#its the sumee well technically not yet

[crimsonlovebartylus]

okay yall i'ma try to write the summer regulus turned pretty 🫡

[donveinot]

Interrupting Ehrman: Are There Biblical Contradictions?

(Originally printed in the Fall 2010 Issue of the MCOI Journal) Watching a court jury trial and watching a debate have a number of similarities. In both cases, you have one set of evidence, but you have two opposing sides that attempt to explain the evidence in such a way that they will persuade the audience or jury to view their story as more credible. The underlying idea is to get at the truth, but that does not necessarily happen. Sometimes, the side that wins is not the side that had a better understanding and grasp of the truth, but rather the one that man­ages to poison the jury against the evi­dence. This was essentially the case in the O.J. Simpson trial.(For a good overview, see “Famous American Trials: The O.J. Simpson Trial: 1995,”) The case was fairly straightforward. Nicole, Simp­son’s ex-wife, was brutally murdered. There was a fair amount of incriminat­ing evidence, some of which the jury was able to see and some of which the presiding judge allowed to be hidden from the jury. This sometimes happens in pre-trial negotiations. Just reviewing the evidence and the history between O.J. and Nicole Simpson, the jury would likely have come to the verdict he was guilty. After all, he had been abusive toward her. The police had been called in on a number of occasions, and he came across as very jealous and possessive even though they were divorced. All this was more than sufficient to establish a motive, which is, in turn, crucial for establishing intent. The defense did not spend a great deal of time explaining how such evidence did not demonstrate Simpson was motivated to kill his ex-wife. Instead, they put forth the idea that the lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, was a racist. This was a remarkably ef­fective salvo—implying the evidence and all who were involved in collecting and examining it were tainted—and completely dis­dis­tracted the jury from the compellingly-established motive. Now, it may be true Fuhrman was a racist, I have no idea, but the as­sertion stuck well enough that there was no need for the defense to prove their claim. All they needed was to instill this idea in the mind of the jury with a few well-placed assertions and comments that could at least sound as though he was a racist. I suppose I would have to ask, even if he was a rac­ist, does that necessarily mean evidence was fabricated and/or tampered with? Is it possible even a racist could take pride in doing their job well and profession­ally? However, as it was, there was no need to prove their point. All Simpson’s “Dream Team” of defense attorneys had to do was create doubt in the minds of the jury in order to get an acquittal. By conjecturing that a racist handled the case, all of the evidence became ques­tionable; and the prosecutor, Marcia Clark, was not able to overcome that is­sue throughout the balance of the case.

