In my last post I talked about the people who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, as documented in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
In my next posts I will explore some of the conspiracy theories that have been invented to discredit and explain how Jesus was seen alive after he was dead.
The first theory I will take a look at is the Hallucination Theory. This theory claims that all those people who saw Jesus after he was dead actually had hallucinations, or visions or dreams, as some people who have responded to my previous articles have called it.
First let's see what all had to happen for the hallucination theory. First on Easter Sunday the woman go to the tomb and the two of the Marys and the rest who were with them see Jesus alive. They have the exact same hallucination at the exact same time. They hallucinate about something that unbelievers would say has never happened before, and has no precedence. Next these woman go tell Simon Peter and John and the two disciples join in on the hallucination. While this is happening Cephas and a traveling companion are traveling away from Jerusalem. They all have the same hallucination, that Jesus has risen from the dead and run back to Jerusalem to tell everyone.
Then the twelve disciples, except Judas who has killed himself, and Thomas who is gone, all have the same hallucination of what is unprecedented. Then Thomas comes back and when the disciples tell him what they saw, he does not believe them. Then however they all have the same hallucination at the exact same time including Thomas who does not believe. Then all the 500 people have a hallucination at the same time, and never in history has a mass hallucination like this happened nor has it happened since then. Now, the Supernatural is far more reasonable to believe that time after time all the nearly impossible hallucinations happen at the same time.
Oh and the kicker is I left out the best part. While the disciples and the Women are at the Tomb there is no conversation with the guards where the guards let them know that the body is still there. Also the Jews and Romans that opposed Jesus never come to all these people who are having mass hallucinations and say, "Excuse but the body is still in the tomb." They could easily get rid of Christianity, which they are trying to accomplish, but instead they just bribe people and go to all the work of persecuting the Christians instead.
In my next few posts I will explore the other theories regarding the resurrection.
Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The point is that the only source we have regarding these eye-witness accounts is from the gospels, unless I am very mistaken. If a person, such as myself , doesn't believe the resurrection to be true, why should I accept the word of the gospels.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
> The point is that the only source we have regarding
> these eye-witness accounts is from the gospels,
> unless I am very mistaken.
The gospels are NOT primary source eyewitness accounts. The earliest of these books (Mark) is attributed to a disciple of Peter who supposedly recorded his master's account words just before his death, which makes the account second-hand.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
My point was that the only thing that tells us that all these people saw Jesus rise from the dead is the gospels. I'm not saying that they are the eyewitness accounts.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
you are going backwards you are going to the conclusion first, and then you are making all of the evidences go the way of your conclusion. look at the evidence then make a conclusion. Which is always, up to you.
huh, when I wrote this there was only the first comment above mine, but now there are two.
But I question the evidence. As far as I know the only thing he have that tells us about the eyewitnesses is the gospels, which were written after the fact, as Percivale pointed out. So, we have a book, around 2000 years old telling us that a lot of people saw Christ rise from the dead. This book itself not being a reliable source because of various contradictions about the story of the life of Christ, being written signifigantly after the fact and edited by people to reflect what they considered to be the truth of Christ.
Because of the value of the source, I don't see why we should give weight to the evidence, especially seeing as there is no other reference to it in other sources.
"you are going backwards you are going to the conclusion first, and then you are making all of the evidences go the way of your conclusion." What?
"huh, when I wrote this there was only the first comment above mine, but now there are two." If you hit reply, instead of using the space on the botttom, you reply to a specific comment so your reply doesn't get seperated.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
When we read the newspaper, it is normally a reporter writing about witnesses told the reporter, if not the reporter getting his information from other media sources. Yet you normally believe what they have to say. If these writers were mistaken, then hows come their messages were able to survive? If they were mistaken then the Romans and Jews would have easily ended Christianity.
The stories survived the same way the Iliad and the Oddesey survived. You don't believe they actually happened, why do you believe this.
