Read the essay...interesting.  Of course, being a christian, there are many reasons given as to why those two did not recognize Jesus at first. 

1. "their faces were downcast".  Downcast because of their mood.  Downcast for the time of day.  "downcast" plays a big part in the christian explanation.

Mark here}     "Their faces were downcast" doesn't mean they didn't SEE Jesus. They saw him all right, but as the account says, "they were PREVENTED from recognizing him". How could they have been "prevented from recognizing him" unless they were looking at him???

 

2. these two were not expecting to see a resurrected christ.  Jesus never directly said to any of the disciples..."i will return in 3 days" (only the temple reference of "the temple" being raised again in three days.  

Mark here}     So are you saying that these two were so retarded that, having been away from Jesus for only two or three days, they would have taken several HOURS to recognize him again??? Are you saying that unless you are expecting your best friend to come over for a visit you wouldn't recognize him while he's standing at your door? Besides, THIS "explanation" of yours does not jive with the text, which says they were PREVENTED from recognizing him.

 

a christian explanation,  the two men only recognized Jesus after entering the home (better lighting than in the setting sun or dusk? jesus removed his cloak? that feeling of deja vu when Jesus broke the bread) 

Mark here}     They had been walking for several HOURS in broad daylight. It wasn't until the end of their several mile walk that it was getting near evening. The "better lighting" you mention would have certainly been outside in bright sunlight, and NOT indoors with dim oil lamps and a candle or two. Remember- light bulbs were still almost two thousand years in the future.

"Removed his cloak" doesn't account for their being PREVENTED from recognizing him. Sorry, try again.

 

 

Do you have any other atheists that back up the shapeshifter theory?  It seems a bit of a stretch...just as I know chritstian explanations seem a stretch to you.  I prefer other well cited articles by you, such as Matthew 24 verse by verse [ Matthew 24 Verse by Verse  ], "what the scholars say"  [ Mt 24-34 What The Scholars Say  ] and    Fire the Clergy [ Fire The Clergy  ]. I clearly underestimated these 3 articles by you on my first view of them.  Sorry 'bout that.

 

Mark here}     That's ok- happens all the time. Most Christians don't bother reading anything I write before they fire off an email to me. I'm getting used to it.

 

Definitely your best work yet is, "why beer is better than Jesus".  Too bad I live in Ohio.  So my favorite beer is Labatt Blue.  Got any evidence to prove it is not the best tasting beer?  I truly PRAY some fundies show and it turns out to be an investment of their time and yours. 

Eyewitness Testimony Invalidated

I will address items of assertion point by point in this rebuttal with blue letter. I will highlight the personal opinions and that information not in keeping with the historical account he is questioning of the author in red. What we will conclude is if we remove the preconceived notions and personal attacks against Christianity by the author, we are left with but little to answer. The term "author" denotes the author of this article.

Dr. William Lane Craig in his debates against Atheists likes to use his trademark "...five good reasons to believe..." routine. One of the five reasons is the eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, as found within the New Testament. But Craig will be coming up one reason short from now on, and this is why...

According to the *New Testament, a mystery man spent several hours hanging out with two of Jesus' best friends. These two were men with whom Jesus had spent almost every day and night of the past three years with, a part of his "gang". These three chit-chatted as they walked along a country road, side by side, talking about this and talking about that, passing the time of day. Angels were sometimes said to come in disguises and reveal themselves only at the end of their mission. But this was not the case with humans, including dead persons restored to earthly life in the Old Testament. Although one reason these disciples do not recognize Jesus may be that their eyes may have been blinded (see Luke 24:31; 2 Kings 6:170, Jesus’ subsequent disappearance also seems to indicate that He has a new kind of body, the sort of body promised the righteous in the future resurrection.

One of the things they talked about was the recent death of Jesus. The mystery man deceived them, feigning ignorance of the whole affair, so Cleopus and the other man filled him in. Jesus’ position of ignorance should not be construed as lack of His knowledge of events. God called to Adam in the garden, "Adam, where are you?". Clearly He knew the answer. Teachers often ask questions while all the long knowing the answer. This is testing one’s knowledge in the subject. The mystery man deceived them yet again, when he lead them to believe he was going to continue the walk after the others stopped to eat supper. It is polite for Jesus to make as if He would go on, unless they invite Him to stay with them; such a behavior could test one’s hospitality.