I thought about this as I sat in the audience during the de­bate between Dr. Bart Ehrman*and Dr. Craig Evans at the Dead Sea Scrolls/EMNR((EMNR is Evangelical Ministries to New Religions; www.emnr.org)) Conference at Midwestern Baptist Theo­logical Seminary in March of 2010. I understand it is easy to take pot shots from the pew. There was no pressure on me or the rest of the audience as we observed, took notes, and agreed or disagreed with the points made. However, being in front of the audience who are, in this case, functioning as the jury, puts enor­mous pressure on the debaters. Dr. Evans is an accomplished scholar, but I think he suffered a similar fate as that of Marcia Clark. Bart Ehrman did not really try to explain the evidence or make a positive case for his position. Instead, he employed the same tactic used against Mark Fuhrman: One cannot trust the evidence, because it was gathered by biased people. Ehrman’s approach was fundamentally a three-step process. First, he spent some time outlining what he called a “wish list” that he contends are all the things historians would like to have when doing their historical research. He then mentioned the Gospel accounts do not contain all the criteria of that wish list. Second, he painted a picture of the stories contained in the Gospels traveling across continents, people groups and languages for 35 to 70 years before any of the Gospel ac­counts were written. He asserted that none of the eyewitnesses or anyone who personally knew the eyewitnesses were still living when the accounts were penned. According to his claim, the long period of time, many languages, cultures, and continents corrupted, added to, expanded up and even invented material in the story which never actually occurred in history. In this setting, the Gospels are little more than myth and fable fabricated to feed the religious proclivities of naïve, uneducated Christians and to guide public thinking about the claims of the church. Third, Ehrman then put forth examples of what he claimed were contradictions, “some major, some minor” but in his view, contradictions nonetheless. These, according to him, demonstrate the texts are unreliable. Needless to say, I was unconvinced. In the first place, just because historians may have a wish list they would like to have fulfilled, it is rare that this occurs. In truth, historians work with what they have and make the best case they can with what is available. Even though he may not have his “wish list” fulfilled in this case, that does not mean there is not good, historical evidence demonstrating the reliability of the Gospel accounts and their claims. What he has done is try to eliminate or poison the evidence. He has done that by simply asserting the Gospels are the product of writers who were far removed from the events the Gospel accounts record. My first question would be, what is the evidence his claim is true? He did not provide any. Simply making the assertion does nothing to support the assertion. In fact, it really appears this long period of time is necessary for his view to have any credibility. On the other hand, the evidence we do have shows this claim is either mis­informed or worse, it is false. An Unusual Starting Point Simply making an assertion does not make a case. The onus is on Ehrman to prove his claim and make a case for late dating beyond his own desire for it to be so. Con­versely, it is also insufficient for me to simply assert he is wrong. I need to demonstrate why I would hold to an earlier date for the writing of the Gospels that is plausible and has evidence to support it. The starting point for this might seem to some to be unusual, but bear with me as I work through the reasoning and what I believe is the evidence for affirming early dating. In a sense, we will be starting with evidence outside the documents in question, the Gospels, and work back into them. We can get a good idea of when things were written by starting with the end of the Book of Acts. This work ends with the Apostle Paul under house arrest in Rome awaiting trial before Caesar. He had yet to be set free, rearrested, tried and executed. If Acts had been written after Paul’s death, something about his death would have been included. Paul died in the mid-60s.(Cf. the discussion by F.F. Bruce in Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 441ff) This would place the tim­ing of the writing of the book of Acts in the early 60s—perhaps AD 60 or 61.((D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 296-300. For another discussion of the dating of Acts that demonstrates the role of presuppositions (as opposed to actual evidence) in the dating process, cf. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, rev. ed., (Leicester, U.K. and Downers Grove, IL: Apollos and InterVarsity Press, 1990), 355- 365) We can even tell when the writer, Luke, was present for some of the events in the book of Acts but not for others, because he switches between “we” statements and “they” statements throughout the book. Acts is the second work of the same author: Dr. Luke.((As a matter of course, arguments over the dating of New Testament books are intimately linked to arguments over authorship, but since the Gospels are technically anonymous documents, authorship becomes a secondary question. It cannot be logically argued that Luke could not have written Acts because he was dead by the time it was written. Sim­ply positing a date for a Gospel after the death of its traditional author, and then using that date as an argument against traditional authorship, is an exercise in circular reasoning. Dating each Gospel must proceed on the basis of evidence internal and external to the document itself; and if it can be reasonably concluded that it was written within the life­time of the traditional author, then that becomes an argument in favor of traditional authorship.)) His first work is, the Gospel According to Luke. Just to note the obvious, first works generally are written prior to second works. Luke confirms this progression in the first two verses of Acts as well: “The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.” (NASB) Acts was written in the early 60s, Luke was written before that, so it would be dated mid-50s to early 60s.((“The only really significant reason for dating Luke after AD 70 is the argument that Mark must be dated in the mid-60s at the earli­est. But we have seen reason to question the necessity of dating Mark as late as that. And if Mark is dated in the early 60s, then Luke could well have been written in the mid- or late-60s.” Carson and Moo, Ibid., 210. This reasoning is based, of course, on the premise of Markan priority, and Luke’s dependence upon Mark. However, if it is as­sumed Luke did not consult Mark, an even earlier date for Luke could be entertained. Cp. Guthrie, Ibid., 125-131)) This would be merely 27 years after the events recorded in the Gospels, and it is not the 35 to 70 years Ehrman needs to allow for “Jesus myths” to develop. But the problem regard­ing the evidence gets worse. Ehrman insists some of the material in Luke came from the Gospel According to Mark. That is very likely true and further weakens his case. In order to borrow from Mark, that Gospel would have had to have existed at least long enough for Luke to be aware of it. So, these considerations date Acts to the early 60s, Luke to the mid-50s to early 60s, Mark to at least the 50s.(The argument that Mark 13 contains evidence the author actually experienced the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 has been ably chal­lenged by Carson and Moo, who conclude, “A decision between a date in the 50s and one in the 60s is impossible to make. We must be content with dating Mark sometime in the late 50s or the 60s.” Ibid., 182. Cp. Guthrie, Ibid., 84-89) Now, the available time for the Jesus myths to develop is shorter yet. But his dilemma gets worse and interrupting Ehrman’s assertion grows easier. A scholarly slip is rearing its head. We have an early church creed contained in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The Apostle recites this early church creed which he informs his readers was passed down to him (1 Cor. 15:3). The creed is early, generally dated to the 30s. The interesting thing about creeds is: They need time to develop. First, a need for a creed arises. Creeds were and are statements of belief which are easily memorized and recited by the average person. It is a sort of theologi­cal shorthand. Paul would have received this when he was in Jerusalem—most likely in the late 30’s AD. It is a little time for the need and then the development of creeds and several critical scholars believe the creed was extant in the 30’s and that Paul received it within three to eight years of its existence. That would be the late 30’s or early 40’s. Dr. Gary Habermas points out: In examining the cause of the disciple’s faith, I pointed out earlier that the Resurrection was proclaimed by the earliest eyewitnesses. This is especially based, for instance, on 1 Cor. 15:3ff, where all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection. That means this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms deliv­ered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words, and the possibility of an Aramaic original. Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that has a very early origin, usually placing it in the AD 30s. Paul most likely received this material during his first visit in Jerusalem with Peter and James, who are included in the first appearances (1 Cor. 15:5,7). In fact, Fuller, Hunter, and Pan­nenberg are examples of critical scholars who date Paul’s receiving of this creed from three to eight years after the Crucifixion itself. And if Paul received it at such an early date, the creed itself would have been earlier because it would have existed before the time he was told. And the facts upon which the creed was originally based would be earlier still. We are, for all practical purposes, back to the original events. So we may now realize how this data is much earlier than the ten to twenty years after the Crucifixion as postulated by Dr. Flew. Paul also adds that the other eyewitnesses had likewise been testifying concerning their own appearances of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:11, 14, 15).((Gary Habermas and Antony Flew; Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate, Harper & Row, 1987, 23 )) The creed was extant in the 30s AD, and Paul received it within 3 to 8 years. Ehrman not only does not have the 35 to 70 years for the Gospel myths to develop, but also the creed about the Resurrection of Jesus was in use within a few years of the event in the city in which it actually occurred. Not only is the historical evidence for the Resurrection here, but it also meets nearly all of Ehrman’s wish list criteria. Did Mark Believe in the Resurrection? Ehrman and others who wish to “poison the evidence” often appeal to the Gospel of Mark in an attempt to claim the early church did not believe in the Resurrection and the Resurrection portion was a later addition. According to this claim, the bulk of Mark 16 (after v. 8) was not in the original and was added later. Therefore, the reasoning goes, Mark did not believe in the Resurrection. I have a two-part response. First, we do know what the early church believed about the Resurrection through the creed which was in use within 3 to 8 years of the event as previously noted. Second, even if the last portion of Mark was added, we still do know what Mark believed about the Resurrection when he wrote his account. We start with a couple of questions: Did Mark think Jesus was a true prophet or a false prophet? Maybe not God and, perhaps, not resurrected, but He certainly was a true prophet. Next question, was the Gospel written before or after the Crucifixion? Well, obviously after. Once this is established we need to take a walk through the Gospel According to Mark, keep­ing in mind Mark wrote his Gospel believing Jesus was, at the very least, a true prophet. Writing after the events had occurred, it would have been written in such a way so as to have any prophecies contained in it reflect his idea of Jesus as being a true prophet. In Mark 8:31, we read: “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suf fer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” This seems to be a clear prophecy presented by One Whom Mark considered to be a true prophet. If Mark did not believe in the Resurrection, he would not have included this information. But there is more. In Mark 9:9, he records: “And as they were coming down from the mountain, He gave them orders not to relate to any­one what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead.” A few verses later, in Mark 9:31 we read: “For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, ‘The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and will kill Him; and when He is killed, He will rise three days later.” In the next chapter, Mark 10:34, he reports: “And they will mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him, and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” Additionally, in Mark 14:28, Jesus tells his followers: “But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee.” Then there is the account of non-believers who were hostile witnesses in Mark 14:58: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ ” By the way, this confirms what Jesus did say, which is documented in John 2:19-21. Lastly, we have His detractors at the Crucifixion who used His prophetic words against Him in Mark 15:29: “And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, ‘Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days …’ ” Evidence that Mark believed in the Resurrection is actually found throughout his eyewitness account. There is a great deal of information which Bart Ehrman and others in his school of thought must address. Dr. Gary Habermas made note of a number of them in his book Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: At least eleven events are considered to be know­able history by virtually all scholars, and a twelfth event is considered to be knowable history by many scholars. (1) Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion and (2) was buried. (3) Jesus’ death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. (4) Although not as frequently recognized, many scholars hold that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was discovered to be empty just a few days later. Critical scholars even agree that (5) at this time the disciples had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Because of these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and Resur­rection, even being willing to die for this belief. (7) This message was central in the early church preaching and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Je­sus had died shortly before. As a result of this message, (9) the church was born and grew, (10) with Sunday as the primary day of wor­ship. (11) James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later Paul the persecutor of the Christians was also converted by an experience that he, similarly, believed to be an ap­pearance of the risen Jesus.((Gary Habermas and Antony Flew; Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate, Harper & Row, 1987, 19-20)) A fair-minded treatment of the evidence and way to ex­plain these 12 historic events seems to lead conclusively to ac­cept the Gospel accounts are what they claim to be: Writings by the eyewitnesses and/or individuals close to the eyewitnesses documenting the truthfulness of the claims of the early church. Simply trying to “poison the evidence” does little to prove it is myth, and it does nothing to substantiate an opposing view is true. A positive case for the alternate position must also be built. Ehrman simply did not attempt to carry this out. What of the Seeming Contradictions? Although we can credibly establish the Gospel accounts were written early by followers of Jesus or others who were close to them, this does not mean the accounts are necessarily trustworthy. His claims there are contradictions must also be ad­dressed. Ehrman simply asserting there are contradictions does not mean there are; nor does my asserting there are not contra­dictions mean there are not. Ehrman set up this proposed dilemma in an interesting way. His claim was that Evangelicals tend to read the Gospels from beginning to end. They read them with a start, middle, and con­clude with the Resurrection. He claimed we needed to read them across by comparing each section with the same sections of the other Gospels. It is there, he contends, the contradictions surface most clearly. He went on to claim that if we try to put the stories together to answer the charges, we are then creating yet another Gospel or somehow changing the “BIG Picture.” This is a case of “special pleading” or “stacking the deck.”((“Fallacy of special pleading. (a) Accepting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent’s argument but rejecting it when ap­plied to one’s own argument, or (b) rejecting an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent’s argument but accepting it when ap­plied to one’s own.”Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York: Barnes & Noble/Harper & Row, 1981), 99; italics and bold part of original text. Cp. Don Lindsay,“List of Fallacious Arguments,”, where “special pleading” is also referred to as “stacking the deck.”)) Simply because all of the accounts do not contain the exact same details in exactly the same way does not mean nor prove there are actual contradictions.((Perhaps one of the most common grounds for accusing the Gospels of contradicting each other has been the differing sequences in which the writers sometimes portray the events they narrate. But, as a former pupil of Rudolph Bultmann, Eta Linneman, has pointed out, this objec­tion has been answered at least as far back as the second century, when Papias (as attested by Eusebius) asserted that Mark did not in­tend to provide a chronologically-ordered account. Cf. Eusebius, Eccle­siastical History 3.39.15 and Linneman, Is There a Synoptic Problem?, Robert B. Yarbrough, trans., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992),168)) By assembling or comparing the accounts as Ehrman started off challenging the audience to do, we are not by definition creating yet another Gospel. This was used as a way to discourage an actual response. As we approach this alleged dilemma, an example of seeming contradictions by reliable sources may be helpful. From time to time, the late Ken­neth Kantzer((Kenneth S. Kantzer (1917–2002), was an influential theologian and educator in the evangelical Christian tradition. ttp://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Kenneth_Kantzer)) told a story of a personal experience where seem­ing contradictions turned out not to be contradictions once all of the facts were assembled and compared. One day he received a phone call from a reliable friend. He was told a young lady they both knew had been standing on a corner waiting for the light to change, was struck by a car, but she was not seriously injured. A little while later, he received another call from another trusted friend who communicated that the same young lady had been riding in a car which was broad sided by a truck, and she was instantly killed. Both witnesses were reliable, but there clearly seemed to be contradictions in their stories. Kantzer later learned that, indeed, the young lady had been standing on a corner waiting for the light to change when a vehicle struck her. She was injured but not seriously. The driver got her in the car and was taking her to the hospital to get her checked out. On the way to the hospital, they were driving through an intersection, and a truck ran the red light and broadsided the car—killing the girl instantly. Combining all of the facts of both accounts did not create an entirely new story; they simply cleared up seeming inconsistencies and told the en­tire story. Most of Ehrman’s alleged contradictions fall into this category. His main examples were: 1) Who went to the tomb: Was it Mary Magdalene and an­other Mary; was it the two Marys and Salome? Was it Mary Magdalene, Joanna, another Mary? Was it Mary Magda­lene by herself? It depends which Gospel you read. 2) Was the stone already rolled away by the time they got there, or did it roll away when they arrived? 3) Whom did they meet there to tell them that Jesus was raised? An angel? A man? Two men? Or Jesus himself? (John 20:1: She saw the stone was rolled away and so ran back to tell Simon Peter; later Jesus appears to her.) 4) Do the women assume Jesus has been raised (Syn­optics) because that’s what they’re told, or do they assume He’s been buried in some other place (John) since His body is not in the tomb? 5) Who first comes to realize Jesus has been raised? The women (the Synoptics) or Simon Peter and the be­loved disciple (John)? 6) Are the women told anything upon first finding the tomb empty (Synoptics: yes; John: no)? 7) What are they told? To tell the disciples to go to Gali­lee to meet Jesus there, or that Jesus told them while He was still in Galilee that He would rise. 8) Did they tell the disciples? Mark 16:8. The end. Con­trast Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9.((Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Ehrman Does the Bible Misquote Je­sus? http://www.ffc.org/video187.htm)) It seems if we take Ehrman at his challenge and assemble the same accounts from the different authors, either we will see the contradictions, or doing so will eliminate the seeming contra­dictions. I believe it will be the latter. 1) Who went to the tomb: Was it Mary Magdalene and another Mary; was it the two Marys and Salome? Was it Mary Magdalene, Joanna, another Mary? Was it Mary Magdalene by herself? It depends which Gospel you read. Matthew 28:1 tells us it was: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16:1 names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome. Luke informs us in Luke 23:55 that just prior to the beginning of the Sabbath the “women who had come with Him out of Galilee” had gone to the tomb to see where it was and then returned to prepare the burial spices. This would be a larger group than the three so far named, but it would have included them. In Luke 24:1, he references this group when he continued this account: “But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb…” The “they” here is the same “they” as in the previous two verses, Luke 23:55 and 56. Lastly, John 20:1 names Mary Magdalene. The problem here is not with any of the texts, but rather it is with Ehrman taking each account as though each writer is giv­ing an exhaustive list of who came to the tomb. We can tell by his question: “Was it Mary Magdalene by herself?” But that is simply not the case. Not only does John not say “only” Mary Magdalene came to the tomb—something that would have to be included in order for Ehrman’s assumption to hold any valid­ity, but also none of the writers make the claim only those they named came to the tomb. The writers keyed in on individuals which were important to them for particular reasons. Three of the accounts name Mary Magdalene: Matthew, Mark and John. Two accounts name “the other Mary”: Matthew and Mark. One account, Mark, names Salome. Luke does not name any of the women. Using Ehrman’s methodology, that would mean Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome were not there accord­ing to Luke’s account; which is an absurd claim. So, the answer to the question is a simple one. It was Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, Salome and the rest of the women who followed Him out of Galilee. Ehrman provided no evidence to dem­onstrate this is not the case, and compiling all of the evidence from the accounts clears up and answers the supposed contradictions. 2) Was the stone already rolled away by the time they got there, or did it roll away when they arrived? The account in Matthew 28:2 reports that a “severe earth­quake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.” The word “had” indicates something which happened earlier in time—prior to the arrival of the women. Mark describes the dis­cussion the women were having on the way to the tomb about how to get the stone moved. The stone had been rolled away prior to their arrival (Mark 16:3-4). We find the same descrip­tion in Luke 24:2. The stone had been rolled away prior to their arrival. John agrees with the other narratives in John 20:1 that “the stone already taken away from the tomb.” Again, without changing any material facts but simply listing them together, we find no contradiction. In all accounts the stone had been rolled away prior to the arrival of the group of women. 3) Whom did they meet there to tell them that Jesus was raised? An angel? A man? Two men? Or Jesus himself? (John 20:1: She saw the stone was rolled away and so ran back to tell Simon Peter; later Jesus appears to her.) Matthew writes that the angel who had rolled away the stone told them Jesus had risen and invited them to look inside the tomb (Matt. 28:5-6). They then met Jesus (Matt. 28:9). Mark describes a “young man … wearing a white robe” sitting in the tomb who told them Jesus had risen (Mark 16:5-6). Luke’s ac­count describes two men in “dazzling apparel” who told them He had risen (Luke 24:4-6). In John 20:12-13, Mary Magdalene saw two angels; and in 20:16, she saw Jesus. John supplied addi­tional but not contradictory material. According to the account, this was her second trip to the tomb that morning. She had gone there “while it was still dark” (John 20:1), saw the stone rolled away, ran to tell Peter (John 20:2), and then returned (20:11 and following). A few things here. It is not uncommon for angels to be re­ferred to as “men” or “young men” in both Old and New Testa­ments. We find this as early as Genesis 18, where angels are referred to as “men” in verses 2, 16, 22. One of the “men” was “The LORD” or YHWH (18:1), and the other two “men” are re­ferred to as “angels” in 19:1. When angels or the LORD took on physical appearances in Scripture, it was most often as looking like men. The additional information of “wearing a white robe” (Mark) and having “dazzling apparel” (Luke) helps to clarify that the “men” were angels. When we study any document, including Scripture, it is nec­essary, honest, and even scholarly to use the historical grammati­cal understanding of the text and how the culture that wrote and read the text used language. Following that injunction, what we have as an answer to this question is, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb while it was dark—before morning light. She found the stone rolled away, the tomb empty, and ran back to tell Peter. She then returned as morning was dawning, and the other women (all of the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee) were also going to the tomb. Two angels greeted them; the one who told them Jesus had risen was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Another angel inside the tomb confirmed Jesus had risen and was then joined by the angel who had been outside the tomb. As they turned to leave, Mary Magdalene was weeping when she ran into Jesus Who was, indeed, resurrected. Again, a careful re­view of the accounts in this fashion does not support the claim of contradiction, but instead, it gives a more comprehensive “BIG Picture,” as Ehrman refers to it. 4) Do the women assume Jesus has been raised (Syn­optics) because that’s what they’re told, or do they assume He’s been buried in some other place (John) since His body is not in the tomb? This one is a “time” question or “when” question rather than a demonstration of contradictions, because both of the above are true at different times. As previously shown, Mary Magdalene came while it was dark, saw the tomb was empty, and assumed His body had been moved (John 20:1-2). Later, she and the all the other women were told He was raised, and they saw Him after they were told. These two are not contradictions, but rather, both are true at different times of the morning in question. 5) Who first comes to realize Jesus has been raised? The women (the Synoptics) or Simon Peter and the be­loved disciple (John)? Again, the text, in context, answers this one without any contradiction. As Ehrman agrees, Matthew, Mark, and Luke concur that the women “realized” or knew first. John not only does not contradict this, but rather, he agrees. In John 20:3-8, we read that Peter and John ran to the tomb, saw and believed the tomb was empty, but “… as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead” (John 20:9). So, although Peter and John “saw and believed” (John 20:8) the tomb was empty, they did not know what it meant at that point in time; whereas the women had been told by the angels and saw the risen Lord. 6) Are the women told anything upon first finding the tomb empty (Synoptics: yes; John: no)? The answer to both is “yes” and “no,” but this does not re­sult in a contradiction. Why, you ask? Again, the first time Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, while it was dark, she was not told anything. When Mary Magdalene returned and the other women arrived, they all were told that Jesus was raised. 7) What are they told? To tell the disciples to go to Gali­lee to meet Jesus there, or that Jesus told them while He was still in Galilee that He would rise. Is there a contradiction here, or are both true? Earlier in this article, we looked at the seven times in the Gospel According to Mark where Jesus clearly stated He would be raised. His stating that He would be resurrected is not the same thing as the dis­ciples understanding what that meant or that it even registered in their thinking at the time. As early as John 2:22, we find He clearly taught the Resurrection of His body (John 2:19-21), but it was not until after the event that the disciples understood, and then they “… remembered that He had said this; and they be­lieved the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.” So, yes, He told them while He was still in Galilee that He would be raised and sent the women to tell the disciples to go and meet Him in Galilee. No contradiction. Both are true, one is predic­tive or prophetic (while He was still in Galilee), and the other is confirmation of prophetic fulfillment. 8) Did they tell the disciples? Mark 16:8. The end. Con­trast Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9. The answer is … “no” and “yes.” Mary Magdalene ran and told Peter and John the tomb was empty (John 20:1-2). She re­turned, and the other women arrived. Being gripped with fear, most of the women fled and said nothing after seeing and hear­ing the angels. (Mark 16:8) Mary Magdalene and some of the women met up with Jesus (Matthew 28: 8-10; John 20:15-17), and then she and other women went and told the disciples (Luke 24:9-10; John 20:18). Just as in the answer to point four, both are true at different times of the Resurrection morning and are, therefore, not contradictory. Ehrman stated: You will find dozens of discrepancies in the details. Let me stress: It’s not good enough to say that these are all just minor details. The BIG picture is made up of lots and lots of details; if you change all the details, you change the BIG picture.((Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Ehrman Does the Bible Misquote Je­sus? http://www.ffc.org/video187.htm )) So, far he has not provided any examples of actual contra­dictions. None of these are minor details. He is correct; the “BIG Picture”is made up of lots and lots of details. Cross checking the details—the “when” and “where” of details in historical nar­rative—is important and builds the “BIG Picture.” Each of Eh­rman’s above claims demonstrates slips in his research, reading, and teaching on this issue. This raises questions. Is this inten­tional dishonesty, poor scholarship, or something else? These are questions I cannot answer, but they are worth considering. One Other Issue This wasn’t in the debate, but Bart Ehrman claims there are more errors in the New Testament manuscript copies then there are words in the New Testament. His claim is true; they are copy­ist’s errors. However, in the end this is a meaningless and inef­fectual claim because of the nature of these copyist’s errors. The reason is two-fold. First, the copyist’s errors do not change any major or minor doctrine. It is not as though one copy says “Jesus is God,” and another copy says “Jesus is not God.” Or, as we saw earlier, per­haps, the last 12 verses of Mark are not in the original. However, it is still clearly presented in Mark that he believed in the Resur­rection, and so it makes no substantial difference in doctrine. Second, in over 99% of what are called the variants (differ­ences or variations in reading), we do know what they are sup­posed to say. For example: If I wrote a note that was copied and sent to you which read, “I will bee talking a trip to you’re area in a couplle of weeks and plan to seee you,” would you know what the original said? Of course. But, let’s say someone else copied this with a view to correct the errors and wrote, “I well be taking a trip to your area in a few of weeks and plan to see ewe.” Would you understand what was meant? The original copyist’s errors have been corrected, but new typos are now there with some word substitutions. In both cases, the original meaning is discernable, and comparing the two actually gives a greater confidence as to what the original said. Although Ehrman’s claim sounds scary at first, once we understand how the text is analyzed and translated, his claim has virtually no bearing on whether the New Testament is reliable or not. *Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the author of 24 books including, Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted. **Dr. Craig Evans, New Testament scholar, is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College of Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. He is the author and editor of more than 60 books and hundreds of articles and reviews and has given lectures at Cambridge, Ox­ford, Durham, Yale and other universities, colleges, seminaries and museums, such as the Field Museum in Chicago, the Cana­dian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa and the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Along with countless interviews on radio networks across Canada and the US, Evans has been seen on Dateline NBC, CBC, CTV, Day of Discovery, and many docu­mentaries aired on BBC, The Discovery Channel, History Chan­nel, History Television and others. He also has served as a con­sultant for the National Geographic Society.

