NewStats: 3,259,814 , 8,170,938 topics. Date: Monday, 26 May 2025 at 04:45 AM 53v5t

Easter has arrived again, the Christian narrative of Jesus being arrested, crucified, dying and then ascending all occurs from Good Friday to Sunday morning, these few days are the foundation for the Christian religion. The Gospels for this episode, giving us details which are rather unique and quite puzzling, or so to speak. In this article, I’m not going to try to offend anyone and I do apologize if I do, but as a Muslim, these questions are pertinent to the narrative given to these events by the Christian faith. We need to examine the foundation, for if the foundation is based on falsehood, all that is derived from it, will also have falsehood in contained within. Therefore, in an attempt to seek answers for these dogmatic conundrums, let’s ask some questions that should by now, some 2000 years or so years later, should have answers prepared.

Zombies:
Here we have an in Matthew 27:51-53, where apparently the dead come back to life, and in their large numbers, roam through the streets of Jerusalem. There’s a slight problem with this claim however. Dead people have crawled out of graves in Jerusalem, seen by ‘many people’, and yet the only of it, is some 50 or so years later in a religious scripture from a new faith, fishing for miracles to get converts. So let’s see what the scripture claims:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So dead people came back to life. This is a miracle proving Jesus’ resurrection, this miracle is apparently witnessed by many people and yet we have some serious discrepancies here. No other Gospel of Epistles even references or mentions explicitly, what is arguably the greatest miracle one can observe, dead people returning to life. No Jewish historian or religious figure ever mentions that dead people came back to life and roamed their holiest city’s streets. Not even the Romans, the largest Empire, most powerful nation at that time, records that dead people came back to life and roamed their streets. Yet somehow, a person not from that time, 50 or so years later (33AD, Ascension, Matthew written between 75 AD – 99 AD), mentions this maybe two or three lines and then it turns into a historical fact. Call me skeptical, but I’m needing evidence here. I find it hard to believe, that dead people, came to life and no one at that time, not even heretical early Christian sects, nor Paul who documented the vast prayers, actions and beliefs of the early Church some 14 years later, remotely mentions or references it.

A famed Christian Exegete, Adam Clarke in his exegesis on these verses states:
It is difficult to for the transaction mentioned Matthew 27:52,53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes; others think that the simple meaning is this:-by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ’s resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city. Why the graves should be opened on Friday, and the bodies not be raised to life till the following Sunday, is difficult to be conceived. The place is extremely obscure.

Perhaps there is someone willing to validate, this claim or if not, it it really did not occur and is a fanciful dream of some scribe wanting to give the masses some alleged miracle to convert to Christianity for.

Conflicting Post-Crufiction Narrative:
This question stems from reading the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, evidently, if one picks up a Bible, the New Testament begins with Matthew and then we’re introduced to Mark. The problem here however, stems from an incident that presents a problem. In Matthew 28:5-10, we read:

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

So from this, we deduce that:

*Some women met an angel.
*They don’t worship the angel.
*They were afraid, yet they ran to tell the disciples.
*They meet Jesus who tells them to go to Galilee.

Yet, we read in Mark, a successive Gospel, a completely different story, Mark 16:5-8:
“As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.“

*Some women met a young man in white clothes and not an angel.
*They don’t worship the young man.
*They were afraid and said nothing to anyone.
*Never met Jesus, instead the angel tells them to go to Galilee.

In fact, if we read the next Gospel in succession, that is, Luke, we have another completely different . We read from Luke 24:4-8:
While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they ed his words. When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.

*Some women did not meet an angel, nor a young man, but instead two men in clothes as bright as lightning.
*Instead of not worshipping the angel or a young man, they worship two men.
*They were afraid, but instead of telling no one, they told everyone.
*Never met Jesus, but instead two men tell them to go to Galilee.

Continuing to the final Gospel, that of John, in Chapter 20, Verses 11-19, we read:
Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”). Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her. On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”

*One woman, Mary, did not meet an angel or a young man or two men but instead two angels.
*She did not worship the two angels.
*She told everyone what she saw, in contrast to the other Gospels.
*Met Jesus who does not tell her to go to Galilee.
*Jesus does not meet them at Galilee but at a house in/ near Jerusalem.

