![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/BrainExplosion.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>. His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I am replying to the post on Jonathan\u2019s site,\u00a0\u201cContradictions in the Resurrection of Jesus Accounts\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(1-31-21): a guest-post written by one David Austin. This is my second reply. The first<\/a> dealt with the 18-point chart. Now I tackle the text after it. David Austin\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Paul has no mention of an empty tomb; Just Jesus was \u201cburied\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 13:28-37<\/strong> (RSV) Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed.\u00a0[29] And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.\u00a0[30] But God raised him from the dead;\u00a0[31] and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.\u00a0[32] And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,\u00a0[33] this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, `Thou art my Son,\u00a0today I have begotten thee.\u2019\u00a0[34] And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, `I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.\u2019\u00a0[35] Therefore he says also in another psalm, `Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.\u2019\u00a0[36] For David, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption;\u00a0[37] but he whom God raised up saw no corruption.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [\u201ctomb\u201d was mentioned in 13:29, then Paul says Jesus was \u201craised him from the dead.\u201d That\u2019s an \u201cempty tomb\u201d is it not?: by straightforward logical deduction. Jesus wasn\u2019t there<\/em> anymore, and \u201cfor many days he appeared\u201d (13:31). Inexorable conclusion: empty tomb!] There are many many more references to Jesus\u2019 Resurrection in Paul:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Acts 17:2-3\u00a0<\/strong>And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,\u00a0[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, \u201cThis Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Acts 17:30-31<\/strong>\u00a0The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,\u00a0[31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Acts 26:22-23<\/strong>\u00a0To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:\u00a0[23] that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Romans 1:4<\/strong>\u00a0and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Romans 4:24<\/strong> . . .\u00a0It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised\u00a0from the dead<\/b>\u00a0Jesus our Lord,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [see also: Rom 4:24-25; 6:4-5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:3-8, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor 4:14; 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Phil 3:10; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Normal practice with crucified victims was for their bodies to rot on the cross, and then thrown into a mass grave.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s pretty impossible to argue that there could be no conceivable exceptions to this \u201cnormal practice\u201d<\/span> ever. So it\u2019s much ado about nothing. But Protestant apologist Timothy Paul Jones offers an excellent rebuttal to this argument (fashionable among atheists and skeptics): \u201cIs it Possible That Jesus\u2019 Body Was Left on the Cross?\u201d<\/a> (4-6-12).<\/p>\n According to Paul, if the Resurrection had not occurred, then Christians\u2019 faith is in vain. One would, therefore, expect the Resurrection to be the best corroborated event in the NT, but, as you can see, in the above chart, this is NOT the case. If there are contradictions, this means at least one account \u00a0(& maybe more) is incorrect.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s why I wrote this paper and the one before it<\/a>. I believe I refuted all 18 alleged contradictions, so there is nothing to<\/em> the charge. And if indeed contradictions aren\u2019t demonstrable, as I contend, then it means that the atheists coming up with such bogus nonsense have a serious problem with 1) logic and [possibly] 2) reading comprehension. They certainly don\u2019t \u2014 on the whole \u2014 have a clue about biblical exegesis. I\u2019ve shown that over and over in my refutations of atheist \u201cexegetes\u201d: who approach the Bible (as I always say) like a butcher approaches a hog.<\/p>\n The four Gospels are anonymous; The \u201cauthorship\u201d of these writings was a 2nd Century addition and was merely speculation by the early Church.