«Home

What Really Happened To Jesus?

today most of the christians all over the world are celebrating the ressurection of jesus all over the world. what really happened when jesus died and resurrected ? all we know about jesus we know from the writers of the gospels because no body else wrote any of thing about all of the "wonderful" things the writers of the gospels wrote about jesus the story of jesus is only found in the bible and books that were banned from the bible no outside source has written any thing about jesus aprat from those sources. the problems is that ALL the writers of the gospel do not agree on their stories about jesus in fact most of their accounts cancel each other out, if the writers of the bible can not get the basic stories of the christian faith right like what happened when jesus died, what happened when he was resurrected, what happened after he was resurrected, and where he ascended into "heaven", why should any body believe their stories? we are told that the people that wrote the gospels were eye witness to the event but why is their account of event so contradictory to the extent that they cancel each other out? lets look into the bible to see all the contradictory accounts that they have written, no eye witness to any event will right such contradictory accounts. here are just a few of the many stories that cancel each other out. . . .

what time was jesus really crucified? Mark said that jesus was crucified by the 3rd hour (9am in the morning) while john said that jesus was crucified after 12 pm. Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples?hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?". when was jesus really crucified? 9am or after 12pm?

what was jesus last word on the cross? because the writers of the bible do not agree as to what was the last thing jesus said on the cross. . . .

how many women came to the sepulcher?

how many angels were there when the women went to the sepulcher? There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up according t Luke 24:4 but according to mark there was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5.

where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? Luke 24:32-37 says that jesus first appeared to the 11 in a room in jerusalem while Matthew 28:15-17 says that jesus first appeared to the 11 of his disciples on a mountain in galilee (galilee and jerusalem are at least 100km apart). so where did jesus really appear to 11 of his disciples after he was resurrected?

where did jesus really ascend from? Acts 1:9-12 says that jesus ascended from mount olivet. but Luke 24:50-51 says that jesus ascended from bethany. again where did jesus ascended from?

why is it that even the writers of the gospel fail to get the basic stories of the death and resurrection of jesus right? their accounts completely cancel each other out.

Avatar
Newbie
34 answers

I already said that 1000 times before . . . you've not been reading posts before Erupting like a fool. You dont know anything about Roman time, you've simply copied the unverified work of another and built an argument/sorry copied an argument on it.

I asked you and your co-traveller (toneyb) why John makes mention of a 7th hour which doesnt exist in Jewish time keeping . . . none of you bothered to come up with a response. Perhaps those you copy from havent addressed that issue yet.

0
Avatar
Newbie

bla bla bla bla . . . what else do you expect from blowhards?

0
Avatar
Newbie

what really happened at the tomb? why is john's account so way off the mark from that of the others?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I said Mark was writing to non Jews hence the explanations about Jewish tradition, he wouldn't explain Jewish traditions if he were writing to Jews.

You are just going in circles if we substituted nation for Nigeria the statement will not make any sense. Again a Nigerian writing a story for Nigerians will not use the phrase " and this saying was common amongst the Nigerians till this day" .

From wikipedia

Here is an answer from a Christian bible scholar.

It is possible eh? again wild assumptions all I want is for you to provided any source from any where that says that any part of the new testamet was written in Aramaic.

You only provided meaningless apologetics, Mark did not say he wrote in Jewish time you did, John did not say he wrote in Roman time you copied that from other apologist.

Same can be said about you you once said that according to Mark Jesus was crucified in the Night when he said no such thing(which show you clearly do not know what you were talking about) and you want me to take your assumptions seriously? Dude pls.

I was referring to Matthew.

How will they make sense to you

Your assumptions have no basis, because there is no evidence to support them, Irenaues only talked about him being the disciple of Peter and nothing more.

Can you show me the Testimonium flavianum in full? Go read the Talmud and let me know what you read. its clar you have never read it. Writers out side the bible would have written about the Jewish saints that resurrected and walked the streets no? who told you that the writers of the gospels were independent of each other? what about in places where the 3 of them wrote very different things of which there are many?

