposed “corpses” are documented so then “all of them came awake at the same time and went visiting” just not as fictional as you want to belief.

        • Phil

          “resurrect the conversation” come on now, the conversation wasn’t dead, just asleep!

        • Pofarmer

          So good to see this one back.

        • have their pet “put to sleep”

          Oh, nice one. Are you going to tell him about Santa next?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Greg:
          In the verse in question, the subject is the bodies that are aroused. That is a dead give-away that Matthew is saying the saints were dead. The fact that the graves were opened and they came out of the tombs are more dead give-aways that Matthew is saying they were dead.

          Wisdom:
          Hmm I thought you just said “Bodies that are dead are not asleep” ?

          Matthew 27:52
          And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

          Greg:
          With all of the references to the graves and the common use of the word as a euphemism for death, if Matthew meant “sleeping”, he should have used the word he used in chapter 9 to be clear.

          Wisdom:
          Matthew’s wordings doesn’t depend on your personal confusion..if that was the case…none of us would be able to articulate a point as there is always someone else who wouldn’t properly comprehend.

        • Greg G.

          Did you miss the day they introduced analogy and euphemism in English class in junior high?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Lets not avoid the point-you said bodies aren’t sleep, but you’re quoting from a scripture that says they are Matthew 27:52
          And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose..so you believe them to be or not..now you can simple answer yes the Bible does speak of bodies being sleep being interpreted as analogy and euphemism…or you don’t believe bodies to be sleep not even in an analogy and euphemism…Which one is it?

        • Greg G.

          Matthew 27:52-53 is one of the most obvious made-up stories in the Bible. Matthew writes to appear to fulfill OT passages, it this case the most likely passage would be Isaiah 26:19. The verse says “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise, O dwellers in the dus, awake and sing for joy.” It says they are dead corpses but it says to “awake”. It is a metaphorical euphemism.

          I have never argued that “sleep = death” in the Bible, only that sometimes sleep is used as a metaphor. Now you are trying to argue against what you wished I had said. You argued against me two months ago. Now you have apparently adopted my position but you can’t stand agreeing with me so you are attributing a position I did not and do not hold.

          If you do not agree with me, then state what position you think I hold and the position you now hold and where you think we differ.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Again..I didn’t adopt your position..I’m the first to state sleep doesn’t automatically mean death…my first post here:As far as “bodies sleep” (Example:catalepsy or coma in response to “ZOMBIFIED”)….

          you replied: Like practically everything in the Gospels, the authors were borrowing ideas from other writings. I mentioned Isaiah 26:19 which has the dead becoming “awake”. Ezekiel 37:7-13 is another prophecy about the dead regrowing tissue and coming back to life. Matthew used many Old Testament prophecies to create fictional accounts.

          In which I responded with:The body in a state of coma or catalepsy is not a fictional idea that needs to be borrowed…it is an actual proven physical/medical experience that is not limited to any group. The Lord clearly stated about the young girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 she wasn’t dead (even though the people assumed she was)..that her body was in some form of “sleep” state (like a coma), but with Lazarus; it is plainly stated he is dead (John 11 vs 14). When we look at Acts 20:10 we have another example of what may had appear as death-being stated that the life was still within the man.

          And your case was: The root word for “sleep” in Matthew 9 is a different word that is never used as a euphemism for death in the New Testament, except Ephesians 5:14 where “being dead” is being used as a metaphor for “being unaware”.

          and mines:You do know the root word is not the meaning of the word…

        • Greg G.

          In which I responded with:The body in a state of coma or catalepsy is not a fictional idea that needs to be borrowed…it is an actual proven physical/medical experience that is not limited to any group. The Lord clearly stated about the young girl in Matthew 9 vs 24 she wasn’t dead (even though the people assumed she was)..that her body was in some form of “sleep” state (like a coma), but with Lazarus; it is plainly stated he is dead (John 11 vs 14). When we look at Acts 20:10 we have another example of what may had appear as death-being stated that the life was still within the man.

          I said that Jesus in the story said she was not dead but sleeping. These are fictional stories. If the story says the person was dead, then then the author meant dead. If the story says the person had demons, then the author meant demons because it is fiction. If the story says the person was sleeping and everyone thought the person was dead, then it could be a coma or something because they didn’t have a medical description of a coma. You could pretend the author meant comatose if you want.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re back to what I originally said before any of your posts..that sleep didn’t always mean dead…you’re agreeing..

        • Greg G.

          SOMETIMES sleep is a euphemism for death. SOMETIMES sleep is a metaphor for ignorance. SOMETIMES sleep means sleep. Is that clear enough!

        • Hey, I know what would be fun! After you and Wisdom figure out this sleep thing, you can move on to “feet.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          I stated that in the beginning…how is that not clear to you.

        • The zombies may have been awake … but were they woke?

        • Greg G.

          Speaking of zombies, I think both teams played like the winner of the Superbowl got a free trip to the McWhiteHouse.

        • Phil

          “none of us would be able to articulate a point as there is always someone else who wouldn’t properly comprehend.” I guess that sums up the bible and why it is pointless reading it, let alone studying it. God’s word? I don’t think so. If it was, it would be clear and unambiguous.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That would sum up almost anything..especially science..so I don’t think it’s wise to take your approach..

        • Phil

          You’re weird.

        • Greg G.

          2 Corinthians 5:3 (NIV)3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.

          Josephus says:

          Jewish War 2.8.14
          They [the Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, – but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

        • YoOhioGirl

          I’m not understanding the point you’re making?

        • Greg G.

          Sorry, my computer was getting sluggish so I posted rather than lose it.

          Compare Daniel 12:2 with what Josephus says:

          Daniel 12:2 [JW 2.8.14]
          Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake [“all souls are incorruptible”], some to everlasting life [“souls of good men only are removed into other bodies”], and some to shame and everlasting contempt [” souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment”].

          Paul says similar things in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, and Philippians 3:20-21 which he seems to get from Isaiah 26:19-21a, Daniel 7:11a, 13a; 12:2, and the quote from Isaiah 25:8a (in 1 Corinthians 15:54, which also talks about the motal body putting on imperishability and immortality).

          From what source do Paul and the Pharisees get the new body idea? I don’t see it in the Isaiah and Daniel passages cited above. Did Paul steal the thought from the Pharisees or do they get it from scripture?

    • Pofarmer

      That’s a very nice job of harmonization. Congrats.

      • YoOhioGirl

        Thank you

        • Pofarmer

          It wasn’t a compliment.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Sure it was 🙂