The literal 6 day creation in Genesis.

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

So who were these dead saints who arose and appeared to many, but who's amazing resurrection and astonishing appearance was an event that no other writer in the New Testament managed to remember or write about except Matthew? Who are these amazing beings who seem inserted as a very odd parenthesis in the wrong place in the gospel that seemed to demand a parenthetical commentary ("AFTER Jesus resurrection")?

Answer: They were an imaginative and entirely imaginary addition by a very early editor of the gospel of Matthew.

P.S. The book of Revelation is not inspired scripture.

John the beloved tells us that after the resurrection, Mary at the empty tomb, turned around and saw Jesus, she actually looked at the man and thought that he was the gardener, until he spoke her name "MARY."

Are you suggesting that this is but an imaginative and entirely imaginary addition by a very early editor of the gospels?

Mark speaks of the two, who were the first males to see the risen Christ, who were walking in the country, to whom Christ appeared, but he does not name them.

It is Luke who tells us that it was Cleophas and another man, who, on the road to Emmaus, walked and talked with the risen body of Christ, and invited him to stop and eat with them, but did not recognise who he was, until they saw the manner in which he broke the bread.

And Cleophas, reveals who the other man was, with whom he walked and talked to the risen Christ. When speaking to Simon Peter and Simon the patriot in the darken room in Jerusalem, he said, "He has risen, He appeared to Simon," who had to be Simon the son of Cleophas, who succeeded James the Righteous to the episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem.

And in John 21: 12; it is He, who reveals to us that none of the disciples present at the Lake of Galilee dared to ask who he was, but they understood that he was the risen Christ.

Are you suggesting that this is but another of your supposed imaginative and entirely imaginary addition by a very early editor of the gospels?

Who were these unidentifiable men who appeared after the resurrection of Jesus, who showed themselves to many, but who were unrecognisable as Jesus, except for their mannerisms?

[quote=Keith]So who were these dead saints who arose and appeared to many, but who's amazing resurrection and astonishing appearance was an event that no other writer in the New Testament managed to remember or write about except Matthew?

Luke tells us of the young boy Jesus who was lost by his parents for three days and was finally found in the Temple confounding the authorities with his knowledge of scripture. Should we believe this event, that no other writer in the New Testament managed to remember or write about also.

[Reverend Keith]

No, my reference to imaginary additions was simply the "many bodies of the saints that slept arose and appeared unto many".

In the case of the resurrection appearances, it seems apparent that a resurrected spiritual body can appear in whatever physical form it wishes, but I believe most of the apparitions occur as visions, and most of the accounts that try to make the resurrection appearances dramatically physical (down to Jesus eating fish) are probably later additions to combat doceticism.

Is the boy Jesus story an addition? Hard to tell, but a precocious young man holding forth in the temple years before Jesus' public ministry would hardly have been the amazing miracle of "many" dead saints walking around and appearing to "many" at the very end of Jesus' earthy career, so it would have been more likely to be something not all the gospel writers and editors would have picked up.

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

No, my reference to imaginary additions was simply the "many bodies of the saints that slept arose and appeared unto many".

In the case of the resurrection appearances, it seems apparent that a resurrected spiritual body can appear in whatever physical form it wishes, but I believe most of the apparitions occur as visions, and most of the accounts that try to make the resurrection appearances dramatically physical (down to Jesus eating fish) are probably later additions to combat doceticism.

Is the boy Jesus story an addition? Hard to tell, but a precocious young man holding forth in the temple years before Jesus' public ministry would hardly have been the amazing miracle of "many" dead saints walking around and appearing to "many" at the very end of Jesus' earthy career, so it would have been more likely to be something not all the gospel writers and editors would have picked up.

[Keith wrote]…….No, my reference to imaginary additions was simply the "many bodies of the saints that slept arose and appeared unto many".

[S-word’s Response]…..You are in fact saying, that where the word of God says, that at the moment Jesus cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani,” that is “My God, My God, why hast thou deserted me,” as he gave up his spirit, and the graves of the righteous were opened, who went into the city three days later and showed themselves to many, was a mere fabrication.

[Keith wrote]…….In the case of the resurrection appearances, it seems apparent that a resurrected spiritual body can appear in whatever physical form it wishes, but I believe most of the apparitions occur as visions, and most of the accounts that try to make the resurrection appearances dramatically physical (down to Jesus eating fish) are probably later additions to combat doceticism.

[S-word’s Response]…..Ah hah, so Keith proves that the unidentified man who ate the bread and fish with his seven disciples on the shore of the Lake of Galilee, was but another fabrication, I have no doubts that Keith would also want us to believe, that when Jesus appeared in the room with his disciples and asked for something to eat, this too was another fabrication.