0
Avatar
Newbie

your reasoning is absurd . . . why do you think Mark SHOULD NOT have explained jewish tradition if he was writing about a person for an audience that he was sure would also include non-jews? Why would it be absurd for him to also write about jewish tradition to jews especially if he it would be beneficial to accurately convey a meaning?

Again this is absurd reasoning that defies rational belief. Look at the portion in bold . . . would the term "nation" automatically be present in EVERY language? What if we substituted "nation" for "Nigeria" . . . wont that be almost similar to what Matthew wrote?

Do you think it would be impossible for me to write something like - "and that is the reason we have so many policemen in Nigeria today?"

You didnt provide any evidence they were written in only greek besides just bleating "the scholars said"? Why do you trolls NEVER provide evidence to back up your brittle claims and YET scream for evidence from us?

Greek, like Roman was a popular language in those days . . . infact speakers of such languages were considered "learned". Such was the pedigree of the Roman and Greek culture . . . it would thus make sense that many of the gospel writers . . . some whom perhaps didnt speak just aramaic, would choose to write their gospels in greek.

It is also possible that their gospels were copied into the greek language to distribute to the greek church of that time and we only have the greek manuscripts to rely up on.

hogwash . . . and its not surprising that you have struggled desperately to head off the debate from the time Christ was crucified into a debate on the language of the gospels. typical of these deluded goons when they lose their footing.

you cant blame me. You raised a question on the 3 hr period of darkness . . . made claims that NO OTHER gospel talked about it when Luke and Mark were very clear in recording it . . . you copy VERBATIM from wikipedia (a sign you really dont know what you're talking about) and you expect me to take your assumptions seriously? Dude pls.

You said Mark did (as evidence he wasnt a jew) . . . now i asked you to show me JUST ONE PLACE where he did so and now we get this handwaving?

they made no sense.

I never said he was jewish, i was only willing to make an assumption based on what Irenaeus said.

It is only "important" to you because it is another wishy washy excuse to bash the bible. If 3 out of 4 independent gospel writers recorded the EXACT SAME EVENT DOWN TO THE TIME . . . then i wonder why you need outside proof except of course because you are hell-bent on not believing a word in the bible.

Josephus for example wrote about Christ's death . . . each time that is brought up as an external non-biblical proof that he was indeed crucified and existed . . . you goons rush to tell us that must have been a forgery.

When you raised the talmud talking about the period of Christ's crucifiction . . . i pointed out how it dove-tailed almost perfectly to the gospel descriptions, you again disbelieved it vehemently.

What is the evidence that if i showed you ANOTHER outside proof that those events indeed took place u'd believe? You wont!

Besides . . . i repeat again . . . do you take the bubonic plague as a falsehood simply because the Igbos did not record the event?

0
Avatar
Newbie

You simply copy from anti-bible websites . . . i have enough experience with you to know that you dont rely on evidence and data at all . . . only when it suits you. If you did you'd notice that there is VERY LITTLE evidence or raw data to support evolution. Even fellow atheists like Mazaje and toneyb do not believe in evolution . . . BECAUSE there is no evidence.

no it is not up to me to make the gospel narrative plausible . . . you have the liberty to ignore it if it doesnt make sense to you. Each time we asked you fraudulent hypocrite to provide evidence and data or make the evolution story plausible for us what did you do? Other than go plagiarise talkorigins again.

Dude . . . your sanctimonious . . . science wannabe attitude wont wash here ever again.

0
Avatar
Newbie

All the insults apart, where is the evidence that Romans reckoned time as we do, which is you principal claim? Unlike you who is at liberty to make it up as you go along, I rely on evidence and data, however the evidence come, book, journal, website, etc, etc. It is the data/evidence and its relevance and integrity that matters, not the media.

Incidentally, I have a textbook by a Christian theologian (I think it is N T Wright or Ed Sanders) that discusses this, but I am unable to locate it now. That is why I used the web source for expediency.

It is not our business to make the gospel narrative consistent and plausible. That is for you guys to do. Whether certain events took 1 hour, 30 minutes, 30 hours, etc, is really not my business. So if harmonising the accounts leave little time for the rest of the events, that is for you to work out why it was thus written. Afterall, this is not the first time that the bible redactor have got their knickers is a srcibal twist, is it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I actually did if you bothered to read my post. John is the only gospel writer to use the term "seventh hour" which does not exist in Jewish time (John 4:52) . . . but of course i dont expect such tiny details to get in the way of your desperate attempt to rubbish the bible.

