Yeah, I'll confess I watched a lot of this series. I previously wrote a post on The History Channel's "The Bible" arguing it was pure propaganda. There were two scenes that made me laugh. The first one was where Jesus called Peter to be a fisher of men. Peter wasn't catching any fish so Jesus waded up to his chest in water and asked Peter to help him in his boat. Then with a little sleight of hand Peter was able to catch a boat load of fish. What struck me is that Jesus didn't walk out to Peter's boat on the water, as we're told he did on a different occasion. I found that funny. You see, just one miracle at a time, not two.
The other laughable thing that struck me was that after his resurrection Jesus was given back his pre-crucified body. During his trial and crucifixion his face, hands, and body were all bruised and cut from the whippings, nails, crown of thorns and the spear thrust to his chest. But in his resurrection the body of Jesus was restored to its original condition, with one exception. His resurrected body had prominent holes in his hands and feet. If God gave him back his original body then why were the holes in his hands still there? It was obvious this was the same person. The disciples did not need to see holes in his hands to know that it was Jesus. Oh, no, I thought, maybe the disciples couldn't recognize him without the holes in his hands. Maybe they were that dumb! Or, it was made up instead to help convince readers of the Gospels that Jesus arose from the dead. This is not unlike what we find in the virgin birth narrative of Luke's Gospel, where an angel tells Mary she will conceive a son. Mary responded by saying, "How will this be since I am a virgin?" (NIV, Luke 1:34) You see, if Mary was actually talking to an angel she would not have to say she was a virgin. The angel would already know. By the same token, the disciples wouldn't need the evidence of holes in the hands and feet of the resurrected body of Jesus either. They would already know it was him.
The other laughable thing that struck me was that after his resurrection Jesus was given back his pre-crucified body. During his trial and crucifixion his face, hands, and body were all bruised and cut from the whippings, nails, crown of thorns and the spear thrust to his chest. But in his resurrection the body of Jesus was restored to its original condition, with one exception. His resurrected body had prominent holes in his hands and feet. If God gave him back his original body then why were the holes in his hands still there? It was obvious this was the same person. The disciples did not need to see holes in his hands to know that it was Jesus. Oh, no, I thought, maybe the disciples couldn't recognize him without the holes in his hands. Maybe they were that dumb! Or, it was made up instead to help convince readers of the Gospels that Jesus arose from the dead. This is not unlike what we find in the virgin birth narrative of Luke's Gospel, where an angel tells Mary she will conceive a son. Mary responded by saying, "How will this be since I am a virgin?" (NIV, Luke 1:34) You see, if Mary was actually talking to an angel she would not have to say she was a virgin. The angel would already know. By the same token, the disciples wouldn't need the evidence of holes in the hands and feet of the resurrected body of Jesus either. They would already know it was him.
Blurbs can be seen below:
could be so unreasonable or utterly ignorant about atheism, but he is. The prerequisite for offering criticisms of atheism is to understand it. Let's explore his ignorance, below:
is presently ranked 2nd place, or 7,000th over-all. It most likely won't stay there, but it sure is nice to see. What I can't figure out is how many books this represents.