[Keith wrote]…….Is the boy Jesus story an addition? Hard to tell, but a precocious young man holding forth in the temple years before Jesus' public ministry would hardly have been the amazing miracle of "many" dead saints walking around and appearing to "many" at the very end of Jesus' earthy career, so it would have been more likely to be something not all the gospel writers and editors would have picked up.

[S-word’s Response]…..well, well, what do you know, Keith reckons that he aint too sure whether the story of the young Jesus found in the Temple, is a fabrication or not, but as he would have us believe that because Matthew was the only gospel writer to have remembered to speak of the graves of the righteous being opened with the death of Jesus, then we can assume that he is suggesting, that because Luke is the only one to have remembered to relate this particular story, then this also is a fabrication.

Should we also dismiss the story of the wise men and the star that heralded the birth of Jesus, which story is only recounted by Matthew, or the story of the Angel appearing to Mary as told by Luke alone, what do you reckon Keith?

We will continue to believe the word of God over your words Keith, sorry mate.

[Reverend Keith]

S-Word:

Well, either the New Testament is textually inerrant or it's not. It's pretty obvious that there have been translation errors. It's easily demonstrable that there have been deliberate changes and insertions (as well as accidental blunders) from earlier manuscripts to later ones. Are we to assume that the period before our earliest manuscripts was completely free of deliberate changes and insertions? Did God miraculously preserve the content from error until it was down on paper somewhere and then wash his hands of it?

Once we admit that there have been changes and insertions (and a few deletions) to the gospels (which is hardly controversial) then discussing which sayings and stories are older or more original hardly seems a crime.

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

S-Word:

Well, either the New Testament is textually inerrant or it's not. It's pretty obvious that there have been translation errors. It's easily demonstrable that there have been deliberate changes and insertions (as well as accidental blunders) from earlier manuscripts to later ones. Are we to assume that the period before our earliest manuscripts was completely free of deliberate changes and insertions? Did God miraculously preserve the content from error until it was down on paper somewhere and then wash his hands of it?

Once we admit that there have been changes and insertions (and a few deletions) to the gospels (which is hardly controversial) then discussing which sayings and stories are older or more original hardly seems a crime.

Indeed there are instances where there has been deliberate changes to the true text of God’s word, such as the false and erroneous interpretation, of the Greek word Parthenos in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy that a young unmarried girl would be pregnant and bear a son.

But we have no need of men such as yourself to reveal to us the truth, as God’s word refutes and errors that are added.

Hanna, the aged woman who nursed the baby Jesus in the temple before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, had lost her husband seven years previously, and had led a led a life of celibacy since then, and she was also referred to as a “Parthenos.” If she was married, the union had to have been consummated, and she would not have had an intact hymen and was definitely not a virgin, nor was Mary after the act of obedience to the Holy Spirit, in copulating with Joseph the son of “Heli” by which act of obedience, she conceived the child Jesus.

As with the many accidental blunders that were made through erroneous interpretations that led to erroneous translations, there are numerous apparent contradictions in the bible, which are explained by the bible itself.

ie 1st Chronicles 2: 13; states that Jesse had seven sons and gives their names in order of their ages, David is the seventh and youngest of his sons.

1st Samuel 17: 12; states that Jesse had eight sons, and when we turn to 1st Samuel 16: 6-13; we see Samuel choosing from Jesse's eight sons, a replacement for King Saul, who had been rejected by God. Seven of Jesse's sons were presented to Samuel in order of their age, but all were rejected by the spirit who guided Samuel, then David, the eighth and youngest son of Jesse, who was tending the sheep, was called and accepted and anointed by Samuel as the replacement King of Israel.

This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by any who have seriously studied God's holy word.

The Good news Catholic Study Edition, 1st Chronicles 2: 16; states that Jesse had two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, whereas the KJV, states that Zeruiah and Abigail are the sisters of David.

The Hebrew word for "sister" used in the original Hebrew, is "achoth," which is correctly translated in the KJV, but which is interpreted to mean the daughters of Jesse in the GNB. Now one would expect that the sisters of David had to be the biological daughters of Jesse.

But such is not the case, it would appear that the mother of David, was not the mother of Jesse's other six biological sons, because 2nd Samuel 17: 25; reveals that Zeruiah and Abigail, the older sisters of David, were sired by Nahash, who ruled both Ammon and Moab at that time, and Shobi, who is mentioned in the very same verse, who gave support to David while fleeing from Absalom, was also born of the same womb as David, and is the eighth son of Jesse and the older brother of David, or should we say of the seven half brothers of King David, all are older than He.

I will leave it to the spirit of the Lord, under whose control, were the men who recorded his words, to reveal to me the messages that are given, I have no need of the rabbiting rhetoric of people who have no understanding whatsoever as to the truths hidden therein, and would attempt to denigrate the word of God, by saying that it is merely the fabrications of sinful men.