Some like to say that we’ve misunderstood their scripture, some say we’ve distorted and manipulated the truth, but all we’ve really done is read the Gospels, as they are laid out. Anyone can pick up a Bible and read these contradicting narratives...

In conclusion, I’d like to give a quote which sums up the Muslim perspective of this incident, Mary and the other female disciples go to tell the men what has happened, this quote being from the Gospel of Luke:

It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

As is the Muslim view, the men’s response is practically priceless:

But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

As we end, one more relevant quote from the same Gospel:
Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

Which fulfills the Islamic narrative, from the Qur’an which states:
“And because they denied and spoke dreadful calumnies of Mary; and for saying: “We killed the Christ, Jesus, son of Mary, who was an apostle of God;” but they neither killed nor crucified him, though it so appeared to them. Those who disagree in the matter are only lost in doubt. They have no knowledge about it other than conjecture, for surely they did not kill him, But God raised him up (in position) and closer to Himself; and God is all-mighty and all-wise.”

wa Allaahu Alam.
https://callingchristians.com/2012/04/08/easter-a-muslims-questions/#comments
[and God knows best.]

Sufu you have started again abi

Better address how your pedophile messenger was poisoned to death like a rat and pray that you and your family should be poison to death likewise


Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713

Just as the way they give Jesus drink from sponge (wetin Dem de used they scrup shit) baba drink am cry out loud and kpaiii

Its all made up BS. They could not keep their deception straight.
Little wonder they never wanted any body to own a copy of the Bible.

Expanse2020:
Just as the way they give Jesus drink from sponge (wetin Dem de used they scrup shit) baba drink am cry out loud and kpaiii

Your Qur'an already proved Muhammed is a false prophet.

He died the exact way Allah told him he would be killed if he's ever caught lying- his aorta would be slit.

Now regarding the death of Jesus.

Even bible atheist scholars agreed with Christians that Jesus Christ was crucified. Romans that nailed him to the cross confirmed they crucified him.

Even Ahmadiyah Muslims agreed with Christians that ISA was crucified.

So U have to tell us where U getting your own sources.

Pls don't bring the tales by moonlight of Muhammed in the caves. U and I know they are fake.

[quote author=Antichristian2 post=135036501][/quote]

All these copy and paste will not help U.

The big question is did the 4 gospels confirmed Jesus Christ was crucified?

That's the key issue here.

Is there any gospel narrative anywhere that said Jesus wasn't crucified?

It's Easter again and some Muslims who are embarrassed by their own scripture claim that they can't not defend because they don't have evidence to back up such claim are back again to throw dirt at a significant event in history.

An historical fact that has been confirmed as true and real by multiple attestation including enemies of the Jesus Christ.

So to clarify all doubts, I will respond to their contradiction claim.

I've gone thru the different resurrection s in the 4 gospel and the there's actually no contradiction at all.
In fact the different stories complement each other and when merged together the resurrection events makes logical sense



1. How many women visited the Tomb?

The important thing to note here is that none of the gospel writers said 'only' a particular number visited the tomb. They simply mentioned names of women they knew that visited the tomb.
actual logical contradiction requires exclusionary clauses such as “only x, y, and z were there and no one else” or “only three people witnessed incident a.” None of the Gospel texts do that here; hence, no demonstrable contradiction exists (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1).

Gospel of John seemingly makes it like only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb until we get to John 20:2. Mary finds the tomb empty, runs to Peter and (presumably) John, and says the following, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid Him.”

In reporting the words of Mary, John reveals that there were others with Mary.

2. Number of angels

The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb. This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possibly, one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized.


3. . Who rolled the stone away

The issue with this question is centrally dealing with whether the stone was rolled away from the tomb when the women arrived. Notice that all but one are in definite agreement. Mark, Luke, and John all say the stone had been moved when the women arrived. It is only Matthew who reports, or appears to report, that the stone was moved as the women were there. So let’s take a careful reading of the verses in question.

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. (Mt. 28:1-2)

The event in verse 2 had already happened before the women arrived. They did not witness the earthquake or the angel rolling the stone. By the time they arrived the tomb, the stone was already rolled away. Matthew is only telling the readers how the stones was rolled away.