For the first hundred years Christianity was a nothing religion with no set creed. There was no orthodox Christianity that we know today. There were a multitude of texts that claimed to be authoritive concerning the teachings of Jesus. And each text had its own group of supporters. Christianity as we know it did not coallese until the 4th century when Constantine decided to have it become the state religion. Only then, and as best as we can tell, mostly by the luck of the draw .. the proto-orthodox group of Christians just happening to be concentrated around Constantinople ... did the proto-orthodox Christians win out. They immediately suppressed and destroyed the teachings of other groups. What we know of these other groups come from four sources:
(1) A gnostic supporter saved some gnostic texts by sealing them in jars and burying them in the desert. It was by pure accident they were discovered in the 20th century near the town of Nag Hamadi.
(2) There is a garbage dump near Oxyrhinchus, in which a piece or two of a badly degraded text will be excavated every now and then.
(3) Writing materials were scarce back then and much was recycled. Occasionally we will find old text that has been bleached out and newer text written over it. Computer techniques can now restore the older text.
(4) Writing by early proto-orthodox church fathers criticizing the texts of other sects. Sometimes they quote passages of it.
So when you read about Romans crucifying Christians, what branch were they crucifying? No one really knows. There is no particularly good evidence that it was the proto-orthodox set. It could have just as easily have been gnostics, montanists, docetists, adoptatiionists, or Messianic Jews. In fact, for all the trouble that Jew's claiming to be the Messiah caused Rome, it would not be surprising that this would be the group they targeted. But their beliefs were not what you would call Christianity today. They believed that Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God. They would have laughed at the idea of a virgin birth. They would also have thought it would be the height of blasphemy to claim that Jesus came to do anything for the Gentiles. They believed that Jesus was a Jew and that he had come to deliver God's chosen people ... the Jews.
So the point of all this is that there is ample reason to doubt the veracity of the stories that you claim provides evidence for Jesus' ressurection. Furthermore, at the time when the stories could have easily been disproved there was no more reason for Rome to do that than there is for us today to disprove that Elvis is still alive. Nobody of any importance is advocating it. In three hundred years, should a group of people emerge whose teachings are that Elvis survived long after he was supposed to have died then proving that allegation false will be a problem. That is the way it was with Christianity.
Common sense (people do not come back from the dead), textual evidence (the internal inconsistencies of the gospel accounts putting the veracity of the stories in question; the self-serving nature of the stories; alternative explanations that better suit the facts, etc), and historical scholarship (the revelations of the many different early Christian sects) argues strongly that the resurrection never happened. Indeed, even many Christians who are critical scholars of the bible do not believe it. They hold onto their faith by envisioning a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
All the evidence you just gave from I can tell is true. What is shows though is that early Christianity is much like it is today. There is a lot of disagreement over the interpretation of the scripture. This does not unqualify the scriptures it just shows that humans are imperfect and can't come to a perfect interpretation of the scripture.
I agree with you that there is a lot of disagreement over the interpretation of scripture. And it begs the question of why it is, if the bible does contain a message to us from God he is such a shitty communicator that he can't seem to make that message understandable. But that question is for another blog.
The disagreement in early Christianity was vastly different than from what it is now, however. It makes the scriptural differences between the most extreme groups of today look very mild. For instance, there was one fairly numerous gnostic-like sect that believed that God (they called him Yaldobaath) was actually a petulant idiot. They believed that Yaldobaath accidentally created the universe and is too stupid to realize that he did a bad job of it. They saw Jesus' role as an attempt by the REAL uber-God who has taken pity on us, to give us knowledge such that we can escape the flawed world of Yaldobaath and enter into the truly perfect one of the uber-God.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Well, the varying interpretations don't speak of God's weakness. They show the brokenness and depravity of the human nature that keeps them from interpreting scripture perfectly.
But you keep making these statements with assumptions that do not withstand even cursory scrutiny. I find it hard to pass them by.
I assume yout statement above is in response to God being such a shitty communicator. You say that the poor communication isn't God's fault, it is ours. Er ... excuse me ... but if it is as you claim then it is a message that GOD IS TRYING TO GET TO US. The responsibility for effective communcation falls squarely on his shoulders not ours. Whenever you communicate you should take your audience into consideration. You take your time and explain things if you think your point is difficult to understand. If they don't get it, and if the point is important enough to you then you try a different tact. You don't blame your audience, you blame yourself. You can't do anything about your audience, you can do something about yourself.