L.L. (Don) Veinot Jr. is co-founder and President of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Wonder Lake, Illinois with offices in Florida, Iowa, Southern Illinois and Col­orado. He, along with his wife of 40 years, Joy, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to New Religious Movements since 1987. He is a frequent guest on various radio and television broadcasts as well as being a staff researcher and writer for the Midwest Outreach, Inc. Journal and is co-author of, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Go­thard and the Christian Life, contributing author of Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials, as well as articles in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. He was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Commu­nity Church of Lombard, IL, at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997. Don is a charter member of ISCA (International Society of Christian Apologetics) and is also the current President of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of Coun­ter cult/apologetic and discernment ministries from around the country. I want to offer appreciation to Ron Henzel, Senior Researcher for Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., for his research assistance and input. © 2020, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content. Read the full article

[grizzlefur]

WWEm - Formulaic Everyone-Gets-a-spot Multi-man Filler Material

It’s getting to look a lot like Wrestlemania...

Transmission date: Monday 27/Tuesday 28 March 2017

.

back on something approaching schedule for once (mania is in two days), let's crack open some FRIDAY AFTERNOON RAW! .

i mean, technically mania weekend starts tonight with the hall of fame, but fuck that noise .

the standard wwe intro has been overriden by a dramatic wyatt-style video collage to taker's music .

because it's mania season, so we need to remind you that the undertaker is important and cool .

and then roll normal titles, slightly ruining the effect .

holy shit that's a lot of pyro .

like, even more than usual .

we're in the wells fargo centre in philadelphia, which a couple years ago would have been a big event venue, but now we're there for a warmup show

.

apparently the things tonight are seth signing a please-fuck-me-up form and brock and goldberg talking about absurdist theatre .

or possibly fighting .

who can say .

in any case, here's bayley .

oh, apparently they've made the 4-way an elimination match .

cole claims that making it elimination-style makes it harder for bayley to win, despite the fact that this is objectively untrue .

bayley opens with just doing some hype about mania .

she's so excited .

wearing an ultimate warrior shirt, stumbling over her words a lot, and pointing at the sign every other sentence .

starts talking about the match, hit charlotte's music

.

i get the feeling the whole show is going to be like this .