<\/span>\u00a0The gospels were written in Greek, but it is generally agreed that Jesus & the Disciples spoke Aramaic and were \u201cunlettered\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Tax collectors for the Romans were in fact, literate and well-educated. Thus, Matthew very likely would have known Greek and Latin. We learn from\u00a0Colossians 4:14 that Luke was a medical doctor. Wyatt Graham observed<\/a>:<\/p>\n Consider for example the testimony of a bishop named Papias<\/a> [c. 60-c. 130 AD] who lived while some disciples of Jesus still lived. For example, he had access to John the elder and Ariston, who were disciples of Jesus. He also knew of the daughters of Phillip who lived nearby to him (Acts 21:8\u20139). And Papias records the words of one of Jesus\u2019 disciples by the name of John the Elder regarding Mark\u2019s Gospel:<\/p>\n And the elder used to say this: \u201cMark, having become Peter\u2019s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor [accompanied] him, but afterward, as I said, [accompanied] Peter. (Frag. Pap. 3.15; I modified slightly Holmes\u2019 translation) . . .<\/p>\n Papias also records that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew (Frag. Pap. 3.16). So, Papias lived while disciples of Jesus still lived, and he also lived when the Gospels were being written (or was born around this period). And it is Papias who affirms that Peter committed his preaching to words through Mark\u2019s hand (through the testimony of John). And it is Papias who affirms that Matthew, an apostle of Jesus, wrote the Gospel according to Matthew.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for Luke as the author of the book bearing his name, see: \u201cWho Wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts\u201d<\/a> by Brian Chilton (7-2-17), and by the same writer: \u201cWho Wrote the Gospel of John?\u201d<\/a> (9-3-17). Chilton thinks that John dictated his Gospel.<\/p>\n Matthew & Mark have the women being instructed for the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. <\/span><\/p>\n So what<\/em>? Unless they say something like \u201cthis is the only<\/em><\/strong> time they saw the risen Jesus\u201d there is no contradiction. It gets very<\/em> tiresome having to reiterate elementary logic over and over.<\/p>\n Matthew has the Disciples\u2019 one & only sighting of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee. <\/span><\/p>\n This is an absolutely classic and \u201ctextbook\u201d example of the dumbfounded and intellectually dishonest methodology of atheist Bible-bashers: seeing \u201ccontradictions\u201d under every rock. Nothing<\/em> in the text of Matthew even remotely hints at this being the \u201cone & only sighting of Jesus.\u201d<\/span> That\u2019s simply a groundless, completely arbitrary\u00a0extrapolation<\/em> from David Austin\u2019s brain with nothing to back it up.<\/p>\n The original manuscripts of Mark end at Chapter 16 verse 8 (Frightened women run from the tomb and tell no-one). . . . Since the women, in Mark, don\u2019t tell the Disciples about what they were told, we can only speculate whether they ever met Jesus at all.<\/span><\/p>\n I dealt with this claim concerning the supposed non-canonicity of Mark 16:9-20 in the previous paper<\/a>. But even if one accepts the shorter version of Mark 16, I wrote about 16:8 in another paper on this same topic<\/a>:<\/p>\n 1) The last clause gives no indication of how\u00a0long<\/em>\u00a0they \u201csaid nothing.\u201d It may not have been very long at all. We can only guess or speculate. 2)\u00a0 \u201cSaid nothing\u201d with no indication of how long the silence was, is not the same thing as saying that they\u00a0never<\/em>\u00a0mentioned it to\u00a0anyone, ever<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Luke & John contradict Matthew. Luke has two Jesus meetings with the Disciples, prior to a locked room meeting, (ie. With two Disciples on the road to Emmaus, and a meeting with Peter {time & location unspecified}) followed by a meeting with all\u00a0Eleven<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0Disciples in a room in Jerusalem. At this meeting, Jesus specifically tells them NOT to leave Jerusalem until \u201cclothed in power from on high\u201d (ie Pentecost). No 2nd meeting in Jerusalem or Galilee meeting.<\/span><\/p>\n Unlike Luke, John has the\u00a01st<\/u>\u00a0sighting of Jesus by\u00a0Ten<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0Disciples in a locked room in Jerusalem, followed by two more appearances to them;\u00a02nd<\/u>\u00a0in Jerusalem to\u00a0Eleven<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a03rd<\/u>\u00a0at the Sea of Tiberias to seven (This appearance specifically noted as the\u00a03rd<\/u>, hence\u00a0NO<\/strong>\u00a0prior visit to Galilee, \u201cRoad to Emmaus\u201d or separate meeting with Peter). . . .\u00a0<\/span> Paul\u2019s Corinthians 15:3 states that the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus was to Cephas (Peter), but according to the Gospel accounts the first witness(es) would be Mary Magdalene & the other Mary, Mary Magdalene alone, or Cleopas & another un-named Disciple, not Peter.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n For a quite sufficient explanation, see the article,\u00a0\u201cTo Galilee or Jerusalem?