Now if we can understand that then God should surely be able to understand it. But he is making no apparent attempt to clear things up. In fact whatever message he had in mind is become more and more muddled ... not clearer ... as evidenced by the growing number of sects that are out there.
Now a lot of people depend upon personal revelation for their belief. They believe that God communicates things directly to them. Unfortunately it is not hard to find people who claim revelations directly from God but seem to have diametrically opposed revelations. If God can take the time to make personal revelations directly to people why not clear up the confusion by making the same revelations to everybody? It doesn't take a rocket scientist or someone with God-like knowledge to realize this would go a long way to helping his cause ... assuming his cause is to have humans understand his wants and desires.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
SNIP INTORDUCTORY PARAGRAPHS
Let's look at that a little closer shall we.
(1) Concerning the women who went to the tomb:
Mark -- Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
Matthew -- Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (no mention of Salome)
Luke -- Mary Magdalene, Joanna (where did she come from?), Mary the mother of James, and the other women (what other women?)
John -- Mary Magdalene (what happened to all those others?)
(2) Concerning what happened on the way to the tomb
Matthew -- An earthquake!
Mark, Luke and John -- What earthquake?
(3) Concerning who they saw in the tomb
Mark -- Young man dressed in a white robe
Matthew --An angel of the Lord
Luke -- Two men in dazzling clothes
John -- Nobody
(4) Concerning what the person(s) in the tomb told the women
Mark -- "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.. He has been raised; hei not here. Look, there is the place they laid him, But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of yo to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you"
Matthew -- "Do not be afreaid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. The go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him' This is my message for you"
Luke -- "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."
John -- Nobody was in the tomb .. remember?
(5) Concerning what the women did when they left the tomb:
Mark -- The women didn't say anything to anybody because they were afraid
Matthew -- They ran into Jesus who also told them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.
Luke -- They told the 11 disciples and the rest that the tomb was empty.
John -- Mary Magdalene went and got Peter and another disciple.
(6) Did the disciples go to Galilee?
Mark -- No mention of it.
Matthew -- Yes, to a mountain Jesus directed the to.
Luke -- No, they stayed in Jerusalem (They were never told to go to Galilee in Luke)
John -- Eventually but not right away (They were never instructed to go to Galilee in John)
(1) There is just as much disagreement in the gospels over who and where Jesus appeared to as there is over the other details concerning Jesus' death.. Interestingly, "the 500" that Paul mentions is not mentioned at all in the Gospels.
(2) And Paul does not say that "the 500" saw him at the same time.
Only Matthew mentions guards. No one else does. In fact, in Mark the women are worried about who will roll the stone away for them ... that suggests they were not expecting anybody to be there.
The evidence suggests that much if not all of the ressurection story in the gospels are steeped in legendary tales that were most likely made up. None of it is reliable as testimonial evidence that a person literally came back to life ... especially since our common experience says this type of thing doesn't happen. Which is more likely? The stories with all their inconsistencies are embellishments at best and most likely outright fabrications, or natural law was violated such that a person who has had no oxygen going to any cell of his body for three days suddently has those cells reverse their decay and become viable again? If you believe the latter then you really have no justification for disbelieving anything written in ancient texts. You might as well believe that Ullyses did trick a cyclops, or that Osirus returned from the dead.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I'm going to try to respond to what I can right now, but some of it will need some research.
"SNIP INTORDUCTORY PARAGRAPHS"
Ok, I'm not sure why you have a problem with this style, but the intro paragraphs are important because the connect all my posts, and give them context.
Concerning the women at the tomb, There were the two marries and then other women, such as Salome and others. The Gospels that mention just the women did not mention the other woman because the authors in their wisdom didn't want to give us a list of all the woman who were at the tomb.
Concerning the earthquake some of the Authors would have just not thought it important based on who they were writing to and what their goals were.