THESE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE THERE AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT THEM BE EXCITED KTHXBAI .

the bit of charlotte's top you can see under where her robe fastens looks like she's wearing the big gold belt .

wonder if that's intentional .

charlotte is here to talk smack about sasha for being the manipulative bitch

.

i thought we were meant to think john cena is, and bayley for being an adorable sucker .

charlotte pulls up a tweet from nxt-era bitch sasha to prove her point .

crowd take this as an opportunity for a punk chant for some reason .

and here comes sasha .

like the fuck are you doing that tweet was from 2015 catch up .

sasha's hair is even more purple than usual .

she gets a succinct bit about how her and bayley know how to separate friendship and business and they're gonna fight for the title, cue nia's totally unexpected entrance .

gets a crack at these three for trading the title .

charlotte does a crack about how nia even being there is sasha's fault, sasha goes for her, cue brawl .

apparently this will have resolved into a tag match by the end of this ad break .

but in the meantime, have this mania advert .

fuck off, pitbull .

we know it's this weekend .

(i can't lie, i actually really like that song) .

so yes, this is a match now .

which sasha and charlotte immediately take outside .

apparently this is "every women for themself" .

[sic] .

gj, cole .

nia tags in, sasha takes the inoki-school defence of 'just kick them in the fucking legs whenever possible' .

tag switch, charlotte commences to kicking the crap out bf bayley .

who runs away and tags in sasha .

not looking super strong as a champion there .

sasha's hair is so violently purple that it's making it look like my screen's screwing up .

i like it .

it's like sume kind of superpowered mega-purple .

hyperple .

ooh, single leg backbreaker hold from charlotte there .

not sure i've seen that one before .

i mean, it's no neville/ali match for cool new moves, but still .

(that match was so good) .

(seriously, watch 205) .

(just try not to think too hard about what happened to gran metalik) .

sasha dives off the apron to nia, gets caught, then nia kind of weirdly stumbles and knocks herself out .

NIA hurt itself in its confusion! .

meanwhile, bayley hits a bayley to belly for the pin .

her and sasha celebrate a bit, then nia coldcocks them, leg drops sasha, samoan drops bayley, bodychecks charlotte, and grabs the belt .

ooh, good heel heat there .

dramatic replay reminds us all that the bayley to belly is possibly the most underwhelming finisher in this company .

but now we have a recap package of Mr Rollins and his Superfluous Crutch .

oh, apparently that was a steel crutch .

do wrestling announcers know that there are other metals? .

everything is steel, gold, or nothing .

so yes, later we have the waiver .

after a prerecorded new day bit .

featuring xavier losing his motivation .

oh, it's a snickers advert .

and now we have a hall of fame package to remind us who everyone is this year .

no byron, nobody is going to watch the red carpet preshow .

you and maria menounos could be roasting the unacknowledged mcmahon child on a spit, i still wouldn't give a shit .

and now for...MORE RECAPS! .

this time, it's steph firing mick .

cut from that to charly interviewing sami? .

oh yeah, cos he was like his protégé .

apparently we have to continue mick's legacy and honour his memory .

dude, he's not dead .

and sami uses this as an intro to entering the andre battle royal and dedicating his victory to mick .

steph appears behind him like um excuse me what .

because we're now in the era when people have to earn matches .

so let's take this to its logical conclusion .

sami/owens later on, no dq, if sami wins he gets his battle royal spot, if not, he's fired .

perhaps a touch of an overreaction there, steph? .

but now it's cruiserweight time .

neville on announce in full glower mode .

jojo fucks up how you pronounce 'milwaukee' .

so yes, now we have austin aries vs Armcandy Supernova .

(he's getting that name change paperwork put through) .

(until then, it's noam dar) .

noam has had a haircut and/or a proper shave, and i'm finding his tiny baby face disconcerting .

yeah, it's definitely the stubble being gone .

neville's using his announce spot to make sure we all know how little of a hypothetical shit he gives about this match .

neville gives imaginary numbers of shits .

neville: 4i+3.7 shits given .

later neville is fighting jack .

austin does his pendulum elbow, doesn't bother with the theatrics because he knows he's got a hostile announce panel

.

apparently austin encapsulates everything that is wrong with american society .

alicia distracts austin to let him know how much she doesn't like his face .

(her words, not mine) .

austin hits a discus fivearm, then instead of going for a pin, shouts at neville and locks in the last chancery for the tap .

he hasn't done that for a while .

always nice when people have a spare finisher for drama .

austin gets on the turnbuckle and point at the sign, neville gets on the announce table and glowers, end segment .

now for some recap vids of last week's hhh interview .

seth is in the building .

walking backstage with a crutch he may or may not need .

so that's next .

but first, another taker video because THE UNDERTAKER IS TOTALLY AWESOME YOU GUYS .

but yes, now seth is here .

and the ring has sprouted carpet, office chairs, and a cheap table with the weirdest faux-marble finish .

that's kind of distracting, tbh .

seth gets in the ring, immediately calls out hunter, drops the mic .

there's only one mic on the table, which seems ill-prepared .

and here comes the man .

seth's new shirt also says kingslayer on it now .

hunter's pulled a mic from hammerspace .

lets seth know that if he attacks him instead of signing, the match is off .

and also he'll get fucked up .

so seth has to sit down and listen to hunter explain the forms .

god, i love paperwork drama .

seth refuses to sit down, hunter calls the match off and leaves .

gets as far as the ring steps before seth sits in the chair .

hunter comes back, calls him a good boy .

oooooooooooohhhhhhh .

and now he's going into graphic detail about the true extent of just how much he will fuck seth up on sunday .

and how little he will be able to sue people for it .

seth's like yeah dude i get the principle .

hunter is calling out the whole 'success=evil' paradigm that so much of wrestling is based one .

just like fuck you i have more money than god who needs to be a hero .

seth has not yet begun to give a shit .

hunter does a whole bit about how seth is crucifying his career and is not going to become the first one-legged man to win an ass-kicking contest .

which is an image that didn't need anywhere near as much explanation as he gave us just there .

seth's just like dude these are all things you've been telling me for years .

and blames hunter for ruining his self-respect .

seth stands up purely so he can point at the sign when he mentions mania .

seth makes it explicit that this whole angle is about his redemption .

which viewers with half an eye could have noticed .

seth challenges hunter to tear his leg off and beat him with it .

dude, don't give him ideas .

signs the paper, throws it at hunter .

so he kicks the table at him and stamps on his knee .

so unexpected .

side note: somebody needs to track down the guy on front row of hardcam with the IT'S ALL FUN AND GAMES UNTIL HHH HITS YOU WITH A CRUTCH sign and buy him several drinks .

hunter attempts to do just that, seth catches him with a lovely pele kick .

goes for a pedigree, hunter kicks him in the knee, tries to do it to him, gets thrown out, and seth gets the crutch as he scrabbles around on the floor .

that...didn't make a whole lot of sense, but hey .

let's roll on .

oh for fuck's sake, do we really need another in-depth video package dissecting the history of the goldberg/lesnar feud? .

if you haven't got it now... .

but this time they're splitting it up .

that was just about survivor series .

and now a superstar facts interstitial about how cool and totally relevant mark henry is .

and recaps on what happened with seth and hunter before we broke your train of thought with all these recaps .

guys, you can't call it a 'non-sanctioned match' and still have a big graphic advertising it .

great, there's the ugly-ass andre trophy .

and apparently now we have an over the rope challenge .

opening with show .

fucking hell .

i hate warmup shows .

could you tell .

show pauses to gaze deeply at the trophy .

possibly thinking it's a mirror .

hard to say .

and his opponent, jinder mahal .

but yeah, it's an over-the-top-rope gauntlet type thing .

bell rings, show immediately goes for the chokeslam .

either to seem intimidating or because he has no clue how pacing works .

brief scuffle, then show chokes him over the ropes and enter one bo dallas .

where the fuck have you been, bo .

your brother's had one of his episodes .

in the time it took me to type that, bo went out, now here are the shining stars .

both at once, because fuck the premise of this match .

flips them both out, are we done .

and they're followed by goldust, r-truth and curtis axel .

where the holy fuck are all these guys coming from .

they team up on him, along with everyone else coming back, and the seven get him over .

so he comes back in and either magic fists or chokeslams them all .

except golden truth, who run away .

show's music hits, then almost immediately gives way to 

.

BRAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUGHHHHH

.

he's here with a mic to tell us how he could totally kick show's ass right now, but he isn't going to because he doesn't feel like it .

points at the sign, then leaves .

so what was the point of all that again? .

"look, guys, we still have an undercard!" .

but now, recaps of the enzo and cass/cesaro and sheamus/gallows and anderson situation .

and now the latter pair are being interviewed by Bland Dude #3 .

they're fighting enzo and cass later .

so cue gallows aping their shtick .

and now more taker videos .

GUYS THE UNDERTAKER IS COMING PLEASE LOVE HIM .

and isn't a wyatt at all .

official announcement that pitbull will be at mania to do this song .

cos god knows we haven't heard it enough .

but now, charly interviews roman about his reaction to all the taker bullshit .

roman doesn't believe in the undertaker .

which will make it very hard to defend against him, i feel .

and now we have the new day opening business at the new york stock exchange .

and arriving in philly just in time to distribute new day pops .

and we have a video diary .

in which they race up the rocky steps .

or kofi and xavier do, while e staggers up them eating bootyos .

and then he teleports to the top ahead of them .

Booty-O's: We Can't Guarantee Their Effects. .

brief announce segue, and now Mike Rohm (fuck, i knew i knew his name) interviews cesaro and sheamus

.

who are also carrying the torch for foley .

so gallows and anderson blindside them and hit them with a ladder .

like you do .

and bury cesaro in crates .

and cut away like welp guess that interview's done .

and now, more cruiserweightery .

neville/gallagher .

jack displaying a fantastic level of anti-glower .

him and neville may annihilate each other out of existence .

he's wearing his watermelon shorts again .

i am enjoying neville's new 'not today, bucko' thing .

neville kicks jack in the stomach, he sells in a way that suggests all laws of physics have been reversed .

neville rolls outside, jack retrieves william iii .

and crotch drops neville from the apron .

so neville just snaps him face-first into the turnbuckle .

seems fair .

don't ram your crotch into my face today, bucko .

and superplex into rings of saturn (still needs a new name) for the tap .

complete with one of jack's amazing submission faces .

corey makes a hugely extended mary poppins joke .

cut to an austin aries news network special broadcast .

it's austin investigating neville's claim that nobody wants austin to win .

so he's asking the new day .

who try and get him to grind with them .

so he does a whole thing like guys i'm a serious journalist .

and then does it anyway .

so the new day endorse him .

now there's a terrifying comedic partnership .

cut to roman mooning around backstage .

apparently he's next .

but not in the goldberg way .

announcement from cena on the today show, about his tag match .

which is smackdown, but whatever .

apparently al roker is going to be their special ring announcer .

i'll be honest, i can't really remember who that is .

so i'll use this brockberg video to look .

and now i know .

but now, here's roman .

is there more stuff i can go and look up instead .

roman, the point of this segment is so you can say words .

the mic has a function .

this shit is why raw is three hours long .

loving the TRADE REIGNS TO TNA signs .

plural .

he mentions winning the rumble, gets even more heel heat .

i'm guessing he's actively going for smug shitheel at this point? .

promising to bring taker down .

claims this is his house .

which does suggest that paige isn't coming back .

or we could have a whole inheritance crisis story .

"this is my house, because this is my yard." .

huh? .

BONG .

taker is only here in the form of a video .

of him digging graves and grimly prophesying roman's death .

we can only hope .

jfc can people stop fitting 'ultimate thrill ride' into every other sentence .

badly-carved gravestone, only has roman's death date on for some reasons .

cmon guys, you could google it .

video ends, BONGs resume .

lights stay down for a bit, then flick up with taker right behind roman .

it's how i like to travel between rooms .

he's here to finish the sentence he didn't in the vt .

dude, it's your catchphrase, we knew where you were going with it .

roman just stands there and does some solid b+ glower .

taker brings the lights back down, more BONGage, and ad break .

network shill about all the cool mania week stuff .

and also bring it to the table and the hall of fame .

and now, we have enzo and cass fighting gallows and anderson .

lucky us .

enzo's wearing a hat and shouting his shtick directly into the faces of children .

your babyfaces, people .

also a nasty white jacket with what looks like the nandos chicken on the back .

enzo starts a spiel, cass steals his hat and continues it .

does lists of the word 'practice' while enzo fills in shouts .

ultimate thrill ride, take a shot of something not nearly as cool as the people around you say it is .

(i'm thinking cuervo) .

anderson and gallows come in halfway through cass spelling it out for us .

and cesaro and sheamus hit them with a ladder .

cesaro's shoulder tape is gone, but his waist is bandaged .

i don't understand his physiology .

and then they beat enzo and cass with the ladder too .

until it backfires .

i like their whole tweener thing, tbh .

gallows and anderson recover, hit cass with the ladder .

and cesaro .

there's only one weapon and they're all just waiting their turn to use it .

they hit enzo off the turnbuckle with it, wolfpac hands, end .

god, i hate pre-mania episodes .

but now, women's history month .

in which some dude talks about maya angelou .

and i sigh so hard i need to clean my lungs off my keyboard .

ugh .

and now charly interviews kevin backstage .

about his upcoming friend-murder matches .

kevin's just like NOPE not my friends you are wrong .

also addresses the whole bit about the real kevin owens last week .

agrees with him making fun of kevin for being a jericho fan, because jericho fans are idiots .

apparently tonight he's going to rip sami up like the list of jericho .

and this is a big opportunity for him to fuck sami up .

dude, you do that more than you eat breakfast .

but next, we have a video package about why the non-sanctioned yet official 3edgy5me match is important .

but first, a bit where we apparently should watch corey interviewing kurt angle on the network .

for which i need a gif of tozawa going NOPE .

.

but yeah, as advertised, a video package of the history of hunter/seth .

including a rare shot of hunter's douchebag ponytail .

which sounds like a new apple cultivar or something .

i'd narrate this, but it's literally just an edit of the entire storyline thus far .

previously on sweaty manfighting club... .

and any joke i could make, i've probably made it at the time .

but we've put metallica over it, so you know it's totally hardcore .

and sure, advertise the bray/randy match .

they really need to decide what the brand split meant .

oh wait, are we just listing all the matches at mania .

excellent padding .

music cuts to bubblegum pop as soon as we start talking about the women's matches .

sigh .

although they're also saying about corbin/ambrose in this section .

he is a pretty princess .

(you can decide who i meant) .