Mark here 1/25/04}     Anytime you lead someone to believe a falsehood, you have deceived them. The being the Christians have claimed is Jesus pretended to be ignorant of these recent happenings, and if it was Jesus, he deceived them. Ditto for going on and not stopping for supper. Politeness? Was it polite to lie???

 

 

And it appears, if the story is accurate, that this mystery man deceived them (i.e. LIED) more than just the two times above, for it turns out (according to the story) that this mystery man was none other than Jesus who had "magically" made himself look, sound, and act like somebody else the whole day! With a resurrected body and being transfigured, He is not "magically" changing Himself. This would be a compelling reason His disciples do not recognize Him. These two men had spent several hours up close and personal with their best friend, yet had no clue who the hell he really was, he was such a good liar and deceiver. It wasn't until the end of the day that, according to the text, "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." (Luke 24:31)

Mark here 1/25/04}     So when eyewitnesses fail to pick out a suspect in a police lineup, to you that is compelling evidence the suspect did the crime. Huh? My question would be, of what good is eyewitness testimony that fails to witness what is claimed it witnesses! Trust me, even if Jesus had worn a bag over his head, the friends of Jesus would have known it was him by just his walk, talk, and voice. If you don't believe me, put a bag over YOUR head, and go visit your best friend. Go on a walk with him for 7 miles, having a conversation the whole time- see how long it takes for him to figure out it's you. You and I BOTH know the result.

 

 

But how can this be, the mystery man disappearing right before their eyes in a vanishing act when finally his secret identity became known. "Then their eyes were opened..." presto chango, very supernatural. And supernatural (which the Christians believe in) is the only explanation of how such a successful deceit could have been carried out without the use of wigs, makeup and voice coaches. See question and answer at end of this article regarding miracles. Building on this, and operating within a Christian worldview, the only "rational" explanation is that there are beings within this universe who can change their appearance and voice to look and sound like anyone. This is much like the extinct TV show Star Trek- Deep Space Nine, where in episode #12 it explores the topic of "Shapeshifters", beings that can make themselves look like others. Once again, like C.S. Lewis and L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction and Christianity find themselves intermixed.

In the Christian worldview such things as Shapeshifters are possible (per the "Road to Emmaus" story currently under discussion). Beings exist (according to the Christians) who are able to change their shape, voice, and mannerisms to look and act and sound like anyone they want to- EVEN JESUS. A more accurate Christian view would be ONLY JESUS and Heavenly bodies, i.e., angels, not "even Jesus". In the "road trip" to Emmaus, who's to say for sure the Shapeshifter really was Jesus to start with? Fact is, nobody can safely say WHO the hell he really was before the day began. This account is also present in Mark’s Gospel, although not as extensive as Luke’s. The question the author is really asking is "are the Gospel accounts historically accurate?" See question and answer at end of this article. He may have been some guy named Fred, who made himself look like Joe for the walk, then changed into Jesus (in which form he departed from the two), and then when by himself reverted back to being Fred.

Mark here 1/25/04}     Yes, and the account in Mark's gospel is even more in favor of Shapeshifting than Luke's gospel:

Afterward he appeared to two who were walking from Jerusalem into the country, but they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance.  (Mark 16:12   New Living Translation)

If that's not Shapeshifting, I don't know what is. But I do know that you missed the main question of this last paragraph: in light of shapeshifting, how can ANYone know that the man on that road that day was really Jesus, and not some other being who TRANSFIGURED himself to later LOOK LIKE Jesus??? You, and all the Christians in the world, can not answer that question. 

 

 

 

So if one of the Shapeshifters, after the death of Jesus, wanted to make himself look like Jesus, and then appear to the Apostles, appear to the women at the tomb, appear to the two walking to Emmaus, even appear to 500 at one time, there is no way in hell any Christians would have known the difference. Remember- once the door to the supernatural has been opened, anything is possible. This is not a correct Christian view. We would assert that with men it is not possible. With God all things are possible.

