April 15, 2006

God Inspired The Bible But Couldn't Get His Story Straight


Skeptic's Annotated Bible on Who Saw Jesus Rise First:

The two Marys
Matthew 28:1, 9
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Mary Magdalene
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

John 20:11-14
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ... and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Cleopas and another
Luke 24:13-31
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus.... And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? ... And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

1 Corinthians 15:4-5
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

I'm sure that the Fundies have spun this one over and over again to make their Bible literally correct. Too bad they waste their time on this nonsense. They are better off learning about evolution, and I mean learn from real science sources.

Bonus picture: Atheists Last Supper, courtesy of Minister of Rants, another very funny site.


  1. I dunno what's up here. Did the authorities separate the witnesses before they took these statements? Sounds fishy to me. (Makes one wonder about about the Bible as a reliable source of information. But that's just me.)

    I do believe the picture, though. Everyone wore hats back then

    P.S. Is that the Cross of St. George?

  2. Probably you have received a rather positive image of the Christian Charity: Boys Town.

    To balance that illusionary image, look up the Discovery Channel censored documentary The Conspiracy of Silence about a child sex ring involving powerful people in Washington and around the country.


  3. Scientifically Mohammed's story is more plausible.

  4. Bacon, I thought you were against child-rapers? If you don't like that link you can find others. You are such a pretentious hypocrite.

  5. Seriously benana, you have to be the stupidest person I've run across in a long time.

    My objections against Rense have nothing to do with my hatred of child rapists.

    You really are a piece of work. No wonder you sympathize with the lowest form of humans on this planet.

  6. "You really are a piece of work. No wonder you sympathize with the lowest form of humans on this planet."

    Not quite right. I don't sympathize with zionists.

    Why don't you look at the censored video from whatever source you care to get it from and then comment? It seems to me you once made that suggestion to me about another video.

  7. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    what a hairy, warty, troll you are.

  8. One of the gospels has a genealogy of Christ going back to Abraham and another to Adam. These genealogies are different which is quite odd.




    And why does it list Joseph as being Christ’s father?

  9. Before I start, as I have mentioned in prior comments here, I am not a fundamentalist - I am a Catholic. As such, I do not take a literalist view of the Bible.

    That said, we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (note: I did not use the term "infallible"), in that "the Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that God intended to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory" (thanks to wikipedia). This means that there has to be some understanding and actual "brain work" done to understand the things that seem to contradict or be inconsistent. (Yes, Catholics use intellect to enhance their faith.)

    One site I found that attempts to do this is here (beware! It's from a *gasp* Baptist). However, I have the feeling that this will not convince you because a) it answers only one or a few examples of "inconsistencies", and
    b) why isn't the Bible written so that there are no possible misinterpretations?

    My personal take on it is best described by an example (a "parable", if you will...). I could tell you that I went to Hawaii last week. I could also tell another person that my wife was disgusted by what we saw in L.A. last week. Would you necessarily call me a liar because I said I was in Hawaii, but I also said that we were in L.A.? No, because you would use your intellect to see that we must have had a change-over in L.A. on our way to Hawaii. Is this making an excuse because you are prejudiced toward believing I wouldn't lie, or is it a logical supposition? I guess that would depend on the jury. :-)

    Hope this helps. BTW, as part of my family's Easter celebration, we had a baked ham that tasted delicious! ;-)

  10. Orthodoxy, I have nothing (almost nothing) against any believer who doesn't dismiss science as fraudulent because it goes against their belief system.
    I realize the Catholics seem to be embracing science these days. Too bad they aren't quite there when it comes to condom use in Africa or accepting homosexuality as a something that caused mostly by nature.
    I didn't grow up a huge ham fan although I am starting to like lean hams of late.

  11. or accepting homosexuality as a something that caused mostly by nature.

    Actually, the only thing that Catholics have against homosexuality is the unnatural homosexual act. It's the old maxim: "Love the sinner - hate the sin." We hate sodomy as an unnatural abuse of the natural faculty of sex. We (that is Catholics, as well as geneticists) do not know whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental (or a combination) in nature - therefore, we do not condemn those that may be inclined toward homosexuality, just as we do not condemn those that, by no fault of their own have some other "disorder" (like blindness, deafness, parapalegia, etc.).

    I know this may sound severe to call homosexuality a disorder, but one cannot deny that heterosexuality is what is most prevalent in nature and has actual purpose (procreation), not just in man, but in all animals. Things in nature have purpose - some are for procreation, others are for waste excretion.

    The use/abuse issue also comes into Catholic thinking when it comes to condoms and other forms of artificial contraception - we are against the things that are counter to the natural order and purpose of things. The sexual act should not be devoid of its purpose. If natural factors result in no conception, that is not a problem - but if something artificial (the pill, condoms, etc.) impedes fertilization, than that is an act against the natural law.

    Not trying to convince you - just giving you the reasoning of Catholic teaching (as I understand them - I am just a layman who is, at best, a B-list amateur philosopher/theologian), so you may be better informed for any future discussions, debates, etc.

    (BTW, I also liked your 10 rules to blogging - very much along my own guidelines.)

    And, if it is not too forward to say, happy belated Passover. Shalom.

  12. God's LO. I can see what you mean, but in my answer to Bacon, I refer to similar advice he gave me. It was just a reminder to him about turnabout is fair play.

  13. Orthodoxy, thanks, and Happy Easter to you. I don't celebrate Passover though.
    I'm aware of why Catholics make the rules they do, and have the outlooks they do. I'm just saying they need to get with the times. Our planet has limited resources, and overpopulation is beginning to get ugly. Exceptions need to be made and need to start at the top.

    Bernarda, GFY and STFU, nobody likes you.

  14. Hey Bacon, you might enjoy my new video on the whole Easter subject... ha ha ha!

    Furthermore, I love the fundies you draw in here- they're nutty!

  15. Bacon: your post rings true with the history I've read and the years I've spent observing the issue. Especially true is the statement that 'the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity'.
    Just consider the history of the Palestinian 'Authority' and Arafat's blindness to everything but his own ego.
    Build the wall higher. And keep the powder dry. Israel is a tiny place surrounded by enemies... enemies who contine to use the Palestinians as dupes.

  16. Doctor, I think you commented on the wrong post. But that is OK, you can stay out of the way of Bernanda this way, hopefully.
    The Palestinians seem to be willing dupes though, or at least, they make the perfect dupes.

  17. I almost feel guilty (almost)... I Laughed so loud I nearly woke my kids when I saw your He Is Risen picture. I think as a Christian, fundamentalists might say that I should feel guilty for seeing that as funny... I think God has a sense of humor, too.... that's why He created Atheists. ;-D