Plenty of bogus nonsense that comes with plagiarising other people's work without bothering to take the pains to read the gospels urself. All other 3 gospel writers place Christ's crucifiction at between 9-12 noon (his sentencing coming around 6-9am) which would be about the same time Pilate presented Christ to the people according to John's account.

If indeed as you and your "scholars" claim that John's 6th hr meant 12 noon and Christ died at 4pm . . . that would mean that the time between Pilate presenting Christ to the people and his crucifiction + getting a crown of thorns + the slow march to golgotha + the insscription on his fore head ALL TOOK about 1 hr or less since everyone else records a 3hr period of darkness before his death.

The difference is - while i discuss the issue from the standpoint of the bible, you prefer to ferret on apologetic websites . . .

where has this fool ever provided evidence, data and references to support his assertions? Does "evidence, data and references" involve copying websites wholesale without having a single opinion?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ok, that was the preamble to help refute your claim that John used the Roman systems of counting time. You made that claim without providing any evidence whatsoever, that the Roman system was based on counting from 12am. This is what you said;

Where is the evidence for this system of counting time by the Romans. Further, analysis of some of John's other narrative indicates that daylight hours were counted from sunrise 6AM and nighttime from sunset 6PM. There are strong scholarly support for arguing that the Jews, Romans, Greek had the same system of time-reckoning:

Additional support for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon. Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)

Now, deal with that by provide evidence, data, references, etc, supporting your assertion that the Romans reckoned time like we did.

0
Avatar
Newbie

as usual huxley goes ferreting for apologetic websites . . . no opinion of his own . . . what a shame. I'm not interested in reading your links . . . i'm interested in hard cold facts presented in simple detail. I dont have time to read through a meaningless epistle you yourself have not even read.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Some Christians claim that the ancient Romans counted hours relative to midnight, but nothing could be further from the truth. There exists in the historical records of ancient Romans an abundance of evidence that they counted daylight hours relative to sunrise and nighttime hours relative to sunset, but there is no document from that time which shows that the Roman's hour was referenced to midnight.

Few things about ancient Roman history are clearer than that the Romans reckoned daylight hours relative to sunrise and nighttime hours relative to sunset.

A search of the internet will confirm this. One may find hundreds of references to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh hour of the day, or of the night, but nowhere is to be found a single reference to an hour beyond thirteen, and that's because at sunset (the twelfth hour) the counting started over for the nighttime hours.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Not in this case. Events of historical importance surely took place after 12:00 noon, so if counting hours relative to midnight actually was ever a Roman practice, as some Christians claim, then surely one would find, for example, a 1:00 PM event--"the thirteenth hour" in the literature, or a 5:00 PM event—"the seventeenth hour." But, no, there are no such hours, and that is clearly because the method of counting hours relative to midnight was never practiced. The total absence of the hours thirteen through twenty-four, and the huge number of examples in ancient writings of hours one through thirteen is almost conclusive proof that the Romans reckoned daylight hours relative to sunrise, and nighttime hours relative to sunset, and never reckoned any hours relative to midnight.

In the remainder of this article I will first provide an overview of the method of reckoning time in ancient Rome, and then provide several unequivocal examples of reckoning daylight time relative to sunrise, and nighttime hours relative to sunset.