4. What happened after they left the tomb.

This is another area where we have a large degree of agreement between the Gospels. To varying degrees, the Gospels each report that the disciples were told. Or at least it was the intent to tell the disciples, which is all Matthew reveals. I will merge my explanation here with another seemingly contradiction which is who among the women saw Jesus.

If we study the s carefully, we can make the FF logical conclusion;

Mary Magdalene & the other women travel from Bethany to Jesus’ tomb.

Nearing the tomb, they notice the stone is rolled away. Mary runs to tell Peter and John while the rest of the women continued to the tomb.

With no corpse, empty tomb and encounter with strange men; the other women were initially shocked and took time for them to recover from these extraordinary encounter, until they got over their shock they told nobody.

Mary Magdalene returns to Jesus’ tomb with Peter and John.

Peter and John return to the house after seeing the empty tomb. Mary stays behind where she sees Jesus.

Afterwards, the other women returned to Bethany, stopping first in the city to report their findings to Clopas and other disciples. Thereafter, Jesus appears to the other women as they’re headed back to Bethany.

Another popular contradiction bible critics love to raise is the time the women visited the tomb which I will explain here.

All s indicate that it was early on the first day of the week. Matthew says it was as the day began to dawn. Mark, Luke and John all say “early”. the difficulty comes when we see John say that it was still dark, yet Mark say that the sun had risen.
Sunrise could vary in appearance depending on subjective observation. What is dark to some could be cloudy to another.
So these in reference to the same approximate time of day are not mutually exclusive.

Moreover, another explanation could be where the women journeyed from.
Earlier in the week some of the disciples lodged at Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem. It’s possible that the women were staying there for the Sabbath, and when John says it was “still dark”, he’s referring to the time they left Bethany and “went to the tomb”.
That’s more than enough time to go from “still dark” (Jn. 20:1) to “when the sun had risen” (Mk. 16:2).

SIRTee15:


Your Qur'an already proved Muhammed is a false prophet.

He died the exact way Allah told him he would be killed if he's ever caught lying- his aorta would be slit.

Now regarding the death of Jesus.

Even bible atheist scholars agreed with Christians that Jesus Christ was crucified. Romans that nailed him to the cross confirmed they crucified him.

Even Ahmadiyah Muslims agreed with Christians that ISA was crucified.

So U have to tell us where U getting your own sources.

Pls don't bring the tales by moonlight of Muhammed in the caves. U and I know they are fake.

Hey where does this lies come from......



Your God wey Dem give wine from the sponge 🤮🤮🤮 wetin that poison... Baba gulp am cry on a loud voice and pkai....

Expanse2020:


Hey where does this lies come from......



Your God wey Dem give wine from the sponge 🤮🤮🤮 wetin that poison... Baba gulp am cry on a loud voice and pkai....

That action fulfilled the scripture.

psalm 69.21
They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.


Now tell me, where did you get your sources that Jesus wasn't crucified?

Antichristian2:
Zombies:
Here we have an in Matthew 27:51-53, where apparently the dead come back to life, and in their large numbers, roam through the streets of Jerusalem. There’s a slight problem with this claim however. Dead people have crawled out of graves in Jerusalem, seen by ‘many people’, and yet the only of it, is some 50 or so years later in a religious scripture from a new faith, fishing for miracles to get converts. So let’s see what the scripture claims:

Quick correction to your claims here. History has it that Jesus Christ of Israel died approximately 30- 33 AD, and the nation of Judah, including the city of Jerusalem itself were ravaged beginning in approximately 70 AD after which all Jews who survived were exiled from the land — the Roman's kicked them out— meaning Matthew's — himself a Jew— of the records came from a period before 70AD, less than 40 years after the death of Jesus Christ of Israel.

Kobojunkie:
Quick correction to your claims here. History has it that Jesus Christ of Israel died approximately 30- 33 AD, and the nation of Judah, including the city of Jerusalem itself were ravaged beginning in approximately 70 AD after which all Jews who survived were exiled from the land — the Roman's kicked them out— meaning Matthew's — himself a Jew— of the records came from a period before 70AD, less than 40 years after the death of Jesus Christ of Israel.

You're wrong he's right. Dating Matthew to 70 CE would make it the earliest gospel which it's not. Mark is the gospel dated to 70 CE. Matthew is dated to about 50years after Jesus' death to 80CE.