Mark here 1/25/04}    Like I said above, you have no defense against Shapeshifters.  A being could come down from outer space, make himself look like Jesus, and you guys would fall all over yourselves to kiss his feet. With the Bible teaching Shapeshifting, nothing you see with your eyes can ever be trusted again.

 

 

These "eyewitnesses" The author here uses quotation marks to cast doubt in the reader’s mind. then, who saw Jesus, would have boldly marched off into the world, claiming to have seen the "resurrected" Christ, maybe even dying for their (false)Inserted here to again cast doubt in the reader’s mind and author fails in presenting evidence for its insertion here. belief. And 2000 years later, people such as Dr. William Lane Craig would be standing in front of audiences nationwide extolling his "five good reasons" why the resurrection was true- eyewitness testimony being the main reason. While I cannot speak for Mr. Craig, this is not the main reason Christians believe. It is one of several. I will highlight each at the end of this article.

Mark here 1/25/04}    Take away the "eyewitness testimony" from the New Testament, and you have also taken away the resurrection, as no one then really saw the zombie Jesus walking around. Introduce Shapeshifters into your religion, and you've even taken away Jesus: prove to me that was really Jesus on the cross, and not a Shapeshifter who looked like Jesus??? You CAN'T.

 

 

But the damage doesn't stop with wrecking one of Craig's "five good reasons". The concept of Shapeshifters destroys the value of eyewitness testimony for every single major player in the Bible. Was that really Moses coming down from the mountain? Was that really the Apostle Paul meeting with Peter in Jerusalem? Was that even really Peter??? WHO THE HELL KNOWS ANYMORE!!!! Nobody knows for sure who was who, who was where, or who said what. The end result is that the entire Bible deserves to be tossed in the trash as a totally unreliable document. See end notes on "Why We Believe".

Even if shapeshifting was not the method- let's say it was hypnotism- the end result is the same. It doesn't matter whether the deception was internal to their brain or external in the Shapeshifter; the bottom line is they were made to see something that wasn't there, the end result being: all eyewitness testimony within the New Testament must now be discounted. This reasoning and conclusion are based on fallacies spoken as fact. It also presents a problem for miracles, such as walking on water or bringing people back to life- if it was supernatural hypnotism being used on a massive scale, maybe these feats had no reality at all. Maybe all the miracles in the New Testament only took place within the minds of the beholders. In fact, these same problems would apply to the Old Testament just as well, for how can one can trust anything that anyone said or did in the Bible- for who knows who really said it or did it anymore? It could just have well been the devil hypnotizing people into thinking they were listening to Moses, Joshua or whoever. Much hypothetical, no fact. The author has set up a false dilemma.

Mark here 1/25/04}    No, the author has taken your own sacred texts at face value, and destroyed the foundation of your religion. Christians can never trust any thing that any one claimed to have seen in the Bible ever again. You fail to deal with this. You ignore it. You flee from it because you have to solution. Checkmate. I win.

 

But getting back to shapeshifting, who can even say for sure that it was really Jesus on the cross? People claimed to have SEEN Jesus on the cross, but with our new knowledge of shapeshifters, it could have been anyone- or even no one, up on the cross . Maybe the Gnostics were right after all! For all the Christians really know, the REAL Jesus (if there even WAS a "real" Jesus) The author again inserts this attack to cast doubt in the reader’s mind. This is not the subject of this article, showing the author’s use of red herring statement. I can address the historicity of Jesus in another article at the author’s request could have gone into hiding a week prior, skipping off to India, letting the shapeshifter take his place. The shapeshifter on the cross could have made his body look bloody and wounded, without really being in pain at all. Another red herring. I can address this point in detail in another article at the author’s request. Even the story of "Doubting Thomas" gets tossed in the trash- Thomas THOUGHT he saw Jesus, but who knows??? It might have been Fred having made himself look like Jesus, side wound and all.

Mark here 1/25/04}    Whatever color the fish is, I keep noticing that you avoid the problems that Shapeshifters present for your religion. You keep saying you can address these points- yeah, and you can build an anti-gravity machine too, but didn't want to take the time right now, eh???