Measuring Daylight Hours in Ancient Rome

The ancient Romans measured time relative to sunrise and sunset because these were unambiguous events and quite easily marked. Thus, if sunrise occurred at 6:00 AM, then the "first hour" of the day would be from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, and the twelfth hour of the day would be from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM, assuming that at this time of the year there were exactly twelve hours of daylight.2 Here is how Richard Welland, PhD, Latin editor of the Transparent Language series language translation computer software, explains it:

Beginning in the 3rd century B.C., Roman days were divided into two parts, the daytime and the nighttime, each with twelve hours. But since those two parts were defined by sunrise and sunset, which vary according to the season of the year, the individual hours of daylight were shorter than the hours of darkness in the winter, and longer in the summer. The hours were counted from sunrise: e.g., the "second hour" referred to the period between one and two hours after sunrise. http://www.transparent.com/newsletter/latin/2000/jul_00.htm

Confirmation that daylight hours were measured relative to sunrise is found on a number of different web pages. Here is what the Latin literature instructors on the KET distant learning site have to say about the Roman method of counting daylight hours:

The sundial enabled the Romans to divide the day into 12 equal parts, or hours. The hours became a way to mark time and meetings. Courts opened at about the third hour, for example, and lunch was at midday, the sixth hour. People would go home to eat a leisurely lunch and take a siesta, returning to work in a few hours. People in Rome today still leave work at 1:00 and return to work from 4:00 to 7:00. http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/techno/time/tellingtime.htm

Measuring Nighttime Hours

Hours of the night were measured relative to sunset, so if the sun set at 5:00 PM our time, then the Roman "first hour of the night" would begin at 5:00 PM. In summer, the sun might not set until 8:00 PM our time, so the first hour of that night in Roman time would have begun at 8:00 PM. The following Commentary on the Pro Roscio Amerino 15-38 confirms this:

Day and night each had 12 hours, which were longer or shorter according to the season. "After the first hour of the night" would correspond, in our terms, to after 9:00 PM or later in June, after 5:00 PM or earlier in December. http://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/latin/roscius15-38.html

Source: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why don't you check out your John's use of ROman timeframes againts the following analysis, taken from http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Crucifixion_Hour.htm:

John's account of the time of Jesus' crucifixion apparently contradicts Mark's account.  John thinks that Jesus wasn't crucified until after about 12:00 PM noon, while Mark thinks that Jesus was already crucified three hours earlier, at about 9:00 AM. Here is the evidence:

About the sixth hour (hektos hora)…they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)

The translators of at least seven different Bible version all agree that John's hektos hora above means six hours past sunrise, or about noontime.  Here is how they translate hektos hora:

         1.  The hour was noon. (The Message)

         2.  About twelve o'clock noon.  (Amplified Bible)

         3.  It was now about noon of the day (New Living Translation)

         4.  It was about noon (Contemporary English Version)

         5.  It was about the middle of the day (Worldwide English)

         6.  It was about noon.  (New English Translation)

I won't display the translations from eleven other versions on Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible) which translate hektos hora literally as "the sixth hour."

None of these translations dispute the "noon" translation offered by the seven translators above.1

The Sixth Hour Following Midnight?

Some apologists argue that the seven translators above who said that John's hektos hora meant "noon" are all mistaken.  They claim that John actually counted hours relative to midnight, which means that John's Jesus was sentenced at about 6:00 AM, or sunrise, which would have allowed Jesus to be on the cross at the 9:00 AM crucifixion time claimed by Mark.

But, does there exist any evidence that John reckoned time relative to midnight? I believe the answer to that question is no, and there is significant textual evidence that John measured time relative to sunrise according to the Jewish and Roman practice, just as the other gospel writers did.  There is evidence in at least two other passages that John counted hours relative to sunrise.

Jacob's Well

The evidence that John measured time relative to sunrise according to the Jewish system is found in the story in John 4:5-7 of a travel-weary Jesus arriving at "the sixth hour" at Jacob's well:

So he came to…Jacob's well, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well.  It was about the sixth hour (hektos hora).  (John 4:5-7 NIV)

What did John mean by "the sixth hour (hektos hora)"?  Did he mean the sixth hour after midnight, or 6:00 AM,  as some apologists believe, or did he mean the sixth hour following sunrise, or "noon"?  Well, if Jesus had arrived tired at the well following a long journey, he would have had to have been traveling at night. But, does not common sense point instead to a daylight journey ending at the well at noon? It would seem so, because the translators of at least six Bible versions report that John's hektos hora means "noon":

1.  It was then about the sixth hour (about noon). (Amplified Bible)

2.  Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat wearily beside the well about noontime. (New Living Testament)

3.  It was noon (Contemporary English Version)

4.  It was about midday.  (Worldwide English New Testament)

5.  It was about noon.  (New English Translation)

6.  It was about noon.  (New American Bible)

Not one translator of any of twelve other Bible versions translates hektos hora as "sunrise" in the Jacob's well passage.