Lucifyre:
➜You're wrong he's right. Dating Matthew to 70 CE would make it the earliest gospel which it's not. Mark is the gospel dated to 70 CE. Matthew is dated to about 50years after Jesus' death to 80CE.

Wrong! These ideas that the Gospels( including the books of the New Testament and Revelations) were written sometime after 70 AD were fed to you by the Romans, who hijacked the movement that was created by Jesus Christ of Israel and continued up until the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and then the nation of Judah before the end of the first century AD. We are talking here of many of the same non-Israelites who then went on to establish a religion around their claims to gain political and material power over the lives of their followers.

Kobojunkie:
Wrong! These ideas that the Gospels( including the books of the New Testament and Revelations) were written sometime after 70 AD were fed to you by the Romans, who hijacked the movement that was created by Jesus Christ of Israel and continued up until the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and then the nation of Judah before the end of the first century AD. We are talking here of many of the same non-Israelites who then went on to establish a religion around their claims to gain political and material power over the lives of their followers.

Unfortunately i don't do unverifiable conspiracy theories, it's above my expertise. I only deal on what's objectively factual regardless of opinion or belief. And the academic consensus through years of solid textual critical analysis, historical critical methods and archaeology leads to an objective consensus of the dates that state he is right, 80CE for Matthew with Luke and John much l8r.

A consensus likely older than you, unanimously present in all study bibles, papers and journals of which the excerpt I shared is taken from one(Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha), with top and virtually all institutions like Havard and Stanford still teaching it with their top academics like Dale Martin and Christain Hayes or even othes like Bart, Mcclellan and Allison. There's a reason for a consenus and its cause it's factually right regardless of belief or conspiracy theory based on the available data and evidence.

Might want to get busy writing your paper and journal, getting it published to prove they were all written before 70 CE cause merely saying it doesn't make it factual. The only books of the new testament earlier than 70CE are Paul's letters of which he wrote just 8 of the 13.

Lucifyre:
✓ Unfortunately i don't do unverifiable conspiracy theories, it's above my expertise. I only deal on what's objectively factual regardless of opinion or belief. And the academic consensus through years of solid textual critical analysis, historical critical methods and archaeology leads to an objective consensus of the dates that state he is right, 80CE for Matthew with Luke and John much l8r.

But you do consensus based on unverified claims? Abeg waka me! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Kobojunkie:
But you do consensus based on unverified claims? Abeg waka me! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Shut you up with facts didn't I?! 😄

[quote author=Antichristian2 post=135036501][/quote]
Who is still Allah?

Oh boy! To those unaware, consensus does not turn speculation into fact, just so you know. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

To this day, the actual time of the writing of the Gospels is said to be unknown, and the name(s) of the authors of the writings also remain unknown.

Lucifyre:


Unfortunately i don't do unverifiable conspiracy theories, it's above my expertise. I only deal on what's objectively factual regardless of opinion or belief. And the academic consensus through years of solid textual critical analysis, historical critical methods and archaeology leads to an objective consensus of the dates that state he is right, 80CE for Matthew with Luke and John much l8r.

A consensus likely older than you, unanimously present in all study bibles, papers and journals of which the excerpt I shared is taken from one(Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha), with top and virtually all institutions like Havard and Stanford still teaching it with their top academics like Dale Martin and Christain Hayes or even othes like Bart, Mcclellan and Allison. There's a reason for a consenus and its cause it's factually right regardless of belief or conspiracy theory based on the available data and evidence.

Might want to get busy writing your paper and journal, getting it published to prove they were all written before 70 CE cause merely saying it doesn't make it factual. The only books of the new testament earlier than 70CE are Paul's letters of which he wrote just 8 of the 13.

Objective analysis based on some empirical evidence and academic historical criteria cannot negate or be superior to statements of early church Fathers who lived very much in the 1st and ealry 2nd century. Apostolic and early church Fathers told us who wrote the gospels and when it was written.

Telling me to accept opinions of some academicians whose statements fluctuates based on new extant manuscripts or some newly discovered historical piece of evidence over early church Fathers some of whom actually met the disciples of our Lord makes absolutely no sense.

