Evidence for God from Science

C2,

Without getting into the details of the 3 day/3 night argument (that's been pretty much hashed out here, I think), I just noticed something funny about the skeptic's argument. He's assuming that the Evangelists accurately reported Jesus' own words.

Now, I happen to agree with him, but consider what that means for a second. That means that the people who were there didn't seem to have a problem with it, or they would have amended the text to smooth out the problem. So the fact that they didn't amend it says that they were honest in their reports. But that also extends to the entire notion that Jesus' tomb was found empty and that people believed that they saw Him raised from the dead after that.

If he wants to argue that those things were falsely reported or later added, why can't we just say the same thing about the "false prophecy" and let it drop? Just say, "Eh, Matthew got Jesus' words wrong." When he says, "Well HAH! Then you don't have an inerrant Bible!" you respond with, "So? You are assuming the text is wrong about the resurrection accounts in the first place, so what does it matter anyway?"

I just think it's funny that he's using a faithful report in one part of the gospels to discount later faithful reports in other parts. I guess we can just concede his argument and say that Jesus was raised from the dead a little earlier than He thought He would be?

Just a thought.

I don't know what the Church Fathers said on the subject btw, and I don't really have time to look it up right now. Shouldn't be too hard to find though?

edit: I don't think Jesus was wrong, btw, or that there are any contradictions. Just looking at his argument from his own perspective.

Jac3510 wrote:C2,

Without getting into the details of the 3 day/3 night argument (that's been pretty much hashed out here, I think), I just noticed something funny about the skeptic's argument. He's assuming that the Evangelists accurately reported Jesus' own words.

Now, I happen to agree with him, but consider what that means for a second. That means that the people who were there didn't seem to have a problem with it, or they would have amended the text to smooth out the problem. So the fact that they didn't amend it says that they were honest in their reports. But that also extends to the entire notion that Jesus' tomb was found empty and that people believed that they saw Him raised from the dead after that.

If he wants to argue that those things were falsely reported or later added, why can't we just say the same thing about the "false prophecy" and let it drop? Just say, "Eh, Matthew got Jesus' words wrong." When he says, "Well HAH! Then you don't have an inerrant Bible!" you respond with, "So? You are assuming the text is wrong about the resurrection accounts in the first place, so what does it matter anyway?"

I just think it's funny that he's using a faithful report in one part of the gospels to discount later faithful reports in other parts. I guess we can just concede his argument and say that Jesus was raised from the dead a little earlier than He thought He would be?

Just a thought.

I don't know what the Church Fathers said on the subject btw, and I don't really have time to look it up right now. Shouldn't be too hard to find though?

edit: I don't think Jesus was wrong, btw, or that there are any contradictions. Just looking at his argument from his own perspective.

Thanks for your excellent thoughts as always Jac.

I tried googling what the ECF thought about this, but didn't get anything yet.

I have found a lot of Christians who believe Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, but most scholars say Friday. A Jew told me 3 days and 3 nights does not have to equal exactly 72 hours in Jewish thought. 3 days and 3 nights or on the third day or in three days usually means it will happen in a short length of time.

Whatever the truth may be -- either Wednesday or Friday -- and whatever method they use for the truth of each -- a full 72 hours -- or in Jewish thinking part of a day is a day and a night -- the fact still remains that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

As for the skeptic. He posted a whole article with lots of what he thought were contradictions in the Bible. His argument was: "if there are so many contradictions, how can the Bible be the word of God?"

From my point of view, anyone who posts an article like he did and does not bother to look up the answers himself [and there are lots of Bible commentaries on the Internet, as well as answers to the skeptics allegations], does not deserve to be answered. Why waste the time when the skeptic will not believe your answer anyway?

However, for my own knowledge, I intend to look into some of them and save my work so when the next skeptic comes along with the same allegations, I will have the answer.

Sometimes even with Bible commentaries I still need a little help and I usually come to G%S for some good answers.

Thanks again.