The Jacob's well passage is not the only one which shows that John counted hours from sunrise.

        The Lamb of God

In the following passage, the disciples meet Jesus, and because it is already late in the afternoon they spent the rest of their day with him.

The next day, John was there again, and two of his followers were with him. When he saw Jesus walking by, he said, "Here is the Lamb of God!" John's two followers heard him, and they went with Jesus. When Jesus turned and saw them, he asked, "What do you want?"

They answered, "Rabbi, where do you live?" The Hebrew word "Rabbi" means "Teacher."

Jesus replied, "Come and see!" It was already about four o'clock in the afternoon when they went with him and saw where he lived. So they stayed on for the rest of the day.  

(John 1:35-39 Contemporary English Version)

Six other translators of six different Bible versions listed below support the view of the translator above, and translate dekatos hora as "four o'clock in the afternoon."  

1.  It was late afternoon when this happened. (The Message)

2.  It was then about the tenth hour (about four o'clock in the afternoon).  (Amplified Bible)

3.  It was about four o'clock in the afternoon (New Living Translation)

4.  It was four o'clock in the afternoon  (New American Bible)

5.  The time was about four o'clock in the afternoon.   (Worldwide English)

6.  Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon.  (New English Translation)

None of the other eleven Bible versions available on the web contradict this translation.

Some apologists argue that "the tenth hour" in the Lamb of God passage is really 10:00 AM.  However, if the hour in the Lamb of God passage really were 10:00 AM, why would John bother to tell us that?  What is the value of this information?

On the other hand, if the tenth hour was 4:00 PM, and the hour is late, the reader can understand why the remainder of the disciples' day would be spent with Jesus:  It was too late to do anything else before darkness. Thus, mentioning the time makes no sense if it's 10:00 AM, but a great deal of sense if it's 4:00 PM.  The translators of seven different Bible versions agree that the tenth hour was 4:00 PM, and not one of eleven other translations dispute this.

Thus, we see substantial support from seven translators and common sense that John used the sunrise reference system of reckoning time in not only the Jacob's well passage, but also the Lamb of God passage.

Scholarly Support for A Noon Sentencing

Additional support2 for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon.  Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)

Conclusive proof that the sunrise reference system was used not only by the Jews, but by Greeks and Romans alike is found in dozens of examples of time-reckoning found in the ancient writings.  Interested readers will find these examples in the article, Time Reckoning in Ancient Rome.

Conclusion

If John used the Jewish system of reckoning in these two other passages of his gospel, should we not agree with all those translators that John also used that system in the sentencing passage?  If the answer is yes, then we see that John said that Jesus had not even been sentenced until about noon, while Mark said that Jesus had already been crucified at nine in the morning.  At the very least, one of the two authors was off by about three hours in the time of the crucifixion, and this means the Bible is in error.3

0
Avatar
Newbie

And I agree that I did not read the other gospel accounts.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I just read thru Mazaje's lengthy piece of crap . . . mazaje do me a favour . . . you have 3 questions . . . break them down one by one (one post for each question) and i will respond to them ASAP.

The last question made me laugh the hardest . . . only a blowhard searching desperately for faults would see a contradiction there.

0
Avatar
Newbie

On at least 3-4 separate facts now we've caught you in bogus lies that clearly demonstrate the fact that you havent bothered at all to "reconcile" the gospel accounts. You're simply parroting lines you read from someone else . . . you didnt even know that Mark and Luke also recorded the 3 hr darkness period Matthew spoke about . . . how would you be able to reconcile their accounts then?

If not that i detest letting you crooks get away with ur lies i'd have said responding to you is like wallowing in mud.

0
Avatar
Newbie

what a bunch of decietful, confused hypocrites. When it comes to the bible they want "faultless and seamless reconciliation of accounts" . . . ask them to reconcile evolution with abiogenesis or the fossil record and they start waffling.

0
Avatar
Newbie

His body was stolen and buried some place else.