And when U consider the reason why academic bible scholars pin the dating of the gospel to after 70 AD is due to the impossibility of Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, it makes their whole academic argument ridiculous.

Yet we have the didache an eucharist used by Jewish Christians in the first century. It's theological similarity with the community rule of the dead sea scrolls proves it usage by early Christians Jews b4 the fall of Jerusalem.
This book is a carbon copy of the gospel of Mathew with many verses of the gospel quoted verbatim in the didache. This shows the gospel of Mathew was very much around before the fall of Jerusalem.

U and your likes will do well to study the writings of the early church Fathers b4 making obtuse conclusion based on emperical non factual academic argument.

For example, Father Clement of Alexandra and Father Pappais both confirmed Mark penned down the gospel of our Lord via the mouth of Peter while the later was preaching in Rome.

Father Justyn Mathias quoted from the gospel of mark and said the book was based on the gospel narrative from Peter.

These were all 1st and 2nd century church Fathers. Moreover, Pappais was known to have met Philip and John.

Furthermore, when U realise the gospels were initially called memoir of the apostles by the church in the 1st and 2nd century; the anonymous authorship claim to the gospels is baseless except U don't know the meaning of memoir.

Memoir means an historical written by an eyewitness. This means the early church believed the gospels were written by people who actually witnessed the events they wrote down in the gospel books.

Now ignoring all these for some invented academic historical criteria such disbelieve in prophecy or predictions is the hallmark of FOOLISHNESS. This is the reason I abandoned atheism because it's so obvious it makes no sense.

SIRTee15:


Objective analysis based on some empirical evidence and academic historical criteria cannot negate or be superior to statements of early church Fathers who lived very much in the 1st and ealry 2nd century. Apostolic ad early church Fathers told us who wrote the gospels and when it was written.

Telling me to accept opinions of some academicians whose Thestatements fluctuates based on new extant manuscripts or some newly

😅 The narrow minded view portrayed by the bolded immediately spelt out this is an epistle of dross sprinkled with typical indoctrinated nonsense that i have no interest in reading through. Just the typical frothing at the mouth by the delusional once their baseless beliefs are held under a microscope. I couldn't care less about you accepting whatever 'opinion', as that's a fool's errand i have no intention of running.

Luckily facts are facts and objective despite subjective opinions or beliefs. Your accepting or not accepting them is of no value. Just like there are simpletons who say the earth is flat, it doesn't change the fact it's spherical despite their baseless opinion and beliefs. The irony here being that even those who believe in non-eyewitness testimony over empirical evidence can't even agree and come to a single objective conclusion.

They can neither agree on the actual collection of the contradictory baseless pseudepigraphic texts, neither can they come to a conclusion on the interpretation of said texts as no 2 christains agree on interpretation of the texts from cover to cover. Instead, split up in 45,000 ways of differing opinions, raising noses at each other and even outrightly killing each other with a god whose not an author of confusion at the centre of the circus and clown show.

And somehow this subjective baseless undemonstrable and inconsistent clownshow with zero evidence of the mythological claims, has weight over factual objective empirical evidence. An unfunny joke if I've ever heard one. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth as if rabid, you guys put that energy into getting the circus of clowns together to form an objective stance with an objective canon and noncontradictory texts with eyewitness testimony at least.

Maybe just maybe when the circus gets its act together, then unverifiable contradictory non-eyewitness testimonies would outweigh objective empirical evidence. Have a nice life ✌🏾

Kobojunkie:
Oh boy! To those unaware, consensus does not turn speculation into fact, just so you know. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

To this day, the actual time of the writing of the Gospels is said to be unknown, and the name(s) of the authors of the writings also remain unknown.

Get busy writing instead of making empty noise😌

Lucifyre:
✓ Get busy writing instead of making empty noise😌

This one is still not paying attention as his ego seems to have been clobbered into some emergency need to throw fists before engaging his brain. 🙄🙄🙄

Facts are not manufactured through the writing of long essays, theses, epistles, or gibberish filled with nothing but speculations. 😩😩😩

Lucifyre:


😅 The narrow minded view portrayed by the bolded immediately spelt out this is an epistle of dross sprinkled with typical indoctrinated nonsense that i have no interest in reading through. Just the typical frothing at the mouth by the delusional once their baseless beliefs are held under a microscope. I couldn't care less about you accepting whatever 'opinion', as that's a fool's errand i have no intention of running.