[Reverend Keith]

But we have no need of men such as yourself to reveal to us the truth, as God’s word refutes and errors that are added.

There are, of course, entire books devoted to attempting to explain Bible Contradictions. Some of these explanations are plausible. Some aren’t. Why you choose to go into elaborate detail about a relatively minor contradiction between Samuel and Chronicles I’m not sure. But where, for example, does “God’s Word” (and that phrase in scripture almost never means the written word, but that’s a topic for another day) help you in explaining, for example, why the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) isn’t found in any of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John, and doesn’t show up until the 4th century? Why is the description of Jesus sweating blood (Luke 22:43-44) missing from most early manuscripts? (and stuck in the middle of an otherwise coherent passage?) Why is the ending of Mark (16:9-20) missing from so many early manuscripts? Why does the comment in 1 John 5:7-8 about the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost not appear in any manuscript until the Middle Ages, but still show up in the King James?

These and other examples show a human tendency to add to scripture as time goes by. It’s only logical to suppose that this process had been going on even before the gospels were committed to writing.

I will leave it to the spirit of the Lord, under whose control, were the men who recorded his words, to reveal to me the messages that are given, I have no need of the rabbiting rhetoric of people who have no understanding whatsoever as to the truths hidden therein, and would attempt to denigrate the word of God, by saying that it is merely the fabrications of sinful men.

Sometimes conformity to our own preconceptions “feels” a lot like divine confirmation. It’s a very natural thing.

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

There are, of course, entire books devoted to attempting to explain Bible Contradictions. Some of these explanations are plausible. Some aren’t. Why you choose to go into elaborate detail about a relatively minor contradiction between Samuel and Chronicles I’m not sure. But where, for example, does “God’s Word” (and that phrase in scripture almost never means the written word, but that’s a topic for another day) help you in explaining, for example, why the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) isn’t found in any of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John, and doesn’t show up until the 4th century? Why is the description of Jesus sweating blood (Luke 22:43-44) missing from most early manuscripts? (and stuck in the middle of an otherwise coherent passage?) Why is the ending of Mark (16:9-20) missing from so many early manuscripts? Why does the comment in 1 John 5:7-8 about the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost not appear in any manuscript until the Middle Ages, but still show up in the King James?

These and other examples show a human tendency to add to scripture as time goes by. It’s only logical to suppose that this process had been going on even before the gospels were committed to writing.



Sometimes conformity to our own preconceptions “feels” a lot like divine confirmation. It’s a very natural thing.

[Keith asks the question]......why the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) isn’t found in any of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John,

[S-word’ Response]……Because only FRAGMENTS of the early manuscripts from which Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate are in existence and much of the originals are missing. Do you know of the existence of any complete manuscript of John before 300 AD?

But you have now introduced the story of the woman who was said by the Jewish authorities, to have been caught in the act of adultery after Jesus had given the new teaching, that if a divorced person remarried while their original partner was still alive, then they were committing adultery.

Mary was the biological mother of three sons, Jesus, who was the son of her half brother, Joseph the son of her legal husband who carried his father’s name, and James the younger of her three biological sons, who was sired by Alpheaus, which name in Aramaic means “Of a renowned father” who is one and the same person as Cleophas, the male abbreviation of the femenine “Cleopatra,” which name in the Greek, also means “Of a renowned Father.”

Of the two disciples of Jesus by the name “James,” the other James, who was the son of Zebedee had been killed by Herod Agrippa, and Paul declares that James the younger of Mary’s three sons, is the brother of Jesus. Galatians 1: 19: Paul states that he stayed with Peter for two weeks and during that time he saw none of the other disciples except for James the Lord’s brother.

Mary was the wife of Cleophas at the time of the death of Jesus, but when did she marry him, and was Joseph her first husband still alive?

Matthew 13: 55; reads, Isn’t he the carpenter’s son? Isn’t Mary his mother, and aren’t James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude his brothers? Etc.

Jude, is the son of Alpheaus=Cleophas, but he and Simeon are only step sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, who is referred to by all gospel writers as one of the only two women by the name Mary, at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus, and they are, the mother of Jesus, who is Mary the mother of James the younger of her sons and Joseph, of who we know so little, and Mary Magdalene, who I believe was the wife to Rabbi Jesus, as in those days, all Rabbi’s were expected to be married men.

Because Jude, the brother of James (See the Epistle of Jude,) was one of the twelve disciples, his parentage is given as being the son of Alpheaus, the father of James the younger, who is the brother of the Lord.