"(1) There is just as much disagreement in the gospels over who and where Jesus appeared to as there is over the other details concerning Jesus' death.. Interestingly, "the 500" that Paul mentions is not mentioned at all in the Gospels."
The gospel writers just did not believe that the 500 people moment had theological importance.
"(2) And Paul does not say that "the 500" saw him at the same time."
Ok, scroll up to the top of the page and look at verse 6 where Paul says that Jesus appeared to 500 people at the same time.
Actually I'm going to just blanket the a lot of the contradictions. Just because one writer doesn't include a story, or a part of a story about Jesus does not mean he is contradicting another gospel writer. The gospels are not exhaustive biographies, they are written for theological reasons. They were written by different people, and to written to different people. There is good reason for the gospels to not all tell the same stories and include the same details.
There is no mystery here. I snipped your introductory paragraphs because you did not say anything new that I felt the need to respond to.
So then what you are saying is that for it to be a contradiction one gospel writer Would have to write "Mary Magdalene, the other Mary BUT NOT SALOME OR JOANNA NOR ANY OTHER WOMEN"? What other book would you allow such leeway to before you see a contradiction?
Yeah, only silly old Matthew would think that an earthquake that rolls back the stone of the tomb is important enough to mention.
Yet YOU have made it the crux of your argument. You see it as very important. So why didn't the other 4 gospel writers?
I stand corrected. You are absolutely correct on that one. I was wrong. My memory for detail is evidently not as good as I had thought.
Yeah, like what? Why would Matthew say that Jesus appeared to the women right after they left the tomb, giving them the very same instructions that angel in the cave gave them (to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee), while John says that Mary ran back to Peter and another disciple and told them that Jesus' body had been stolen? Why would John have Mary crying at the tomb after she had returned the second time with Peter and then seeing him for the first time. Only to mistake him for the Gardner and asking him to bring the body back?
If that isn't a contradiction, then what would it take to BE a contradiction?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"So then what you are saying is that for it to be a contradiction one gospel writer Would have to write "Mary Magdalene, the other Mary BUT NOT SALOME OR JOANNA NOR ANY OTHER WOMEN"? What other book would you allow such leeway to before you see a contradiction?"
Lets put it this way. Lets say the president comes to town to make a speech. One journalist might write that the president came to town. Another journalist might write that the president, two senators, and the governor all came to town. This wouldn't be a contradiction. It would be two authors taking note of the same thing in different ways.
... what would it take for there to be a contradiction. You just told me what would NOT be a contradiction.
The bible quite clearly contradicts itself unless you go hog-shit out of the way to deny it. I don't see the virtue in going hog-shit out of the way to deny the obvious. What I find ironic is that you guys keep claiming how great your God and your bible is. Doesn't embarass you at all that you have to keep making excuses for him and it that you would find ridiculous if made on behalf a a lowly human? Don't you think we should be expecting MORE on the part of a God instead of having to make excuses for less?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Ok, first please stop cussing when you comment on my posts. Aren't you a moderator anyways?
You know that I believe you are taking extreme leaps in logic and ignoring basic rules in literary criticism just to come up with these so called contradictions. I've already addressed these contradictions you have come up with and shown that they are non existent.
(1) It is my belief words should be used to communicate a message. You seem to have a hard time getting simple messages, my use of the term "hog-shit" was to emphasize the ridiculousness of your position.
(2) You have NOT addressed the questions I have asked you. In fact you intentionally dodged several. You did deny that these OBVIOUS contradictions are contradictions. You gave your reasons, I asked you several questions ... among those that you have not addressed include:
(a) What other source would you give such leeway to before concluding that no contradiction exists.
(b) What would the bible have to say in order for you to conclude there was a contradiction.
(c) How do you justify claiming God and the bible as being so great when you have to make ridiculous excuses for what it says?
(3) You have NOT shown that no contradiction exists. About the only thing you have shown is that when it comes to the bible you do not seem to be able to recognize obvious ones. Again, I fail to see any virtue in that.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
First you wrote.