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0by Eric Lyons, at the excellent\u00a0Apologetics Press<\/em>\u00a0website. Here is the heart of his argument:<\/p>\n The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at\u00a0different<\/b>\u00a0times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction, not only must one be referring to the same person, place, or thing in the same sense, but\u00a0the same time period<\/b>\u00a0must be under consideration. . . .<\/p>\n Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples\u00a0both<\/b>\u00a0in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16).<\/p>\n Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12). None of the accounts of Jesus\u2019 post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. . . .<\/p>\n Still, one may ask, \u201cWhy did Jesus command His apostles to \u2018tarry in the city of Jerusalem\u2019 on the day of His resurrection until they were \u2018endued with power from on high\u2019 (Luke 24:49), if He really wanted them to meet Him in Galilee?\u201d Actually, it is an assumption to assert that Jesus made the above statement on the same day that He arose from the grave. One thing we must keep in mind as we study the Bible is that it normally is not as concerned about chronology as modern-day writings.<\/p>\n Frequently (especially in the gospel accounts), writers went from one subject to the next without giving the actual time or the exact order in which something was done or taught (cf. Luke 4:1-3; Matthew 4:1-11). In Luke 24, the writer omitted the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee (mentioned by both Matthew and John). However, notice that he never stated that Jesus remained\u00a0only<\/b>\u00a0in Jerusalem from the day He rose from the grave until the day He ascended up into heaven.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also\u00a0an article from the always superb\u00a0Christian Think Tank<\/a><\/em>\u00a0site, by Glenn Miller, entitled,\u00a0\u201cDo the Resurrection accounts HOPELESSLY contradict one another?\u201d<\/a> He includes the following summary of\u00a0 Protestant theologian and exegete Murray Harris<\/a>\u2019 chronological schema of post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Mary Magdalene followed Peter and John to the tomb, saw two angels inside, and then met Jesus (John 20: 11-17; cf Mark 16:9).<\/p>\n 2. Mary (the mother of James and Joses) and Salome met Jesus and were directed to tell his brethren to go to Galilee (Matt. 28:9-10).<\/p>\n 3. During the afternoon Jesus appeared to two disciples on the way to Emmaus. They then returned to Jerusalem to report the appearance to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:13-35; c\u00a3 Mark 16:12-13).<\/p>\n 4. Jesus appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15 :5).<\/p>\n 5. That evening Jesus appeared to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:33), Thomas being absent (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5; cf Mark 16:14).<\/p>\n 6. One week later Jesus appeared to the Eleven, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29) .<\/p>\n 7. Seven disciples had an encounter with Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21: 1-22).<\/p>\n 8. The Eleven met Jesus on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20; cf Mark 16:15-18).<\/p>\n 9. Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (Luke 24:44-49; 1 Cor. 15:6).<\/p>\n 10. He appeared to James (1 Cor. 15 :7) .<\/p>\n 11. Immediately before his ascension, Jesus appeared to the Eleven near Bethany (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:7; cf Mark 16: 19-20).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Assuming the women had gone to anoint the body, how did they expect to gain access to the body with the stone in position, and guards barring the entrance? (Note: Only Matthew mentions guards at the tomb)<\/span> Protestant apologist William Lane Craig adequately refutes this<\/a>:<\/p>\n Would that have kept the women away? Well, maybe so,\u00a0but only if they knew of the guard<\/em>. But did they know? When you read Mark and Matthew\u2019s accounts of the women\u2019s observation of Jesus\u2019 interment (Mark 15.46-47; Matthew 27.57-61), what you find is that the guard was not posted on Friday when the women watched Joseph inter the body in the tomb. The guard was something of an afterthought on the part of the Jewish authorities, who went to Pilate\u00a0on the following day<\/em>\u00a0(Saturday) to ask that the tomb be sealed and a guard posted before it.<\/p>\n Saturday was, of course, the Jewish Sabbath, and Luke records of the women that \u201cOn the sabbath they rested according to the commandment\u201d (Luke 23.56). Like the male disciples, they may have remained in seclusion all that day (cf. John 20.19). So there\u2019s no reason at all to think that when the women set out for the tomb at early dawn on Sunday morning, they expected to find that the tomb was guarded and sealed. That\u2019s why \u201cthey were saying to one another, \u2018Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?\u2019\u201d (Mark 16.3). They didn\u2019t know if anybody would be there. So I see no problem in affirming the compatibility of Matthew\u2019s guard story with the women\u2019s intent to anoint Jesus\u2019 corpse.