"It just doesn't get any bigger than the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal!" .

which is why we've left it until just before the hosts bbeing the new day in this list .

wow, this card is stacked .

hence the four-day event .

but now we have the murder match now .

which means that Brockberg III: Large Men Pant At Each Other must be our main event .

great .

during sami's intro, they talk about seth/hunter, and corey informs us all that self-loathing is fine if you get to ride in a private jet .

not even owning one, mind you, just riding in somebody's .

bell rings, and fuck the rest of this explanation because it's kevin/sami and you can fill in most of it .

sami goes for the barricade moonsault, kevin just pushes him off it and follows him into the crowd .

like fuck you dude this is hardcore .

starts smacking him into the announce table .

puts sami up on the stage, then learns that there might be something to the whole 'don't cede the high ground to your enemy' thing as he gets toped .

and ad break .

and we come back to kevin ddt'ing sami on the ring steps .

goes for the pin, rather than just murdering him or w/e .

sami counters a cannonball into an exploder, which is a nice little spot .

then goes for a torpedo ddt, and it's...not as good as normal? .

doesn't he usually go under the bottom rope? .

anyway, seemed sloppy .

kevin counters the helluva kick with a superkick into a frog splash .

sami kicks out anyway because he is filled with the spirit of foley .

(also DETERMINATION) .

kevin goes for a popup, sami counters into a blue thunder bomb .

feels like we haven't seen that in a while .

and now, here is samoa joe .

with a chair .

but also jericho .

uses his music to blindside joe and hit him with a chair .

gets shamelessly coldcocked by kevin, but sami manages to pull a rollup out of it for the win .

and then it devolves a bit .

we get to see chris beating kevin with a chair, which has been a long time coming .

joe and kevin retreat with their ragefaces .

chris lets us all know what happens when you betray chris jericho .

side note: i actually quite like the new sparkly jacket .

so yeah, kevin's finally on the list .

the camera tries to show us this, because steadicam guy has no clue what happens when you focus the camera on a white block .

up next, brockberg rolls on like an unstoppable boulder that will doom us all to misery and imminent death .

after an advert for 205 featuring tozawa/kendrick, which cheers me up more .

but yes .

now we have a bouncy man with a dick on his chest who would like you all to know about the controlled substances he has never taken in his life .

also paul .

philadelphia remains all about the ecw chants .

paul casually drops the word extreme into this bit to please the fans .

crowd can't decide whether to do goldberg or suplex city chants .

so most of them are just doing one then the other .

surprisingly civilised .

paul is never as entertaining as when he's actively and directly taking the piss out of fans .

apparently brock lusts after the universal title .

um .

guys .

it's a belt .

maybe don't have this conversation on live global tv .

getting mildly seasick as the steadicam tries to track with brock's swaying .

paul is promising a *"DAY-noo-MWAH" for this story .

fuck you, dude .

maximum heel heat achieved .

don't fuck with french in front of me .

someone does a goldberg chant, paul does a whole bit about it being the last one ever heard on raw .

does a whole thing about goldberg's impending death, starts doing the lord's prayer, then catches himself and does the kaddish instead .

nice moment .

paul's jew jokes are at their best when they're clever and no more than like one every couple months .

but yeah, goldberg's here now .

comes in like fuck it let's fight .

brock gets out fo the ring, bill catches him with a spear .

and then just goes and postures with the belt for a bit .

hit his music again, point at the belt and the sign, end of the show .

thanks for that, anticlimaxberg .

well, that was a shitty pre-mania episode .

join us after the cut for...wait, we get *two* of those every year now? .

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu .

-------------------------

rniture deals now on, at Crazy Selim's Ottoman Warehouse! .

wait, was that the wrong mic? .

i'm starting to understand why i have daniel to do this shit .

in any case, seeing as i'm here anyway (and so are all of you), let's have some SATURDAY MORNING SMACKDOWN! .

this may be displaying more enthusiasm than i have irl .

it's early (for me) and this is going to be another pre-mania setup show .

aaaaaaanyway .

let's fuck this cat .

kicking off with 100% all-natural bryan .

and the standard contract signing office chairs and shitty table .

bryan wants to know if we're ready for mania .

what if we said no? .

well, i guess he was just asking this roomful of people in richmond .

not all of us .

introduces shane, further proving he doesn't care about all of us .

so yeah, that's what this signing is .

the least hype match on a card that contains roman/taker .

aj's entrance music adequately expressing my feelings on this match .

i don't want none .

loving the guy behind shane with a sign saying WHY IS YOUR HAIR SO WET?? IS IT RAINING BACKSTAGE?? .

this crowd are still all about aj, despite him being the heel here .

cos, yknow, fuck shane giving himself mania matches .

i'd say we should just put him in with taker and end both those long-ass stupid runs, but WE ALREADY SHITTING DID THAT .

shane does a speech about how he founded smackdown to be the land of opportunity .

protip, shane: you are not george washington .

shane talks up how great aj is .

which only further emphasises how bullshit this angle is .

shane leads more styles chants, because this is a mania warmup show and we're already creatively bankrupt three minutes in .

shane calls aj out for being arrogant, which is a bit rich coming from a fucking mcmahon .

claims he'll beat aj if he doesn't give him everything he's got .

which is bullshit .

aj could beat him at 10% power .

while asleep .

aj's like dude this is a real wrestling match not your hardcore bullshit what cred do you possibly have .

which is fair .

just goes off on one like dude how many of these bullshit matches have you had .

when will you learn you can't wrestle .

lists people shane's fought for cheap pops .

how you doin .

signs, drops the mic, him and shane get all up in each other's business .

until bryan pulls them apart .

asks them to seal the deal with a handshake, disregarding the fact that they just signed a fucking contract .

aj just walks off .

nobody else gets to touch those lovely gloves .

so .

later we have wyatt/harper (hype) and more forbidden total bellas (not hype) .

or, as jbl called it "Total Divabellas" .

but next, becky/carmella .

medium hype .

after we do the announcement about pitbull again .

and we have alexa and mickie on announce .

mickie wearing new gear, so either her ring gear isn't the star sapphire uniform any more or this is just how she dresses .

enter an ellsworth .

to rile up the crowd .

which he is so good at .

nearly fucks up spelling fabulous .

gj, james .

side note: mauro is still non-existent .

i miss him .

this show could do with some bombast .

carmella pauses the match to give ellsworth her chewing gum .

whcih he eats, because of course .

chances of this match *not* ending in some kind of screwy brawl finish? .

alexa and micke start bitching at each other on announce .

so here we go .

and it escalates into fisticuffs .

shock .

mickie dumps alexa into the ring .

and then slaps carmella for the dq .

cue general brawl .

becky does...something to carmella, mick kick to alexa, they face off, ABRUPT AD BREAK .

during the break, shockingly, bryan made this into a tag match .

which presumably alexa will win because status quo before mania .

but hey, look at the usos .

and my general inability to call this shit .

alexa tags (and throws) carmella in, gets in a spat with ellsworth on the outside .

mickie tags in, kicks everyone .

there's a match happening, but the announce panel are far more interested in just talking about previous manias and this year's preshow .

great .

alexa takes mickie down, nattie's music drops .

she's back to the less-shit gear, so that's nice .

and now she's on announce .

so what, was she just late or something .

otunga just like ummmm why the fuck are you even here .

she gets off a crappy joke, rushes the ring, gets immediately laid out by becky .

and then ellsworth knocks becky over so carmella can get the pin .

and hit naomi's music .

fucking YES .

hits a massive hurricanrana on nattie halfway down the ramp, runs into the ring

.

fucks everybody up

gets a mic so she can share how fucking pumped she is .

(we can tell, naomi) .

she is officially back .

announces that she's entering the title match, despite the fact that she was in it .

by virtue of being a woman on the roster .

gets a crowd pop, dances the segment off .

as we drop the lights but don't turn the uv on for ages .

gj, guys .

cut to bryan on the phone to brie .

interrupted by breezy bella .

who wants to insert themself into the women's title match .

says no .

tyler takes off the wig, is joined by fandango .

they get sad that they won't be at mania, bryan offers them battle royal spots

.

and a space in a 10-man tag tonight

.

they get excessively enthusiastic and leave .

and cut away on bryan's face like what in the actual fuck just happened .

up next, more cursed bellas .

after snickers presents this clip of kane piledriving pete rose .

spoiler: this will not be even vaguely relevant to mania this year .

and an advert for all the mania week stuff .

so we get a blast of galaxy quest music .

god, won't it be a shame when we're past the hall of fame and i stop making that joke .

not that it's a joke .

it's just an actually true thing .

but yes, now we have a miz .