Or

It was left on the cross(the custom in those days) to rot on the cross at d mercy of scavenger birds.

0
Avatar
Newbie

There was no "diatribe", all these is simply a ruse to wriggle away . . . i would long have ignored you and the thread but i was determined this time to hold your feet to the coals.

what a shallow coward. Finally realised you didnt know as much as you were earlier bellowing about? Ran out of pages to google?

The problem is you are too desperate to find something, anything wrong with the accounts of the crucifiction to the detriment of going over all the details with a fine toothed comb. It is no longer enough to read up someone's rambling on the web and then come here to dress them up as your own.

Note the typical style of these fools (they that say there is no God) . . . they first bluster and bleat that their position is right, expose them to be nothing but noisy blowhards and they quickly shift to another argument.

No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.

1. Actually it is also recorded in Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

and Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

Lying or shoddy claims are not a good attribute.

2. Why did you expect the claims to be recorded everywhere else on earth? Do we have claims of eclipses recorded in China also reported by ancient Ghanaians? What a silly question.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The writers of the gospels did not write them for people to seamlessly reconcile them, by the way their accounts can not be reconciled Christians just pick , chose and add what ever makes sense to them and present it as what the gospels are saying, if you read the accounts Mazaje posted as to what happened at the tomb of Jesus when he resurrected you will see that the accounts can not be reconciled together at all, The gospel of John makes rubbish of all the other 3 different gospel accounts with regards to what really happened at the tomb.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ mazaje

I wonder why u are so bothered about what happened to Jesus?

u are deeply worried and having sleepless nights about what awaits u in eternity, right?

that explains why u can post such a long sermon on a "fictional character". face ur fears.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Topic

How i go know when i nor dey around when Jesus dey town!

0
Avatar
Newbie

toneyb

I have read it well over and over again, and they all align. The problem u might be having is that you guys are using the KJV that has 30,000 errors in it. If u found error, ur finding it in the protestant bible.

Like I said, I've read it time and time again, and they are all alighned. They were written by eyewitnesses with the exception on Mark and Luke, so stop deluding urself dear. I know u don't want to believe it, u don't want to admit u are wrong, but they all say the same thing, or maybe it is that u did not read my entire post. Read it well.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It is always convenient when you disregard the other verses isn't it. And who told you that the writers were trying o capture his last words. They didn't have a set of things they collaborated and said we will give an account of this particular thing.

Now let's look at each one of them.

This is what Matthew says

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47 And some that stood there and heard, said: This man calleth Elias. 48 And immediately one of them running took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar; and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 And the others said: Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver him. 50 And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost

Here is Mark

34 And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 35 And some of the standers by hearing, said: Behold he calleth Elias.

36 And one running and filling a sponge with vinegar, and putting it upon a reed, gave him to drink, saying: Stay, let us see if Elias come to take him down. 37 And Jesus having cried out with a loud voice, gave up the ghost

Here is Luke

46 And Jesus crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost

Here is John

28 Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst. 29 Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar and hyssop, put it to his mouth. 30 Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.

Now in all these passages there is the same event and the same things. If something is missing from one doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that they didn't have the story together. They weren't all written at the same time and not all by the same people, and each sought to portray what is relevant to their audience.

It doesn't have to be in the exact same words but by reading all four we see similarities in them and we can fully pciture the scene.

Matthew talks about Jesus saying Eli Eli, and so does Mark, it's funny how you chose to leave Mark from your list, I guess that one refutes your view on it and you don't like it. And then it goes on to talk about Jesus crying with a loud voice, and I guess this is where the confusion comes for you. Matthew speaks about Jesus crying with a loud voice, Mark talks about it also, Luke talks about it too, only Luke actually tells us what he says. John goes further to tell us that Jesus also said It is finished after taking the vinegar and then giving up the ghost. All gospels talk about the same thing, and in the same order, and each fill in in the blank for each other. Now where might the confusion come in again? In John, where it is the only one that records Jesus saying It is finished. But ofcourse we know why he would be the only one to know this because he was the only one of the disciples at the foot of the cross, and it is highly possible that Jesus did not cry out "It is finished" and only gave a whisper of it, watch the movie the passion of the christ and you will see that it would have been impossible for those who were not around to hear it. Because John was at the foot of the cross he heard it all. Why then did the other writers talk about him crying out loud, because he cried out loud, meaning others could hear him. The gospel writers got their crucifixion stories from John, Mary the Mother of God, Mary Magdala, and the Other Mary and others around, especially Luke since he told us that it was by his investigations that he put the story together. So it really makes sense that the first 3 writers wrote only that which was very audible by those at Golgotha, and John wrote more indepth because he was there, and saw no need to repeat that which the other writers already wrote, and only added in that which was a whisper "It is finished". Remember John was the last gospel to be written, and he only saw it fit to elaborate on that which the other writers did not go indepth with.