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As to the stone, Fr. Charles Grondin<\/a> proposes two possible solutions to the proposed \u201cdifficulty\u201d:<\/p>\n The women had seen where Jesus had been placed (Mark 15:47) but might not have stayed long enough to see the stone rolled in front of the tomb, and they asked the question recorded in Mark 16:3 only once they saw the stone from a distance. . . .<\/p>\n The woman\u00a0expected to encounter other people either along the way or in the vicinity who could roll it back for them\u2014for example, the gardener (John 20:15).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why was stone rolled away if Jesus could enter locked rooms? Maybe for some-one to remove the body?<\/span><\/p>\n Orthodox Christian Network<\/a> answers this:<\/p>\n There can hardly be any Christian believer who doesn\u2019t know that an angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone from the entry to the tomb where the Creator of life lay dead, without breath. Very few, however really know why the stone was rolled away. Most people confuse two things which are independent of each other: the Lord\u2019s exit from the tomb and the rolling away of the stone.<\/p>\n In other words, they think that the angel came down and rolled away the stone so that the Lord could emerge, that when He did so there was an earthquake which terrified the guards to such an extent that they \u2018became as if dead\u2019. This is not only what ordinary Christians believe, but even what some of those who preach the Gospel think. In many icons of the Resurrection, in fact, both Byzantine and Western, we see the angel taking away the stone and the Lord emerging from the tomb, while the guards, terrified at the sight of Him, fall down as if dead.<\/p>\n This is historically inaccurate! If you study the Gospel of Matthew carefully, you\u2019ll see that the Lord had emerged from the tomb before the descent of the angel, the rolling away of the stone, and the earthquake which occurred at the same time. The stone was rolled away, not so that the Lord could emerge, but to demonstrate that He\u2019d already done so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If Mary\u2019s tomb visit (in John) was earlier than the visit in Matthew, why did she not encounter any guards?<\/span><\/p>\n Because, as John 20:1 states, she \u201csaw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.\u201d An angel had already removed the stone and as a result, \u201cthe guards trembled and became like dead men\u201d (Mt 28:4). Presumably they also fled<\/em> as a result (likely for fear of their lives, for the penalty for not properly guarding something was death in Roman law); therefore, Mary didn\u2019t see them.<\/p>\n Matthew & John say the women\/woman\u00a0met Jesus<\/strong>\u00a0at the tomb, but Mark & Luke says there was\u00a0NO<\/strong>\u00a0such meeting.<\/span><\/p>\n Where do Mark and Luke say there was no such meeting? They don\u2019t. So this is just another non-contradiction that atheists somehow conjure up as an authentic one. To not mention<\/em> something is logically not the same as denying<\/em> the same thing. The latter would have been a contradiction if Mark and Luke actually did it.\u00a0 But they didn\u2019t, so it isn\u2019t. But it\u2019s another classic example of atheist special pleading.<\/p>\n The women in Luke see two men inside the tomb\u00a0BEFORE<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0Peter inspects the empty tomb, but John says that Mary Magdalene saw two angels inside the tomb\u00a0AFTER<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0Peter & Beloved Disciple had inspected the tomb.<\/span><\/p>\n So what<\/em>? Angels could have been there both<\/em> times.<\/p>\n The ascension of Jesus is only mentioned in Luke, apparently on the same day as his resurrection (contradicted in Acts [supposedly also written by \u201cLuke\u201d] which says Jesus remained on earth for forty days).<\/span><\/p>\n I answer that in this paper: Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus\u2019 Ascension: One or 40 Days?<\/a>\u00a0[9-10-18]<\/p>\n How did the chief priests and Pharisees know that Jesus would be resurrected after 3 days when the Disciples didn\u2019t seem to understand this?<\/span><\/p>\n Two Bible commentaries (writing about Matthew 27:63) provide answers:<\/p>\n It appears, then, that though they had deliberately stirred up the passions of the people by representing the mysterious words of\u00a0John 2:14<\/a>\u00a0as threatening a literal destruction of the Temple (Matthew 26:61<\/a>;\u00a0Matthew 27:40<\/a>), they themselves had understood, wholly or in part, their true meaning. We are, perhaps, surprised that they should in this respect have been more clear-sighted than the disciples, but in such a matter sorrow and disappointment confuse, and suspicion sharpens the intellect. (Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n after three days I will rise again: now, though he said to his to his disciples privately,\u00a0Matthew 16:21<\/a>, yet not clearly and expressly to the Scribes and Pharisees; wherefore they must either have it from Judas, and lied in saying they remembered it: or they gathered it either from what he said concerning the sign of the prophet Jonas,\u00a0Matthew 12:40<\/a>, or rather from his words in\u00a0John 2:19<\/a>, and if so, they acted a most wicked part, in admitting a charge against him, as having a design upon their temple, to destroy it, and then rebuild it in three days; when they knew those words were spoken by him concerning his death, and resurrection from the dead: they remembered this, when the disciples did not: bad men have sometimes good memories, and good men bad ones; so that memory is no sign of grace, (Gill\u2019s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/a><\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Who witnessed this meeting when guards were sent to secure the tomb?