Luckily facts are facts and objective despite subjective opinions or beliefs. Your accepting or not accepting them is of no value. Just like there are simpletons who say the earth is flat, it doesn't change the fact it's spherical despite their baseless opinion and beliefs. The irony here being that even those who believe in non-eyewitness testimony over empirical evidence can't even agree and come to a single objective conclusion.

They can neither agree on the actual collection of the contradictory baseless pseudepigraphic texts, neither can they come to a conclusion on the interpretation of said texts as no 2 christains agree on interpretation of the texts from cover to cover. Instead, split up in 45,000 ways of differing opinions, raising noses at each other and even outrightly killing each other with a god whose not an author of confusion at the centre of the circus and clown show.

And somehow this subjective baseless undemonstrable and inconsistent clownshow with zero evidence of the mythological claims, has weight over factual objective empirical evidence. An unfunny joke if I've ever heard one. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth as if rabid, you guys put that energy into getting the circus of clowns together to form an objective stance with an objective canon and noncontradictory texts with eyewitness testimony at least.

Maybe just maybe when the circus gets its act together, then unverifiable contradictory non-eyewitness testimonies would outweigh objective empirical evidence. Have a nice life ✌🏾

Joker.

Your whole ranting is based on subjective and non factual evidence
No bible scholar can produce any FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO HIS CLAIM OF ANONYMITY OF THE GOSPEL AUTHORSHIP OR DATING OF THE GOSPEL.

I REPEAT.

THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO WHATEVER ANALYSIS THESE BIBLE SCHOLARS HAVE TO BACK THEIR CLAIM. NONE.

THAT IS WHY THERE IS ALWAYS A PROGRESSIVE SHIFT IN THEIR TRAIN OF THOUGHTS WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR Analysis OF THE BIBLE CRITICISM.

There was a time bible scholars claim the gospel of John isn't reliable. This was the case until the 1920s when archeological findings corroborated contents in the gospel of John; Now bible scholars have shifted to the topography and historical documentations in John's gospel are true but not the words attributed to Jesus.

If these are the people you want to gamble your life upon, then your case is hopeless.

This is what Father Clement has to say about the gospel of Mark. This is what we call factual evidence.

No bible scholar can bring anything close to back their claim of gospel authorship anonymity or dating.
I repeat None.

I challenge U to prove me wrong if U can.

Lucifyre:


😅 The narrow minded view portrayed by the bolded immediately spelt out this is an epistle of dross sprinkled with typical indoctrinated nonsense that i have no interest in reading through. Just the typical frothing at the mouth by the delusional once their baseless beliefs are held under a microscope. I couldn't care less about you accepting whatever 'opinion', as that's a fool's errand i have no intention of running.

Luckily facts are facts and objective despite subjective opinions or beliefs. Your accepting or not accepting them is of no value. Just like there are simpletons who say the earth is flat, it doesn't change the fact it's spherical despite their baseless opinion and beliefs. The irony here being that even those who believe in non-eyewitness testimony over empirical evidence can't even agree and come to a single objective conclusion.

They can neither agree on the actual collection of the contradictory baseless pseudepigraphic texts, neither can they come to a conclusion on the interpretation of said texts as no 2 christains agree on interpretation of the texts from cover to cover. Instead, split up in 45,000 ways of differing opinions, raising noses at each other and even outrightly killing each other with a god whose not an author of confusion at the centre of the circus and clown show.

And somehow this subjective baseless undemonstrable and inconsistent clownshow with zero evidence of the mythological claims, has weight over factual objective empirical evidence. An unfunny joke if I've ever heard one. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth as if rabid, you guys put that energy into getting the circus of clowns together to form an objective stance with an objective canon and noncontradictory texts with eyewitness testimony at least.

Maybe just maybe when the circus gets its act together, then unverifiable contradictory non-eyewitness testimonies would outweigh objective empirical evidence. Have a nice life ✌🏾

None early church Fathers contradicted each other when it comes to the authorship of the gospel. None.