Thomas=Tau’ma, “the Aramaic for twin,” is also called Didymus, which is “the Greek for twin,” he is Thomas Didymus Jude, the brother of Jesus and the son of the carpenter Cleophas/Alpheaus, the father of James, Jude, and, as is more than likely, Simeon, who with Cleophas the husband of Mary, were the first men to whom the risen Christ appeared after the resurrection.

Knowing that in ART, Thomas Didymus Jude, the son of Alpheaus, is depicted with a carpenter’s rule and square, we must ask the question, "Who is the Carpenter to whom Mary was married at that time, when her family consisted of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Was it Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who was her first husband, or was it Cleophas=Alpheaus, who was the father of Simeon, Jude and James the younger of Mary’s sons?

In "The Acts of Thomas, sometime called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas Judas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of the Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban.”

James the younger of Mary’s three sons, was an adult and would have only been a few years younger than his brothers, Jesus and Joseph, revealing that Mary had married the carpenter Cleophas/Alpheaus the father of James the brother of the Lord, when Jesus was a small boy.

The religious authorities in the days of Jesus, would have access to all the bills of divorce which were filed within the Temple precincts, and in those days they were always looking for ways that they might trap Jesus according to his own teaching and then accuse him to the people, and it was after Jesus had been preaching that if a divorced person remarried while their original spouse was still alive, they were committing adultery. It was then that the hypocritical priests thought that they had the means whereby they could make Jesus appear to the people to have one law for himself and another for everyone else.

Pointing to his mother, who was among the crowd who were listening to the great teacher who was setting Israel on fire, they said to Jesus in their most patronising voice, Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. (This was according to the new teaching of Jesus) In our law Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now, what do you say? They said this in order to trap Jesus and accuse him to the people. (Not my words)

Jesus knew what those hypocrites were up to, those hypocrites who thought nothing of stoning the innocent Stephen to death, were bound by the law of Moses to stone this woman to death if she had indeed been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse with a man other than He to who she was legally married at that time.

Jesus then turned the tables on them by saying, “He who is without sin may cast the first stone,”
Then he bent down and wrote something in the dust, Perhaps he may have written, “As ye judge, so shall ye be judged.” Most men in those days who had been given by Moses the right to issue their wives with a bill of divorce, had done so and according to the new teaching of Jesus would have been as guilty as the woman that they were accusing, and the hypocrites knowing full well that the woman had not broken the Law of Moses and was innocent of any crime according to their own teachings, they were forced to walk away with their tails between their legs, thereby admitting to the people that they were not without sin.

Jesus then turned to his mother and asked, “Is there no one left to condemn you?” No one Lord she answered. “Well then,” said Jesus, “I do not condemn you either. Go, but don’t sin again,” and it was for this reason that the mother of Jesus chose to remain separate from her husband Cleophas and his children, and the reason why, on the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother, “Mary the wife of Cleophas,” into the care of his beloved disciple John.

Although we know near to nothing about Joseph the half brother to Jesus, there is more that a greater probability that he was Joseph from Arimathea, who laid Jesus in his own FAMILY tomb that had "NEVER BEEN USED", suggesting that His Father, the first husband of Mary, was still alive. It seem strange that in a book which is so condensed, one would bother to add the little bit of trivia, that the tomb in which Jesus was laid, was the FAMILY tomb of Joseph which had "NEVER BEEN USED" when saying, He was buried in an empty tomb close by, would have sufficed.

[Morpheus]

Rev. Keith:

I disagree. It's obvious that there is a sinful tendency in humanity. This would be true regardless of how accurate Genesis is.

Agreed, RE: sinful tendencies.

It would be good to explore the why's, and wherefore's, and abouts, on that.

[Morpheus]

Time does fly...

http://www.elijah.org/fenholt/

[Reverend Keith]

[S-word’ Response]……Because only FRAGMENTS of the early manuscripts from which Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate are in existence and much of the originals are missing. Do you know of the existence of any complete manuscript of John before 300 AD?

Papyrus 66, dated around 200 CE contains nearly all of the gospel of John. It contains the section in which the story of the woman in adultery appears (John 7:53 to 8:11). And it does NOT contain the story. The narrative in thie papyrus moves straight from 7:52 to 8:12 (which flows quite well). Papyrus 75 includes mosf of the first part of John (up to chapter 15) and again, this story doesn't appear. It's not included in Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaticus (4th century), the earliest complete codexes.

The earliest mention of the story that I can find is the Didascalia Apostolorum (about 230 CE) which mentiones the story but not where it came from (there is some indication it is originally from the lost Gospel of the Hebrews.)

The earliest actual placement of the story in its modern position in John is, from what I can tell, the Codex Bezae from the 5th century.

Whoever wrote John almost certainly didn't put this story there. It was apparently a later insertion of a story from another (lost) source into a convenient spot in John to preserve a much-loved story.