(2) You have NOT addressed the questions I have asked you. In fact you intentionally dodged several. You did deny that these OBVIOUS contradictions are contradictions. You gave your reasons, I asked you several questions ... among those that you have not addressed include:
(a) What other source would you give such leeway to before concluding that no contradiction exists.
To that I've already written
"Lets put it this way. Lets say the president comes to town to make a speech. One journalist might write that the president came to town. Another journalist might write that the president, two senators, and the governor all came to town. This wouldn't be a contradiction. It would be two authors taking note of the same thing in different ways."
You know what I sure am dodging your questions.
(b) What would the bible have to say in order for you to conclude there was a contradiction.
I could not answer this for plenty of good reasons. First you ended this SENTENCE with a PERIOD so its not even a question. Also the question really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the passages we talked about contradict each other.
"(3) You have NOT shown that no contradiction exists. About the only thing you have shown is that when it comes to the bible you do not seem to be able to recognize obvious ones. Again, I fail to see any virtue in that."
I asked you to stop cussing on my posts and you do it anyways. How dare you even bring up virtue. How does my failure to roll over and give up my religious beliefs because of a persons refusal to allow for basic literary interpretation that is used through out literature, and journalism count as a lack of virtue?
Actually if you look, I have numbered this as (2). So it is not the first thing I wrote. Ordinarily, I would not mention this but since in a little bit you are going to castigate me for mistakenly using a period instead of a question mark, I thought I would point out your error as well.
Now to get to more substantive criticism. (1) It would be poor journalism if a reporter neglected to include two senators and a governor. (2) As agregeous as this is, it does not rise to the level of the contradiction in the biblical versions of the resurrection.
John clearly says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb found it empty, then went back to Peter and another disciple to tell them the body has been stolen. In her return trip with Peter she even mistakes the risen Jesus for a gardner and asks him to return the body.
In Matthew the women enter the tomb to find an angel dressed in white. He says that Jesus has risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.
Then on their way out they meet up with Jesus who tells them the same story ... to go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee.
In Mark different women enter the tomb to find a young man dressed in white. He tells them to tell the women to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. The women are too scared and they don't tell anybody anything.
In Luke the women see two men who tell them that Jesus has risen. No mention of meeting in Galilee (in fact in Acts -- also thought to have been written by Luke -- it explicitly states that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem).
This is the type of contradictions I am referring to. In order for your story to hold not only would the two reporters have to give different versions of who arrived in town, they would have to give different versions of the speeches they made, and different versions of the reactions that specific people had to those speeches. At some point even you would recognize that someone is not telling the truth.
Yes, you are
Thanks for the punctualtion lesson. Sorry that I have to point out the obvious to you, but it is symptomatic of people who have sacrificed reason on the altar of religion as you have ... but the BEARING it has on the passages is that it shows that you would not accept anything as being a contradiction. If you can claim that John's story of Mary Magdalene going back and getting Peter and another disciple and telling them that they have stolen Jesus' body with Matthew's version of two angels telling them that Jesus has risen and then Jesus' confirmation of that event -- as not being a contradiction then there is nothing that would satisfy you.
I bring up virtue because Christians like you bring up virtue as a positive aspect of following Christianity. I also bring it up because I think it is a FAR FAR WORSE SIN to be willfully ignorant than it is to use the term "hog-shit", especially if that term conveys the meaning I wished to convey. I can never be sure, but it seems to have done so.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"ignorant "
You missed the most important word in the phrase. It is no sin to be ignorant. Everybody is ignorant about something. The problem comes when someone embraces that ignorance and refuses to see the obvious. That is WILLFUL ignorance. And that is the sin.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I don't know why we don't throw out all historical documents and testimonies.. Well, I guess the bible is the only one people want to disregard and discredit, if you read the testimonies, they're very believable as little details make it so (written by fishermen and everyday folks, who later were willing to die for their faith, they believed it that much).. and so far as the testimonies disagreeing.. well when do eye witness accounts not differ in some details?? and what do we think when they don't? Such as "we returned later that evening" or "we returned early the next morning" yes, that's made a big deal of! That and the records of genealogies, which were likely taken from the records of men, and discrepancies are to be expected.