<\/span> Who witnessed the meeting between the guards and the chief priests when a bribe was suggested?<\/span><\/p>\n Simply because we can\u2019t determine<\/em> either thing from the texts\u00a0alone<\/em>, doesn\u2019t mean or logically follow that there were<\/em> none, or that this person or persons could not have communicated it to Matthew. Matthew may have also received it by direct revelation from God (under the Christian view that the Bible is inspired writing and God\u2019s revelation to mankind). In any event, this is not a \u201ccontradiction\u201d; only an unknown (two different things). But certainly plausible hypotheses exist.<\/p>\n Paul says Jesus appeared to \u201cThe<\/strong>\u00a0Twelve<\/strong>\u201d but if Judas Iscariot was no longer a Disciple, there would be only\u00a0eleven<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0of them left for Jesus to appear to, not twelve.<\/span><\/p>\n Protestant apologist Eric Lyons<\/a> provides the rebuttal:<\/p>\n Numerous alleged Bible discrepancies arise because skeptics frequently interpret figurative language in a literal fashion. They treat God\u2019s Word as if it were a dissertation on the Pythagorean theorem rather than a book written using ordinary language. . . . The simple solution to this numbering \u201cproblem\u201d is that \u201cthe twelve\u201d to which Paul referred was not a literal number, but the designation of an office. This term is used merely \u201cto point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterward filled up\u201d (Clarke, 1996). Gordon Fee stated that Paul\u2019s use of the term \u201ctwelve\u201d in 1 Corinthians 15:5 \u201cis a clear indication that in the early going this was a\u00a0title<\/b>\u00a0given to the special group of twelve whom Jesus called to \u2018be with him\u2019 (Mark 3:14).<\/p>\n This figurative use of numbers is just as common in English vernacular as it was in the ancient languages. In certain collegiate sports, one can refer to the Big\u00a0Ten<\/strong>\u00a0conference, which consists of\u00a014<\/strong>\u00a0teams, or the Atlantic\u00a0Ten\u00a0<\/strong>conference, which is also made up of\u00a014<\/strong>\u00a0teams. At one time, these conferences only had ten teams, but when they exceeded that number, they kept their original conference \u201cnames.\u201d Their names are a designation for a particular conference, not a literal number.<\/p>\n In 1884, the term \u201ctwo-by-four\u201d was coined to refer to a piece of lumber two-by-four inches. Interestingly, a two-by-four still is called a two-by-four, even though today it is trimmed to slightly smaller dimensions (1 5\/8 by 3 5\/8). Again, the numbers are more of a designation than a literal number.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Biblical use of \u201cthe twelve\u201d as a designation for the original disciples is strongly indicated in many Gospel passages<\/a>. Jesus Himself did this: \u201cDid I not choose you,\u00a0<\/b>the twelve . . .?\u201d (Jn 6:70). He didn\u2019t say, \u201cdid I not choose you twelve men.\u201d By saying, \u201cthe twelve\u201d in the way He did, it\u2019s proven that it was a [not always literal] title for the group. Hence, John refers to \u201cThomas, one of\u00a0<\/b>the twelve\u201d after Judas departed, and before he was replaced by Matthias (Jn 20:24).\u00a0Paul simply continues the same practice. It was also used because \u201ctwelve\u201d was an important number in biblical thinking (40 and 70 are two other such numbers). For a plain and undeniable example of this, see Revelation 21:12, 14, 21.<\/p>\n Luke contradicts himself in 3 places during this Resurrection account :-<\/span> a) Early text states the women meet 2\u00a0men<\/strong>\u00a0inside the tomb, but later says the women met 2\u00a0angels\u00a0<\/strong>there.<\/strong><\/span> b) Early text has \u201conly\u201d Peter inspecting the empty tomb, but later text has \u201csome\u201d Disciples going to the tomb.<\/span><\/p>\n These two are simply not contradictions, as shown last time<\/a>.<\/p>\n Early text has Jesus\u2019 body being wrapped in a\u00a0cloth<\/strong>, but later, the Disciples see\u00a0cloths<\/strong>\u00a0in the empty tomb.