My thoughts…

Coach, I disagree with you that it doesn’t matter “it still happened”. If God is infinitely smarter than us, then surely He wouldn’t make stupid errors in His Holy Book, even if He is using people as His instruments.

Luke 24: Please note this passage does NOT imply His ascended on the day of His Resurrection.
“50And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven.”… There is no indication that this occurred on the same day(s) as the other events, simply that it happened afterwards.
Mark 16: Please note this passage does NOT imply He ascended on the day of His Resurrection either!

The events of John 20 could easily have fit within Luke and Mark’s narration of the events.

And Acts1: “The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

These passages all fit with each other nicely (please take the time to read them, preferably in context, at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ . I prefer the New King James Version for its literalism. )

YNGNL.uvnlt,
Thanks for your post and as usual, interesting and informed perspective. However, you are slipping into metaphysical games to make some points. Your comment on theology is one such error. The discipline of theology is grounded on a philosophical premise that God exists. Its not unreasonable for Shanno to state that a theological discourse with God, creats a fiction if he deosn't believe that God exists - theology examines the relationship between God, the universe and humanity but it is based on a premise that God exists which is a philosophical argument. If I don't believe that God exists then it is not unreasonable for me to assert that a theological treatise with God is a treatise with a fictional entity.

Clearly your cited reference Osborne (I haven't looked at his work but will) has probably read St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae that argues for different types of truth or theological facts. Again, Aquinas is moving from a premise of a theological fact and for arguments sake, I'll assume Osborne is moving from the same premise. If that is the case, this distinction of theological facts from historical facts becomes problematic.

I once read a book that stated in its final conclusion, that establishing the identity and nature of Joshua is the equivalent of entering a room. You see a indent on the couch where someone has sat, the coffee cup on the low table table that has warm residue of coffee at the bottom and that overiding sense that door on the opposite side of the room has just closed as you entered.

Dear Shanno...
You're right, its not a 'fight' but it is a struggle,I suspect you are simply referring to some 'skeptics' document or "50,000 contradictions in the Bible" of some kind rather than reading the verses you quote carefully.

2 points.

1/ Re your last post, have a REAL close look at each passage and read them in full context and see IF they are truly saying as your post claims. I await your subdued and muted reply :) (By the way, the Gospels do NOT always put things in direct chronological order)

2/ Regarding secular attention of Jesus and Christians.
Wikipedia is a great read, and from what I can see, quite balanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Ask yourself this.... "How many times have you heard about or seen major headlines about say Jehovah's witnesses in the past 12 months" ?
Then..."How many times have you heard about extremist Muslims in the news during that same period" ?

Simply put, JWs probably zero, Muslims probably every week. Whats the difference ?
JW's may have some whacky ideas, even cruel hearltess ones, and some quite false interpretations of the bible, but they don't form terrorist squads and try to accumulate explosives or plan to assassinate the Prime Minister and his family.
GUESS WHO DOES ? and this should answer the question about say why the Hansard has next to nothing if anything about JW's but PLENTY in it about 'another' group.

Same with the early Christians. There was an insurgent among the disciples, "Simon the Zealot" but clearly he left his dagger behind after folling Christ, so, no political waves.
CONCLUSION "No political waves/ No Headlines"

David,

The Gospel of Mark is pretty clear that Christ only spoke to the disciples once before being teleported into heaven. John's gospel however is clear that he spoke to them twice before Capt Kirk pressed the button - the 2nd time to accommodate the concerns of doubting Thomas. Its amazing to think that anyone can read this stuff and not acknowledge the clear contradictions.

Dear Shanno,
the Gospels are deliberatey selective and do not report every single incident of our Lords activities, nor to they report them in exactly the same order.
Some 'seem' to report the same incident differently.
One has 'a blind man' while another has '2 blind men' woooo..thats scary :)

You are trying to put a chronological straightjacket on the gospels in the interests of finding fault mate. I freely concede there are textual difficulties/controversy over the long ending in Mark, it doesn't change my total faith in the reliability of the 4 Gospels to inform us about Salvation through Christ.

To debate each 'contradiction' so called, would fill volumes. The best place to start is with an open mind, not a mind where the conclusion is settled before the evidence is weighed.

cheers mate.

Boazy: "The best place to start is with an open mind"

Coming from one of the most prolifically bigoted Islamophobes and homophobes at OLO, that is truly funny.