 

 

All of the above problems are possibilities IF you live wrapped up within a Fundy worldview, taking every burp and fart of the Bible as gospel truth. IF you really believe "The Road to Emmaus Story" then you believe that there were beings living back then who could either change their shape to look like someone else, or could hypnotize masses Straw man. No mention of hypnosis in the text being discussed. of people into seeing what wasn't really there. And all of this leaves the Fundy Christian between a rock and a hard place. IF they keep the Emmaus story in the Bible as gospel truth, THEN they must toss out just about every thing else. This is confusing cause and effect, applying one circumstance to appear applicable to another. However, if they opt for editing out the Emmaus story as being fictional in order to save the resurrection story and such, then they've just destroyed their theory of Biblical Inerrancy, which will eventually call into doubt the very resurrection stories they were trying to save in the first place. Given these options, what's a good Fundy to do???

So whether it's via Shapeshifting or Hypnotism, in future debates that Craig enters into, the so-called "eyewitness testimony" Craig brags about so much- this can now be tossed into the nearest trash can. Craig just got the main pillar of his "five good reasons to believe" knocked out from under him, and I hope the Atheist has the sense to use this knock-out punch for all it's worth.

So seeing how eyewitness testimony within the New Testament has now been discredited, that leaves only the question: In the light of shapeshifters, what shape should Christianity shift to now?

The reading of this article leads to the conclusion that the author repeatedly introduces fallacious arguments and red herrings to dismiss issues that he cannot answer through the lens of which he sees. Dismissal of point after point and red herring arguments should not be a compelling reason to make the least mature in faith question the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, or the historically proven credibility of the witnesses to the events of that day on the road to Emmaus.

Mark here 1/25/04}    Huh??? Destroying the validity and trustworthiness of EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT should not make anyone question the resurrection? Why- because you say so? What universe do you live in? What you are implying here is that Christianity is not an historical religion and therefore needs no evidence. Some Atheist can dump the entire Bible in the trash and it won't affect your faith at all- that is what you are saying here. What are you, a Mormon, that you don't need little things like "evidence" anymore???

 

 

End Notes

After reading this attempt to explain the text excerpted from Scripture, Luke 24:13-35, I find several flaws in this position. When we put aside all of the inaccuracies of the above article, we can extract the pivot-point question the author is grappling with: "Was Jesus Christ resurrected from death?" While the core issue is, and always seems to be, "does God exist", I will not address that issue here. To remain within the constraints of the resurrection question, I will give commentary on the underlying issue- the presupposition that miracles did not and cannot occur. Let us explore this question.

Are the miracles of the Bible consistent with a rational view of the universe? Is it intelligent to believe that divine miracles, as the Bible describes them, are possible?

In practically every generation of mankind, there has been an accepted belief in

the supernatural: that miracles can and do happen. Even today, the average person

on the street is likely to believe at least in the possibility of miracles. When asked if they agreed with the following statement - "Even today, miracles are performed by the power of God"- 82 percent of adults in the United States completely or mostly agreed. And similar percentages can be seen in most countries of the world.

Resistance to the concept of the supernatural comes mainly from scientific and

scholarly circles. Modern science is based on a philosophy called naturalism, which holds

that all events, past and present, can be explained in terms of natural forces operating

on the world. Naturalism leaves no room for the supernatural or for the God of the Bible.

The first thing we need to understand is that miracles cannot be reconciled with

science. By their very nature, they defy scientific explanation, since they involve an intervention by God that cannot be predicted or reproduced by any known law of science.

Naturalistic science is based on one of three basic assumptions:

- There is no God

- Or, There is a God, but he is unable to circumvent his own natural laws

- Or, There is a God, but he has no direct interest in humanity

In essence, then, science assumes that there is no God for practical purposes. In

fact, for science to work at all, the scientist has to assume that the laws of nature will never be circumvented or interrupted by an outside influence. The scientist assumes that the universe is a closed system, and for most things - like running experiments on rats in a laboratory maze, or conducting forensic experiments at a crime scene, or building an atomic bomb - that assumption works fine.

Remember that these are working assumptions only, not scientific fact. Before

you can categorically state that there is no such thing as miracles, you must emphatically

believe that for practical purposes there is no God. Yet this most basic of assumptions is not itself provable by the scientific method. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God; and science cannot determine God’s interest, or lack of it, in humanity. However firmly it may be believed, to state that God never intervenes in human history is an assumption only. It is a philosophical stand, not a scientific one.