<\/span> Matthew, Mark & Luke say Joseph wrapped Jesus\u2019 body in \u201ca clean linen\u00a0cloth<\/strong>\u201d (ie one cloth), but John says \u201clinen\u00a0cloths<\/strong>, as per Jewish tradition. John has the Disciples, when inspecting the empty tomb, seeing a separate cloth that covered Jesus\u2019 head, & Luke mentions the Disciples seeing\u00a0cloths<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Ethan R. Longhenry<\/a> explains:<\/p>\n [O]ne particular detail is associated with Peter and John\u2019s visitation to the tomb in\u00a0John 20:4-7<\/a>\u00a0. . . : the\u00a0othonion<\/em>, the linen cloths, were lying on the ground, and the\u00a0soudarion<\/em>, normally a handkerchief but also used to cover the head of a corpse (cf.\u00a0Luke 19:20<\/a>,\u00a0John 11:44<\/a>,\u00a0Acts 19:12<\/a>), was in its own place and rolled up. They were the only things left in the otherwise empty tomb.<\/p>\n Today we tend to dress up the dead in their best clothing or in some sort of clothing most special to them. In first century Judea it was customary to wrap the dead body in strips of linen cloths (othonion<\/em>) and covering the face with the\u00a0soudarion<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So this is two different things (apples and oranges). It\u2019s not a \u201ccontradiction\u201d (as I have by now explained umpteen times) because the head napkin is not mentioned by all accounts. The latter\u2019s existence is not expressly denied (which would<\/em> be a contradiction). It would be like the time I wore a suit and also my fedora to a wedding. Someone might say, \u201cDave was dressed up in his nicest suit\u201d and another could say, \u201cDave was wearing his \u2018gangster\u2019 pinstriped suit and<\/em><\/strong> also a cool hat.\u201d Both are true, and they are not contradictory. I was<\/em> wearing a [pinstriped] suit, and I was<\/em> wearing a hat, and I was<\/em> wearing both<\/em>.<\/p>\n When will anti-theist atheists hellbent on opposing the Bible at every turn, ever comprehend<\/em> these elementary things? This is far from rocket science. Dumbfounded atheist attempted biblical \u201cexegesis\u201d \u2014 besides often being hysterically funny \u2014\u00a0 seems to be an ongoing proof of Romans 1:21-22 (RSV): \u201c. . .\u00a0they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,\u201d<\/p>\n NB: Mark has Joseph of Arimathea buying a linen cloth. How could he buy this cloth when all shops were closed for Passover?<\/span><\/p>\n Theology Web<\/em> hosted a discussion on this non-issue (\u201cJoseph of Arimathea Buying Linen On Passover?\u201d<\/a>) in which one of the commenters shredded this \u201cgotcha\u201d question:<\/p>\n The imagined issue here is that it was illegal to work and to buy or sell goods on Passover per the following passages: [cites Ex 12:16; Lev 23:6-7; Neh 10:31]<\/p>\n Joseph, who was prominent on the council, would appear to be publicly breaking Jewish law by buying linen on Passover, and he couldn\u2019t do it on the Sabbath (which was the next day) either. There appear to be a number of solutions to this issue though. So, starting with NT scholar Harold Hoehner, \u201cThe purchases of Joseph of Arimathea were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath (and on a feast day).\u201d His source for this is\u00a0Mishnah Shabbath <\/em>23.4[:] \u201cOne may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter.\u201d \u201cBy \u2018techoom\u2019 is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance.\u201d<\/p>\n Hoehner also cites Gustaf Dalman\u2019s Jesus \u2013 Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels<\/em> (1929), where Dalman points out that these were extenuating circumstances. A criminal who had been hung (crucifixion was a type of hanging) had to be buried by nightfall to prevent the land from being defiled and burial on the Sabbath was likely not permitted. The body couldn\u2019t lay out in the hot Judean environment for two days. It had to be buried,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See related papers:<\/p>\n Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection \u201cContradictions\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-26-11]<\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection \u201cContradictions\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[9-17-18]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>geralt\u00a0<\/a>(1-23-21)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher. His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0. ***** I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":54680,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,31],"tags":[4121,4129,12966,1043,258,522,1472,1473,525,524,514,2637,1879,1633,1878,12968,1387,1386,535,4068,140,4107,12640,1347],"class_list":["post-54615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-a-tippling-philosopher","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-alleged-resurrection-contradictions","tag-anti-theism","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-biblical-exegesis","tag-atheists-the-bible","tag-atheists-theology","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-david-austin","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-non-contradictory-biblical-numbers","tag-resurrection-of-jesus"],"yoast_head":"\n