Now to correct you on something. The story of Jesus as it is in the positive light is only found in the Bible however, Jesus was mentioned in several non christian historic writings in the negative. His crucifixion was infact pointed out. So maybe you should do more research.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nice input Mazaje people celebrated easter without knowing that even the writers of the bible do not agree as to what really happened to Jesus. The gospel writers do not seem to know what really happened to the Jesus they were writing about. They do not agree on how Jesus was arrested, what happened on the cross, how he died, and what happened after his resurrection. All their accounts as you have said it when put together completely cancel each other out. A careful study of the four gospels in comparison with each other will show that there is little agreement among the gospel writers as to the order in which Jesus said and did what is reported of him. The most striking discrepancy concerns the accounts in the synoptics of Jesus's resurrection appearances to his disciples. The writers of the gospel completely got this story wrong, they do not seem to know what really happened. Matthew has Jesus appearing to the 11 in Galilee, Luke has him appearing to the 11 in Jerusalem while all the forty-day appearances of Acts are sited in Jerusalem . Not only did Jesus himself write nothing, but the attribution of the gospels to his disciples did not occur until the late first century at the earliest.In fact the whole story is a hoax.

0
Avatar
Newbie

He resurrected not as a spirit but as a full human . . . which is why the stone needed to be moved. Obviously simple details escape the intelligence of the dumb.

By the way where is Allah's injeel? Found it yet?

0
Avatar
Newbie

i have never thought about it that way before, i doubt if the bible writers ever thought about it that way. . . . cruci-fiction indeed. . .hey but is mohammed not a fiction himself?

0
Avatar
Newbie

this is where you always meet blabs . . . why dont you answer our own questions on Mohammad dude?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Do they need to roll away the stone for a dead body to resurrect? A dead body does not need anybody to move any stone for it to pass through because its already a spirit and can pass through a closed door without any man's assistance but in this very case,the angel or jesus' secret friends had to help him move the stone to be able to pass so that the alleged prophecy would b fulfilled but it was never as it turned out to be cruci-FICTION

0
Avatar
Newbie

yeah elijah did the same, he ascended into heaven with his bones according to the bible only for jesus to come and say that the story is a lie because according to jesus no man has ever ascended into heaven. . . . .

Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13

0
Avatar
Newbie

All their accounts completely cancel each other out for the simple reason that instead of a Crucifixion,it was a Cruci-FICTION.

Think about it; where is the tomb of this Jesus?

No DNA evidence.

No Bones

So Jesus went to heaven with his bones?

0
Avatar
Newbie

my point has been stated in the first post, which is why is it that the gospel writers who were "eye witness" fail to agree on what really happened to jesus when he was crucified and when he was allegedly resurrected from the dead? all their accounts completely cancel each other out. . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Here are the VERY DIFFERENT accounts of event that happened when the women went to the tomb of jesus. . . .these accounts completely cancel each other out. . . .

According to Mark 16:1-8, Mary and Mary find that the tomb has been opened

According to Matthew, an angel in shining garments is seen by Mary and Mary opening the tomb, and the angel tells them not to be afraid since Jesus is risen from the dead.

According to Luke, the women discover the tomb has been opened, and two men in shining garments come up to them and tell them not to be afraid since Jesus is risen.

Here is john's very very different account of events. . . .

Why the very very different and contradictory accounts that completely cancel each other out?. . . . . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.