These were men with independent mind and highly opinionated who were never afraid to call out whatever they think it's wrong or false
Yes they didn't always agree on so many things pertaining to their beliefs.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE 4 GOSPELS, THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT AMONGST ALL EARLY CHURCH FATHERS IRRESPECTIVE OF SECTS THAT THE GOSPELS HAD THE CORRECT AUTHOR PINNED TO IT.

NONE CHALLENGED THE CLAIM OR DOUBTED IT OR MADE A CONTRARY THE CLAIM.

NONE EVER ASCRIBED A CONTRARY NAME TO ANY OF THE GOSPEL.

NONE EVER CALLED THE 4 GOSPELS PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, NONE EVER SAID 'WE DONT KNOW WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS.'

NO WONDER THE EARLY CHURCH CALLED THEM MEMOIRS.
A BOOK WRITTEN BY AN EYEWITNESS.

You can continue to deluded yourself with bias, subjective, non-substantiated, non factual evidence thrown around by historians calling themselves bible scholars.

I CHALLENGE U TO BRING ONE FACTUAL EVIDENCE...JUST ONE, THAT PROVES THE BIBLE AUTHORS IS ANONYMOUS.

Here is another factual evidence from one of the church fathers stating who wrote the gospel of Mark.

Kobojunkie:
This one is still not paying attention as his ego seems to have been clobbered into some emergency need to throw fists before engaging his brain. 🙄🙄🙄

Facts are not manufactured through the writing of long essays, theses, epistles, or gibberish filled with nothing but speculations. 😩😩😩

Yes yes i agree they're instead manufactured by ranting baseless nonsense rabidly online like a bipolar patient off their meds or should i say a junkie without it's fix. 🤡

SIRTee15:


Joker.

Your whole ranting is based on subjective and non factual evidence
No bible scholar can produce any FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO HIS CLAIM OF ANONYMITY OF THE GOSPEL AUTHORSHIP OR DATING OF THE GOSPEL.

I REPEAT.

THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO WHATEVER ANALYSIS THESE BIBLE SCHOLARS HAVE TO BACK THEIR CLAIM. NONE.

Man😄 see how this dude is convulsing over my mentions. The sweet schadenfreude when you guys begin to foam at the mouth due to that precious hit of cognitive dissonance once your beliefs are examined, cause deep down you know it's evidently baseless. Already told you trying to convince you is a fool's errand I have no intention of running, neither do I intend to validate your typical concocted & regurgitated apologetic what-if scenarios. 

But i'd oblige the bolded just to have a laugh. Btw Is the bolded some form of satire or something or are u simply just as clueless and ignorant as much as you foam at the mouth. No factual evidence?! An unfunny joke😄 Which of the gospels explicitly names the author(s) within the texts or even any variant of the dissimilar manuscripts without originals? That's not factual?! Maybe you could show it to us in any of the gospels where we all missed the names within the texts identifying the authors.

Maybe while at it you also tell us how - without concocting magical maybe scenarios - poor illiterate peasants who spoke Aramaic in a time period where the literacy rate was less than 2% somehow managed to write in sophisticated greek and chose not to write in Aramaic or Hebrew? That's not factual?! Even 'church father' Justin Matyr called them illiterate like the texts themselves called em in Acts 4:13. Were the texts written in a 1st person or 3rd person view lol?! "We know his testimony is true". Not factual?! lol!...

Lucifyre:


t.....

...Funny enough speaking of 'church fathers', you expect us to rely on a claim to a claim, when the claim used to the other claim is full of inconsistencies. Even so called church father Papias voiced displeasure over the written s of Jesus' life and made claims Matthew was written in hebrew which it most certainly was not. Also made claims Mark and Matthew('the tax collector' - who was also identified to be Levi) were sayings gospels which they obviously were not. As well as giving a contradictory of Judas' death diff from the 2 contradictory s already in the texts. Not factual?!

So much inconsistencies and you want us to ignore the obvious preferring to use inconsistent claims to a claim. Inconsistent claims that were adopted decades after the gospels were written, with the church fathers even disagreeing on the order, dating and details of the texts. Laughable. A claim is never used to a claim, much less one with inconsistencies, evidence is used and here there is non. Energy would be better expended forming some semblance of objectivity and finding evidence for your inconsistent subjective myth cause it falls like a pack of cards.