(and also une maryse) .

this time we actually get the full miztv intro .

which suggests other people may turn up .

shite, did we really need a previously montage? .

let's just get this crap over with .

annoyingly funny bit of miz!cena arguing with his cue card guy .

and now we have bryan and brie, also played by miz and maryse .

how long did this shit take to film .

miz!bryan is like something out of a fucking david lynch film .

marykki pops the question, BOOM, to be continued .

the crowd take a moment to realise we're back on camera .

and miz and maryse announce the ad break .

that's pleasingly meta .

and now let's have another video about why we should care about the hall of fame .

oh no, i missed it .

what a shame .

and we're back in the nightmare world .

this is like wrestling meets shitting Psychonauts .

miz!cena dramatically refuses and does a speech about how cena is a manipulative doombot who's afraid of the miz .

you know, i'm beginning to suspect this might all be staged .

apparently you can't see him because there's nothing there to see .

miz and maryse dramatically unmask, do a serious piece to camera about how they're going to destroy cena's career at mania .

miz is uncomfortably intense .

and actually swears .

i mean, they bleep it out, but still .

cut back to the arena, the crowd is split on whether to applaud or boo .

miz is about to say something, ABADOO .

forgoes shouting on stage to kiss nikki's forehead .

and *then* shout at the cameraman .

jesus, john .

what did the cameraman ever do to you .

they get to the ring, miz is like oh hey guys i was waiting for you to interrupt us .

cena's just like okay dude, that was actually pretty funny .

apart from the bit where you turned back into yourself .

cena's doing a whole bit about how miz and maryse believe their own ridiculous kayfabe, while cena knows he's a cartoon character .

have i mentioned how much i love self-aware cena? .

outright asks miz if he's high for thinking he'd jump brands .

solid point .

lists a bunch of superstars who took time off to do films .

including OH WAIT the miz .

but he's like okay at least you're doing something with your career - maryse, the fuck purpose fo you serve? .

we have a women's division and everything .

i'm honestly not used to agreeing with cena so much .

turns the whole using your wife to advance your career and not having kids thing on miz .

ah, dick joke .

i was wondering when that'd turn up .

the crowd is united in pro-cena chants .

this isn't a thing that happens .

this is cena at his best and miz and his douchiest .

cena comments on miz taking everything off and getting serious, takes everything off and gets serious .

(to clarify, cena is still wearing shorts) .

cena calls miz a pussy, producers have to cut the sound .

you can get away with that when you're cena .

likewise calling miz and maryse "the sh...it couple" .

i didn't know it was ok to swear on wwe tv if you had a stutter .

challenges miz to punch him .

and likewise maryse .

looooooong tense moment .

broken by miz and maryse backing out of the ring .

and then turning around to run back .

miz gets to the apron, maryse is asking him to come back .

brings him back up the ramp, cena hits dick joke 2: the dickening .

and nikki gets to do a questionable mic bit .

and her and cena make out .

which is apparently a heel tactic when miz and maryse do it .

ABADOO, end segment .

up next we have the 10-man tag match .

alpha/breezango/usos/slater and rhyno/dolph/mojo .

basically the tag division and spares .

i was about to clarify who was on each team, but there are five faces and five heels, do the maths .

and this is the segment where the announcers have to talk up how significant the andre battle royal is and how winning it unavoidably elevates your career

.

fact check: baron corbin lurks in alleyways and hits people with pipes for a living, the big show is the fucking big show, and cesaro has had kinesio tape on his shoulder for the last three years .

this match is pretty formulaic everyone-gets-a-spot multi-man filler material .

nice to see heath and rhyno getting an outing, though .

advert break, cut back to chad landing a lovely cross armbreaker on "one of the usos" .

good to see tom's paying as much attention as me .

fandango whips chad's face into the turnbuckle, just so we can agree to believe that he's mania material .

dramatic attempted hot tag slightly marred by the fact that as soon as he stops trying to tag out, chad is just fucking up whoever he's in with .

oh nooooooooooo can't quite reeeeeeeeeach okay let's suplex you to death .

can't reeeeeeeeeeach .

heath clears everyone out of the ring, dolph kicks him over the ropes, rhyno gores him and murders everyone .

tyler knocks him off the top rope, mojo broski boots him for the win .

nice memorial to zack there .

hey, anyone remember when tyelr breeze was a main eventer? .

sigh .

anyway, here's luke harper in his lightbulb room .

ranting about his personal freedom and epiphanies and snakes and such .

i am enjoying how he's turned face, but he's still as much of a backwoods serial killer as ever .

so apparently we have that match next .

which i'm guessing is the main event? .

after an advert for takeover .

for which i am SO FUCKING HYPE .

and now a segment with becky beating enzo and cass at shitty off-brand scrabble .

cass forgets how to spell sawft .

it's a snickers adverts .

these are actually pretty good, tbf .

way better than enzo trying to fuck some fried chicken, in any case .

and now we have the bit where the announcers list all the shit that's happening on mania and i have a nap .

just inserts the same criticisms i had before the cut .

except this time they have a picture of the lineup for the battle royal .

spoiler: it's everyone else .

tom tries to sell us the network, wyatt cut, otunga forgets his mic is on .

gj, guys .

so yeah, here comes a bray .

and a recap of his speech from last week .

long weird break that may or may not have been ads .

and a thing telling richmond to come back the next time they do smackdown .

and sheamus telling us not to smoke .

either this stream was edited badly, smackdown has fallen headfirst into its own shitty editing, or i just had an aneurysm .

anyway, we're back now .

enter the spirit of the woods .

and extreme closeups thereof .

and now he has a weird man bun going on? .

bad move, luke .

i'll be honest, it's pretty cool to see these two fighting .

harper's tidied up his outfit now he's a face .

harper's dropkicks are still way better than you'd thing they should be .

harper throws bray into the timekeepers, stands on the announce table for some reason .

cut for ads, and they've somehow managed to get back in the ring without being counted out .

whatever, wrestling .

uranage to two sentons by bray, luke kicks out despite presumably having no ribs left .

bray goes for him, harper catches him into the setup for sister abigail, bray gets out but luke hits no less than two fucking suicide dives into him on the announce table .

i know bray's going to win, but this offense phase from harper is outstanding .

bray goes for sister abigail, harper counters with a big boot and discus .

clothesline, goes for the pin, bray manages to get a hand on the ropes .

and then gets up and abigails him for the pin .

well, that was...abrupt .

which makes a certain narrative sense, given that it was 'man who's very good at wrestling' versus 'avatar of satan' .

you can do all the wrestling you like, but when he gets a hit in, you're fucked .

does the follow the buzzards thing, music goes weird, and now randy's on the tron .

at the ruins of the barn .

recapping things bray has said .

randy has bray's weird not-crucifix from last week .

drives it into abigail's grave .

which will apparently seal her power? .

this mythos is...let's go with conceptually muddy .

although for old-school pure will-based magic, it actually makes a lot of sense .

excuse me while i headcanon this angle into something that works .

meanwhile, wyatt-style randy cut (lots of snakes), end show .

and that's it for the main shows before mania .

i'll be on twitter for both shows this weekend, so see you there in just under twelve hours (or however long it is when this goes up) for takeover, and at an uncomfortably early time tomorrow evening for wrestlemarathon

.

i'm @waruce, btw .

and now to watch the shows I don't blog and/or advertise furniture for questionable Turkish men .

i swear, this is the last time i let daniel hook me up with job opportunities

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.