- As to the enlightenment of thought called the evolution theory (I call it an assumption) well, that belief is full of mythical half creatures.. none found by the way.. and it has been ruled out by the top mathematician geniuses as being, well, impossible. But hey, who am I to undermine someone's faith/belief/assumption?
- I guess, the big question is: is life the anomaly? or is death the anomaly??
http://mystic-monastery.blogspot.com/
Why would we do that?
Er .. no. I don't believe that Ulysses ever fought a giant cyclops either.
I have read them and ... no, they aren't believable for the most part. What other account of a person rising from the dead do you give credence to? If you don't believe them, then why do you believe this one?
Who says anyone was willing to die for their faith? First we don't even know that Jesus' disciples DID die as the early Church Fathers (writing decades after the supposed event. Second, even if they did die as the Church Fathers said they did, who says they did so willingly? Paul talks of "super-apostles" who asked for and got monetary assistance. I assume one could make a better living at that than one could fishing. If they preached the wrong thing then they would have been convicted of inciting revolution (Rome was very sensitive about that type of thing and Jews --- don't forget early Christianity was a Jewish sect --- were doing that type of thing more than any others). I don't think they could have gotten out of the crucifixion by just saying "I lied".
(1) There is no eyewitness account. The Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts. The evidence is overwhelming that the traditional attributions of authorship of the Gospels are wrong.
(2) So what is the New Testament? Is it the word of fallible man, or is it the word of an infallible God? If it is the word of fallible man then why should we give it any more credence than we do to the Iliad or the Oddessey? If it is the word of an infallible God then why are there ANY discrepencies? If it is a combination of both, then why is an infallible God such an idiot to embed his message in a bunch of crap so that you can't tell what is real and what isn't?
(3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If an early source says that Julius Caesar camped by the Rubicon while he decided whether or not to take his army into Rome, then while it is true that it may not have happened, we have no valid reason to doubt it since nothing extraordinary is being claimed. Jesus being raised from the dead is a different type of claim. People being killed and then coming back to life does not happen normally. One is well within one's right to demand an extremely high level of evidence before believing that. One should ask oneself which is more likely ... The story is an embellishment or that laws of nature were violated. We have no evidence that the laws of nature have ever been violated, we have plenty of evidence that stories have been greatly embellished.
The problem with the time of arrival refers to when the women went to the empty tomb. I don't think a very big deal is made out of it, but one should note that ALL gospels do disagree on the time. What it tells us is that there were different stories going around at the time. It should also tell us that God didn't inspire it. Which should also cast doubt on EVERYTHING in the bible.
(1) The only assumption of mythical half creatures pertaining to modern evolutionary theory comes from creationists not evolutionists. It is the creationists who say that evolution must have a creatures that are half fish and half human. Modern evolutionary theory says that transitional species should have characteristics of both groups. But it also says that transitional species MUST be highly adapted for whatever environment they lived in or else they wouldn't have evolved in the first place.
(2) Numerous transition fossil lineages have been recognized. Here is a blog I did on the transitional fossils between modern humans and our ape-like ancestors.
(3) Anyone who believes modern evolutionary theory "has been ruled out" based on mathematical probability may or may not be a mathematical genius -- I wouldn't know -- but he WOULD most certainly be a doufus with regards to modern evolutionary theory. The calculations I am aware of all show that a caricature that no biologist ever proposed happened is impossible. For instance, the most recent version is that of William Dembski. Dembski has rather convincingly shown that it would be ludicrous to believe that a single enzyme consisting of 100 or more amino acids would ever arise based on directionless forces of nature. But then again no evolutionist ever said that it did. The most important proposed mechanism behind such an evolutionary event would have been Natural SELECTION. Selection by definiition, suggests a direction. The only thing that natural selection needs to work is an imperfect replicator. No one ever said that the first imperfect replicator had to be a living cell. The first imperfect replicator was probably a chain of chemical reactions. These could have been very simple.
If you actually knew what you were talking about and could come up with a well-reasoned argument based on evidence then you would be someone who is doing a very needed service.
Who says either one of those is an anomaly?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France