An atheist or a pantheist must, as a matter of course, deny the possibility of

miracles; but to one who believes in a personal God, who in his wisdom may see fit to interfere with the ordinary processes of nature, miracles are not impossible, nor are they incredible.

As a Christian, I cannot prove to a skeptic that the miracles of the Bible actually happened. But what I can do is argue persuasively on two counts:

- That a rational view of the universe still allows the possibility of miracles

- That the witness accounts of miracles in the Bible are credible

Science simply does not have the authority to state categorically that miracles

are impossible. As long as God exists, miracles are technically possible. Thus the only way to disallow the possibility of miracles is to disprove the existence of God - a challenge that is impossible to meet.

For this reason, miracles cannot be dismissed on purely philosophical grounds.

They can only be dismissed on historical grounds. Did God, at such and such a time, perform a miracle or not?

The issue of whether miracles have happened in the past thus comes down to the

credibility of the historical documents. Before we can dismiss the miraculous content written about in the Scripture herein addressed, we need to investigate whether the historical record of Luke is consistent with what archaeology and anthropology have uncovered regarding the period. Time and again, the Biblical records prove to be exemplary.

Famous historian Ethelbert Stauffer writes " What do we (as historians) do when we experience surprises which run counter to all our expectations, perhaps all our convictions and even our period’s whole understanding of truth? We say as one great historian used to say in such instances: " It is surely possible." And why not? For the critical historian nothing is impossible."

Historian Ronald Sider adds: "What does the critical historian do when his evidence points very strongly to the reality of an event which contradicts his expectations and goes against the naturalistic view of reality? I submit he must follow his critically analyzed sources. It is unscientific to begin with the philosophical presupposition that miracles cannot occur. Unless we avoid such one-sided presuppositions, historical interpretation becomes mere propaganda. We have the right to demand good evidence for an alleged even which we have not experienced, but we dare not judge reality by our limited experience."

And historian Philip Schaff concludes " The purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidences and to let it speak for itself."

To what does the Christian base their belief in miracles? Is it "blind faith " in the Biblical accounts? The answer, surprising to many non-Christians is an emphatic "no". We shall first examine the methods in which we measure evidence.

History cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method of repeat experimentation in laboratory conditions. We must appeal to the legal evidence.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and the successor of Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Dane Professor at the same university is considered one of the greatest single authorities on the subject of legal evidence. It is through these two men that Harvard University is recognized as one of the eminent legal schools in the United State. He authored A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, still recognized as the greatest single authoritative source on the subject of legal evidence and procedure.

Dr. Greenleaf studied the value of the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. Applying the principles contained in his treatise, he then authored the book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

Dr. Greenleaf concluded that, according the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.

Let me now address why Christians believe. I believe based on the following principles:

1. Manuscript evidence. Does the manuscript evidence of the Bible stand the test of accuracy? Most certainly. In fact more manuscript evidence for biblical accuracy is in our possession than any other ancient works. When compare with other works of antiquity, we find seven copies of Plato written over a span of 1,200 years, all of which are accepted at face value as being an accurate rendition of Plato’s original works. Contrasted to the New Testament, of which we have over 24,000 copies written within 25 years of the original, it is clear that the reliability of the New Testament is assured.

2. Archeological evidence. Modern archeological evidence in support of the Bible has laid to rest the popular Higher Criticism.

3. Prophecy fulfilled. It has been estimated that the probability of all of the prophecies fulfilled in Christ that were written hundreds of years before His birth equivalent to covering the state of Texas 1 foot deep in silver dollars, marking one and mixing up the whole mass. Then send a man blind-folded and, given a single chance, pick up the marked coin.

4. Statistical probability. When looking upon creation and bringing no presuppositions to the table, one will clearly identify a beautiful design. The idea of life originating by chance is against all laws of mathematical probability. Our universe is finely tuned that changing one infinitesimal aspect would render our world lifeless. It is clear is was made for life.

 

 

Yours in Christ with much love,

 

Ron

 

http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron