Acts17apologetics dump Jesus; Paul knows better?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

So how about Jesus, what did he think of the law of Moses.

Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people

3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".

By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.

Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.

Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek

Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".

He told people he was seeking to convert that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions. That law of christ, tailored so as to apeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2.

He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immidiately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.

As regards Matt26:28 and elsewhere where it is believed Jesus declared the ushering of a "new" covenant "This is my blood of the new covenant", some manuscripts have "new" others dont and even if we go with the former translations, there is still the problem of Jesus allegedly ushering in a new covenant yet he specifically told his followers to abide by the Law or what Paul refered to as the Old covenant, which Jesus called "the way" and upheld to the letter.

Where did Jesus say the Law of Moses would become "old" and needed to be abandonned subsequently to his alleged sacrifice? In fact, we find in the Gospels Jesus invoking the Torah when arguing with the religious elite because Jesus' mission was exposing the Pharisees for their hypocritical and rigid application of the Torah, not to abolish it. He gives the example of David who worked on the Sabbath, driven by necessity to eat food Matt12:1-8,1Sam21:1-6. He was this way upholding the spirit of the Law because saving a life is lawful on the Sabbath per the Torah Mk3:4 hence his quoting from

Hosea6:6"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice".

The Rabbis knew and understood this, that is why they couldn't answer as there was no violation of the Law. Similarly when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath because he healed the sick, what he was actually doing once again is exposing their rigid and soulless outlook of the religion. He took advantage of that situation to infuse the law with its lost wisdom. He showed them the Torah itself allowed circumsising or caring for an animal on a sabbath, then what to say of helping a suffering human being Matt12:9-13,Jn7:23-4,Lk13:10-17,Mk3:1-6. By breaking it he was doing what he "sees" the Father doing, sustaining His creation at all times. Jesus, the most knowledgeable person among his contemporaries in religious law further told his Jewish audience that he was in this way working together with God. As correctly understood by the faithfull blind man who was cured on Sabbath, this action did not make Jesus a sinner nor a blasphemer as his enemies among the Jews accused him, but rather a true prophet Jn11:11-33. Yet even to this day, the Talmudic "sages" whose legalistic deductions are viewed as God-given still hold that

“one does not assist a gentile woman in childbirth on the Sabbath” (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 330:2).

The Quran accurately sums up Jesus' mission as such

3:50"And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you".

Jesus verified the truth remaining in the past scriptures, relieved the bani Israel of some of the things forbidden to them through the soulless and far fetched conjectures of their rabbis. That is what Jesus meant when he told his disciples that they must practice and teach these laws to the letter while surpassing the "righteousness" of the Pharisees, meaning they must practice the body and soul of the law not only the body as they did

"whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". 

Per the Quran, the divine mercy is such that when it is absolutely necessary for survival, or in circumstances beyond one's control, there is no blame if one transgresses temporarily. But in all cases -normal or extraordinary- the spirit of the divine law must be kept in mind. This is demonstrated in 2:173-7 where in the context of mentionning the forbidden foods, the Quran reminds that distorting what God has revealed and profiting from it, ie not acting accordingly is equal to consumming fire. The Quran further says that the essence of religion is faith in God and benevolence towards men

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)".

Acts17apologetics objective assemsment; Paul interprets Jesus without bias?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

Paul was spending all day in his writings trying to gain credibility as seen in the Epistles, saying he was equal to, if not greater, than the Apostles of Jesus and making statements such as even if angels were to come down, and they said differently than what he was preaching, not the believe the angel.

That is in stark contrast with the Paul described in Acts, supposedly written by his disciple Luke, where he is more of a team player, subordinated to the early apostles of Jesus.

And yet the man never once met Jesus in his life, and here he was coming to those that knew and followed him, telling them they were all wrong the whole time. He never even quotes him once in any of his writings, doesnt show any knowledge about the historical Jesus at all. He was all for the assimilation of the Gentiles into the Judaic faith, and the Jews compromising on their faith as opposed to the other way around. Thus, his focus on grace as opposed to law. He asserts his authority before the Greek people, but never to the community in Jerusalem, and more particularly James, Jesus' brother. James' approval was necessary for anyone claiming to preach Jesus' teachings as explicitly stated in the church-rejected Pseudo-Clementine chapter 4 and implicitly alluded to by Paul in 2Cor3:1-6,1 Cor9:2,Gal1:20-24.

He sharply disagrees with James and what Jesus taught when he preached salvation through faith alone Rom3:30. James, like all prophets of the scriptures, repeated the basic principle that faith and deeds go hand in hand and that one without the other is useless James2:19-22. So important are the good deeds for one's salvation in the Hereafter that the prophets prayed God to remember these deeds for the final judgement Neh13:14.

His authority was thus constantly challenged, not only by Christians but by Jews whom he went seeking in their synagogues. In Acts21, Paul is asked to partake in the Nazirite purification sacrifice to prove he was still "kosher", given his notoriously deceptive modus operandi (ie to the Jew a Jew, to the gentile a gentile etc). This shows something important, Jesus' earliest followers were still practicing sacrifices after Jesus' death and never believed Jesus abolished the mosaic law, much less the sacrificial system. Why would he, when the HB to which he abided to the letter, explicitly says that all the mosaic law including animal sacrifices will be reinstated once the 3rd temple is built. As to the Christians that challenged him, he accused them, more particularly Jesus' disciples and apostles of being false and deceitful 2Cor11:13-15, sarcastically said they "seemed to be pillars" of the church Gal2:9, even cursed them Gal5:12.

It took 3 angelic apearances to confirm and justify Paul's abrogation of these and other laws to the early disciples. Peter reconsidered his firm stance on abiding by the law, convinced that abrogating dietary laws like not eating pork would result in Romans being saved from Hell. If Jesus' message was what Paul said it was the entire time, why did it take a vision, reinforced repeatedly, for Peter to do something that Jesus had already instructed him to do?

Sometimes Christians try finding justification for Paul's dietary reforms in Jesus' saying

Mk7:14-19"There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean...Nothing that goes into a person from outside can really make him unclean, because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then goes on out of the body".

If all food is good for consumption regardless of pre meal rituals because it merely enters stomach and not the heart then why are James and Paul himself so concerned about food offered to idols Acts15,1Cor10? Jesus here wasnt denying the law, rather infusing it with a much needed spiritual dimension, as he applied himself to do all throughout his career. Similarily, the sabbath, whose transgression is punishable by death according to the Law upheld by Jesus, became a matter of free choice with no consequence Col2:16-17,Rom14:4 thus easing the way further for any potential converts.

Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier christian thought was quickly branded heretical.

After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistence wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favorable audience.

Paul's major tenet is that man is a slave to sin, cannot reach holiness by his actions, and must be "saved" from inherent damnation. One by his own will cannot choose to turn to God unless by God's grace. The doctrine was further developped by Augustine of Hippo but some righteous early christians objected and were quickly branded as heretical. Among Augustine's powerful arguments was that human depravity could be demonstrated by the "involuntariness" of the male erection. This base impulse belonged to nature, or the flesh, not to the spirit. In his logic, because of man's uncontrolable urges, it was women who had to be constrained. Tertullian taught when a parent sinned, this physical taint of the soul was passed on to children.

Paul applied himself to give everyone a reason to reconsider Jesus’ death, now turned into a suicide missionplaned since the beginning of creation. But the cursed law of Moses stood in his way. If one could find salvation through obedience to the law, as all past prophets including Jesus taught, then it would make Jesus' supposedly purposeful sacrifice redundant

Gal2:21"If righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain".

Acts17apologetics and their bible canons; how many versions?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The Codex Sinaiticus, besides exposing the fact that the resurrection was an unknown story in the earliest Gospel, also contains two New Testament books that arent part of the current canon: the Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century and the Epistle of Barnabas, which is more blatant than the current Gospels on explicitly blaming Jesus' alleged murder on the Jews. As to the Old testament part of the Codex, it contains Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus b. Sirach, I Maccabees and IV Maccabees that are all absent from Protestant Bibles.

The Didache, composed anywhere between the mid 1st century and the 3rd century, by an early Christian sect which focused on Torah observance while leaving the door open to gentile converts, makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and its Eucharist celebration makes no connection of the meal with the body and blood of Christ, nor does it speak of some of the most basic tenets of Pauline thought such as original sin or faith without works

"Since the writings which now constitute the New Testament were for long not agreed to be sacred, they were repeatedly edited revised and elaborated. The story of Jesus and his sayings was changed according to the context and interests of successive believers. So different sets of believers read and transmitted variant texts… Some additions, revisions and deletions to early Christian writings were on a much grander scale. The intrusion of seven spurious letters into the Pauline corpus, the helpfully compression of two of Paul’s letters to make 2 Corinthians, and the clumsy addition of revised endings to the gospels of Mark (16:9-20) and John (21) – both destined to include extra post-resurrectional appearances of Jesus to the disciples – all illustrate the fluidity and porosity of these texts before they became canonical… The easy alterability of the earliest writings about Jesus, by addition, omission or redaction, indicate that for all the sacredness of their subject, the gospels themselves were not regarded as sacrosanct. Or put another way, for a century or more after Jesus’ death, Christian groups existed, and flourished, without the New Testament. The existence of the gospel of Mark, probably the earliest of the canonical gospels, did not present Matthew and Luke from changing what Mark had written , or from writing their own gospels…"(Keith Hopkins – Professor Cambridge).

Similarly, the Q Gospel, believed to be the source out of which the 4 canonic Gospels expand upon, knows nothing of Jesus’ death and his resurrection. It is inconceivable that its compilers knew of such things, particularly the resurrection, and neglected or chose not to mention them.

Acts17apologetics and their damning manuscripts; codex sinaiticus refutes Christianity?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known manuscript of the NT and in the gospel of Mark, it doesnt mention anything about the resurrection. In that manuscript, the gospel of Mark stops at verse 16:8. Nothing, whether in the wording used or the context indicates that this ending was unintended. The author simply knew nothing of the resurrection tale. The story ends right after the discovery of the empty tomb and after the 3 women leave the tomb. These women, according to Mark, feared telling anyone of what the angel reported, despite the angel's instructions to tell the disciples. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?

The last 12 verses describing Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to the disciples were added later, as part of the overall retrospective re-write of Jesus' story. Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel and the other Gospels, namely Luke and Matthew seem to be an effort to develop upon Mark's account.
Eusebius and Jerome explicitly state that almost all the Greek MSS available to them end at verse 8:

Eusebius Ad Marinum 1 - "How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears 'late on the Sabbath' but in Mark 'Early on the first day of the week'? The Solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, namely the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene' and the words that follow. In addition to these it says, 'And having heard this they fled and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.' For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies."

Also, Eusebius, in his Church History (3.39.) notes the role that a presbyter named Aristion had in the transmission of Mark's gospel. We also read in Peake's Commentary, p818 that

"A 10th century Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias."

Jerome 120 to Hedybia Concerning Twelve Questions 3 -

"The solution to the question [of why the endings of Mark and Matthew contradict one another] is twofold. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which appears scarsely in copies of the gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end..."

These 2 men are writing in the 4-5th century and testifying that even by their time, the longer ending is absent from the vast, if not all original Greek manuscripts available to them. The most revealing admission is that Mark, the disciple to whom the Gospel is ascribed, might not have been the one testifying to the events and whose words were canonized in their days. In the 2nd century, Church figures such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tatian paraphrase or thematicaly allude to the contents of this omitted passage. This simply shows the evolving nature of Christianity's 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, the progressive inclusion of oral legends into the text. Besides the lack of physical evidence, there are also obvious stylistic and thematic differences between that passage and the rest of Mark's Gospel.

In Contra Celsus, Origen's famous work addressing the objections of the pagan thinker Celsus, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important, that Jesus resurrected. He quotes detail citations from Matthew, Luke and John to support the resurrection as he was specifically challenged to produce post-resurrection evidence yet he doesnt mention anything beyond Mark16:8. This despite ORigen being the most outstanding Christian manuscript expert of his time, using all scriptural means at his disposal to support the post-resurrection story against the charges of the sceptics.

Modern scholars contend that

"At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel".

The NIV bible also comments

"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

Another ending, called the Shorter Ending is found in an Old Latin manuscript of Mark. Six 7 to 10th century Greek manuscripts and some Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic and Ethiopic manuscripts have this shorter ending either in the margin or between 16:8 and 16:9, with minor variations. One Bohairic manuscript, made in 1174, accompanies Mark 16:9-20 with the note,

"This is the chapter expelled from the Greek."

Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century), Syriacus (5th century translation), Bobiensis (4th-5thcentury Latin), approximately 100 early Armenian translations, and the two oldest Georgian translations are all early manuscripts that exclude the resurrection.

As a side note, Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century) omits 1-2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation as well as everything after Hebrews 9:14.

Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) misses 40 pages -- including Matt1:1-25:6, Jn6:50-8:52, 2Cor4:13-12:6.

Codex Bezae (5th-6th century) has the gospels (lots of omissions) and the Acts (missing from 29:22 onwards).

Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this longer ending. The NAB translation includes the footnote:

"[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

Acts17apologetics defend their inconsistencies; Gospels testifying from different angles?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The apologetic argument that the conflicting reports on Jesus' alleged resurrection, and many other differences are due to eyewitnesses recounting the same story through different angles doesnt hold. Besides these differences being so blatant that no objective enquirer can accept this defence, we have the very basic fact that those after whom the Gospels are named were not even eyewitnesses. They didnt even write their accounts of the story until at least 40 to 70 years after it allegedly took place, as they heard it from unidentified sources. How did these authors interview their sources of information? What criteria did they use to determine the reliability of the people that told them the details of the stories that they wrote?

There is a reason why the resurrected Jesus only appeared to his already devoted followers, who are our only source of the story, instead of his opponents to whom he allegedly pledged will show them proof of his resurrection Matt12:39.

Despite these facts, and basing themselves on the assumption that the resurrection(s) story, or rather stories, are actually true, Christians ask why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the claims made exclusively by his devoted followers? The true question should be, still assuming the story to be true, how could we know that his opponents did NOT dig up his body in order to disprove the resurrection story? And if they succesfully did, how would we hear about it today considering the centuries of Catholic censorship and fabrications that started very early on in Christian history? Also the decayed body displayed by the authorities could have easily been dismissed as not Jesus' by his devoted followers.

Although today's apologists love to suggest a "tradition" of early visitors to the tomb of Jesus (without a shred of evidence), nothing can disguise the fact that until the 4th century Christians got along just fine without a Jesus tomb and had no special reverence for the place of his supposed execution. The Christians' difficulty in finding all the hallmarks sites of the NT, sometimes even having the same hallmark in different locations where different sects reside, is often blamed on a conspiracy by Emperor Hadrian who had supposedly deliberately built his pagan sanctuaries over their sacred sites.

The same excuse is used for the confusion on the location of Jesus' tomb (the current one is unmarked and without a shred of evidence to connect it to Jesus). Far from being concerned with early Christianity, at that time just a cluster of cults among many others, and virtually unknown in the Roman world, in reality, the emperor Hadrian sited his temple and forum complex precisely where it would be found in most other Roman cities – at the intersection of the major east-west and north-south roads.

An interesting question to ask is, where was Jesus between his crucifixion and resurrection? Was he in heaven, in accordance with his promise to the crucified thief that

Lk23:43"today you shall be with me in paradise?

If so, how can we account for his post-resurrection statement to Mary Magdalene

Jn20:17"touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"?

Acts17apologetics alone at the court; Witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

That is actually one of the major argument against the resurrection, the lack of witnesses. When challenged by the Pharisees to display a miracle, Jesus promised them his resurrection after being dead for 3 days Matt12:39. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesnt appear to those who specifically asked him for the sign and to whom he said he will reappear. Instead, Jesus' followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had occured. Neither is there any claim that the risen Jesus ever appeared to anyone but believers. There is only the word of a mere handful of "witnesses" whose stories vary from person to person, and we dont even know who transmitted those biased accounts until they were eventually put to writing by scribes whom nobody knows.

Other problems arise when analyzing the conflicting testimonies of the evangelists as regards the resurrection in Matt28:1-10,Mk16:1-20,Lk24:1-12,Jn20:1-18. These testimonies are so unreliable, they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law.

"One of the first exercises students of the Gospels do is to consult a parallel version of them, allowing an examination in four columns of the ways in which they relate to each other… As one notices the parallels and differences, a host of questions flood in and one thing above all becomes clear:  no single, agreed picture of Jesus is likely to be possible on this evidence." (David F. Ford – Professor Cambridge).

Matthew and Luke's unknown authors dont claim being eye witnesses. John's unknown author vaguely refers to John in the 3rd person during the resurection account, and doesnt claim to be a witness to the event. Paul's 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus 1Cor15 isnt reported by the gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historians, and early Christian writers. In his account, 25 years after the alleged event, Paul doesnt give a geographic location where these

"upwards of five hundred brethren"

had simultaneously seen the resurrected Jesus, neither does he say whether he was among them, or whether he had heard of it through "inspiration" or from other Christians. None of those 500 witnesses ever came forward to give testimony to what they saw. Paul further says Jesus apeared to the 12 while Judas had comitted suicide before the event.

In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls? Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.

Here are a few specific examples. In Matt28,Mk16 the 2 Marys are greeted by an angel who shows them the empty tomb where Jesus laid, informs them of his resurrection and instructs them that they are to tell the disciples that Jesus had gone "before them" to the Galilee to meet them. Both Marys then unexpectedly meet the resurrected Jesus, who repeats the angel's instructions to them, then sends them to the disciples to tell them they are to meet him in the Galilee. However, Lk24:13 shows him first appearing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, where the disciples are according to both Luke and Acts yet Mark, Matthew and John, say the disciples meet him in Galilee.
 
In John20, when Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb, there is no angel there to greet her with information about Jesus' whereabouts or instructions about a rendezvous in the Galilee. She thus concludes that someone had removed the body from the grave, runs back to Peter and an unnamed disciple and reports,

"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him!".

Thats an entirely different version. Also, John's story lacks the Roman guards whom Matthew places at the tomb. Only Matthew speaks of that guard placed there to prevent anyone from removing Jesus' body. How could John's Mary have thought that someone removed the body, when according to Matthew, Roman soldiers were placed at the tomb for the specific purpose of preventing just such an occurrence?

The Gospel of Matthew later makes use of these guards as an argument against the "stolen body" objection. Instead it is as a conspiracy started by the Jewish priests to whom the guards reported the events (why would Roman guards report anything to Jewish authorities anyway?) and who covered it up by corrupting the guards with money, thus beginning the rumor that

Matt28:11-15"His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep". 

Continuing with John's version of the events, Mary magdalene, after reporting about the missing corps to Peter, she returns a second time to the tomb, and finds 2 angels sitting inside it. They say nothing about any resurrection. So she inquires as to whether the angels have removed Jesus' body, turns around only to see Jesus standing before her. She doesnt recognize him at first, only after talking to him, desires to touch his wounds (that apparently failed to regenerate after the resurrection) but is told not to, yet just a few verses down Jesus asks Thomas the skeptic to do just that!

Another issue with John's writer is that he mixes up the chronological appearances of the risen Jesus. He says the Galilean appearance was the 3rd in Jn21:14 yet he had already stated the 1st was to Mary Magdalene 20:4, the 2nd to the disciples without Thomas 20:19, the 3rd eight days later to the disciples with Thomas 20:26. This leads John's writer to also mix up the chronology of miracles, because the fishing miracle that was a pre-resurrection miracle in Lk5:1-11 becomes post-resurrection apparition in Jn21:1-13.

In Luke24 we have yet another variant resurrection tale. Several women accompanied Mary Magdalene on her visit to the tomb making a total of 4+. They find it empty then suddenly see two men (instead of 1 as in the other gospels) with shining garments who inform them of the resurrection. The women then go to the male disciples and tell them what happened at the tomb. They dont believe them, but Peter goes to the tomb anyway, finds it empty, and then leaves. Thus, in this gospel's account, nobody sees Jesus during the initial visits to the tomb contrary to Matthew and John's accounts. Two witnesses, not from his disciples since the "eleven" appear later in the same story, one named Cleopas and one unindentified, inadvertently come accross the risen Jesus in Jerusalem's vicinity without recognizing him at first. As they declare their disbelief in the one whom they thought dead and defeated, Jesus scolds them for not recognizing his fulfillement of scriptures. Jesus remains with them and joins them for dinner then vanishes as soon as they recognize him. Luke says nothing about Jesus appearing first to the women.

In 1Cor15, the most celebrated creed of the resurrection, Paul states that among the disciples, Peter (aka Cephas, Simon) saw the risen Jesus first while Lk24:33 states he was with "the eleven" gathered in Jerusalem. That is why in Matthew and John's accounts he appears to the disciples together. Paul does not speak of Jesus' appearance to the women, in fact he dismisses their testimony entirely as if it never happenned. The Gospels on the other hand, despite disagreeing which of the women saw Jesus first, all agree the first testimony was that of a female. Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary Matt28:9 or to Mary Magdalene alone Mk16:9,Jn20:18. In his missionary zeal, Paul needed weighty arguments (the words of women certainly werent!) and the reference to Jesus' inner circle of disciples was more appropriate.

Acts17apologetics find violence convincing; Paul persecutes Christians?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The claim of persecution at the hands of Saul, apparently a leading persecutor Acts7:58-8:3,Gal1:13,Phil3:6,1Cor15:9 is flimsy. In those days the Sanhedrin had no authority to empower a heresy hunter as claimed in Acts9, to operate independently in Damascus, emprisonning, torturing, killing. The NT itself states that his ultra orthodox teacher Gamaliel persuaded the Sanhedrin to release the disciples and cease persecution "just in case" they were doing God's work Acts5:34-40. Saul was supposedly zealously persecuting Christians at the very time Jesus was performing miracles, attracting multitudes, overthrowing moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees yet not a word of protest is reported from him during all of Jesus' time throughout the gospels.

What is more intriguing is that following Saul conversion to Christianity, his Roman and Jewish employers do not react, and the persecution of Christians immidiately stops then, as if the entire show was run by just only one man Acts9:31. Either this religious policeman role was a storytelling embellishment or Jesus' had so little impact in his lifetime that he and his followers passed unnoticed.

After all, the NT itself states that the number of Jesus' followers did not exceed 120. That is not to mention the fact that Saul, after his name change to Paul and his conversion, his blazing missionary activities and audiences of governors and kings, equally passes unnoticed in the secular histories of his age. Not to say that Saul/Paul is an entirely fictional character as some scholars suggest, but it is clear that in their effort to reach out to the Jews, the NT writers needed a "zealous Jews who saw the light" and in fact most of the incidents surrounding Saul/Paul's life have a striking similarity with a certain aristocrat in the times of Herod, during the Jewish rebellion of 66-74 AD named SAUL, whose character and life are depicted by Josephus.

Acts17apologetics paint the wrong picture; unforgiving prophet?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says

"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".

This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.

The Muslims entered Mecca but the keys to the Kaaba were with Uthman Bin Talha, a non-believer who locked the door of the holy sanctuary upon learning of the Muslims' entrance in Mecca. He hid, refusing to hand over the keys, until Ali found him and snatched the keys from him, openned the Kaaba and the Prophet entered, prayed in it, after which revelation came down

4:58"indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are belong to..".

The prophet understood that the Shaybah family had to be returned their possession; he thus ordered Ali to return the key to Uthman Bin Talha and excuse themselves. Ali then went to Uthman and gave back the key and presented their apologies for the wrong he had done to him by forcibly taking the key. Uthman b. Talha was shocked, he could not believe Ali was giving back the key to him as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad, the conqueror of Mecca, who could have done as he wished with anyone and anything within the city. Ever since, the guardianship of the Kaaba remained with Bani Shaybah, which is bestowed upon the elders of the family until today.

The soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet and his powerless followers in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, came to the Prophet submissively. They thought they would most certainly be slain, just as they would have executed the Muslims had their tirelessly repeated plans worked. They knew very well that within their own customs retaliation and hatred were the rule of the game within the fabrics of the society and its order. Hatred and hostilities were passed down from one generation to the next and unwillingness to perpetrate revenge was considered a defect.

While attributing the promised victory to Allah alone, the Messenger, in the manner of the great men of God who show magnanimity once they are at the climax of their power and glory, contented himself with uttering what a previous Prophet, noble as him had uttered in similar circumstances. The prophet Joseph before him told his brothers who came to him in submission, seeking forgiveness for their faults against him

12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful".

The prophet continued

"Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)".

The noble prophet finally recited the Quran verse which constitutes the epitome of divine justice

49:13"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans. To realize the degree of generosity from the Prophet, one must recall the life threatening hardships which these people imposed on him and now that they were completely subdued by him, instead of thinking of vengeance, or at the very least demanding apologies and reparations, which was certainly his due, he forgave them. This way he was displaying his function of "rasul", the embodiement of God's mercy to mankind.

Acts17apologetics ascend to moral highs; the Quranic diamond rule?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The selflessness are described by the prophet Muhammad as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection

"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".

Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interractions.

This selflessness thus negates any expections and favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.

This comprehensive attitude enjoined in the Quran, as described in the previous article, along with other such directives, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule". 

Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interraction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return 

76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".

What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.

So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice.  In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours 

"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"

Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting 

4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things". 

The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties.

Acts17apologetics try psychology; Muhammad traumatised by childhood experience?

In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"

The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions.

Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided? This is why we find in this Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, that it calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that 

"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind". 

Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy

4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".

That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said

"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".