Contradictions in the Bible

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
I find no contradictions what so ever in scripture.

Originally posted by Ryokan
What were Jesus' last words?

Who was present when his tomb was found open?

Originally posted by Christian Dude
OK Ryokan, start the new thread and I will answer them for you. It will take a couple of days before I can get back, probably. I take the time to do my home work and give you a thoughtful answer if you honestly want to see how these are not contradictions. Again please don't waste my time, since I will take time to answer them thoroughly, if you really don't care.

Here you go, Christian Dude.

[Checkmite]

Which of the two lineages of Jesus given in the Bible is correct?

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Here you go, Christian Dude.


Yeah, I got the same response when I asked for studies done by IDers based on their own work. Don't hold your breath.


But while we're asking, What were Jesus' last words?

[Palimpsest]

A couple of days? Let's see if we can't shave a few hours off that.

Who was present when his tomb was found open?

Matthew says: Mary Madgalene, the other Mary, and some Roman guards. The tomb was closed when they got there but an angel came to move the stone and scare the pants off the guards. (Matthew 28:1-10)

Mark says: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome. No guards, but an angel was waiting, having already moved the stone. (Mark 16:1-8)

Luke says: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, "and the others with them" went to the tomb and found the stone rolled away. An angel appeared while they were there.

John says: Mary Magdalene (alone) went to the tomb. She found it empty but she saw no angel until she'd run back, fetched Peter and the beloved disciple who took a look at the tomb and left. She stayed and wept, and saw not one, but two angels. And Jesus himself. (John 20:1-18)

Paul says: He appeared to Peter, then the other twelve disciples. No mention of Mary Magdalene, or the tomb, but I just thought I'd throw that in for completeness' sake. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5).

There you go, Dude. Don't say I never done nothin' for ya.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Don't hold your breath.

Believe me, I'm not.


Originally posted by fowlsound
But while we're asking, What were Jesus' last words?

On that, the bible contradicts itself. It's too late into the night right here, so I'm hoping Palimpsest will give us the same excellent review as he did on the question of who was present at the open tomb.

And I really do hope Christian Dude do come tho this thread, because I'm curious how he explains the obvious contradictions.

However, I've heard from several sources that the last words of the Messiah was 'I can see my house from here'. ;)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Believe me, I'm not.




On that, the bible contradicts itself. It's too late into the night right here, so I'm hoping Palimpsest will give us the same excellent review as he did on the question of who was present at the open tomb.

And I really do hope Christian Dude do come tho this thread, because I'm curious how he explains the obvious contradictions.

However, I've heard from several sources that the last words of the Messiah was 'I can see my house from here'. ;)


Funny, I thought he was singing some song about looking on teh bright side....:D

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Funny, I thought he was singing some song about looking on teh bright side....:D

No, that was another Messiah, Brian of the People's Front of Judea.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ryokan
No, that was another Messiah, Brian of the People's Front of Judea.

What ever happened to the popular front?

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by fowlsound
What ever happened to the popular front?

He quit.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ryokan
He quit.


Splitter.



/derail over ;)

[Fizzer]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Which of the two lineages of Jesus given in the Bible is correct?

They both are - one is through Joseph's line, the other through Mary's.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by Ryokan
On that, the bible contradicts itself. It's too late into the night right here, so I'm hoping Palimpsest will give us the same excellent review as he did on the question of who was present at the open tomb.


Me? Hey, I've got a life, you know!

Oh, okay, that's a lie. Here's a look at Jesus' last words:

Matthew says: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) Onlookers believed he was calling on Elijah. Then he cried out once more (uh, maybe. This bit is kind of ambiguous) and died. And then the temple curtain was torn in two, the earth shook and rocks split, and the saints came marching in out of their tombs. (Matthew 27:45-53)

Mark says: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" Same comments from onlookers about Elijah. Then he cried out once more and died. The temple curtain was torn in two, but Mark doesn't mention any other weird stuff. (Mark 15:33-38)


Luke says: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." The temple curtain was torn in two some time before, when the sun stopped shining. (Luke 23:44-46)

John says: "It is finished." No darkness, no curtain tearing. (John 19:28-30)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Fizzer
They both are - one is through Joseph's line, the other through Mary's.


I am not familiar with that, so I'd appreciate a link to an explanation along those lines.


Not that your appeal to authority isn't duly noted. ;)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Fizzer
They both are - one is through Joseph's line, the other through Mary's.

I see. Which version mentions Mary, then?

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Yeah, I got the same response when I asked for studies done by IDers based on their own work. Don't hold your breath.

But while we're asking, What were Jesus' last words?
fowlsound, there is a thread titled "Why is ID so successful". If you view my post in there today, you will see that I am not ignoring you and your supposedly honest questions to me. I am reading up on what we talked about and some other things other people recommended to me to see why you guys really believe in evolution. When I had something good to bring back into the debate, it was my plan, and still is, to pm you and let you know I was ready to discuss ID research with you. I don't have anything yet. I take the time to bring a thoughtful and educated argument to you and the others here that might actually care what a wacko Christian thinks on all this stuff. If you don't really care, let me know please so I don't waste my time with you. Otherwise, we may disagree, but we can talk to each other with respect and might even become friends. We can think each other a little bit nutty to believe what we believe, but we can still like each other. Can you make a friendship with a Christian? I can be friends with a little bit off base evolutionist. ;)

This thread will not take me near as much time to present my arguments for there being no contradictions in scripture. I have already done quite a lot of homework in this area. The Bible is my area of knowledge.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
fowlsound, there is a thread titled "Why is ID so successful". If you view my post in there today, you will see that I am not ignoring you and your supposedly honest questions to me. I am reading up on what we talked about and some other things other people recommended to me to see why you guys really believe in evolution. When I had something good to bring back into the debate, it was my plan, and still is, to pm you and let you know I was ready to discuss ID research with you. I don't have anything yet. I take the time to bring a thoughtful and educated argument to you and the others here that might actually care what a wacko Christian thinks on all this stuff. If you don't really care, let me know please so I don't waste my time with you. Otherwise, we may disagree, but we can talk to each other with respect and might even become friends. We can think each other a little bit nutty to believe what we believe, but we can still like each other. Can you make a friendship with a Christian? I can be friends with a little bit off base evolutionist. ;)

This thread will not take me near as much time to present my arguments for there being no contradictions in scripture. I have already done quite a lot of homework in this area. The Bible is my area of knowledge.


You're going to need thicker skin than that around here.

When you have your argument, pm me. I'm not holding my breath.

[Ryokan]

Christian Dude, with all due respect, if you are so ignorant on the subjects that you need several days to research them before you can argue for them, how come you have such firm belief in them?

To me it looks like you have a conclusion and then run out to find facts to back those conclusions up.

You will find that the people on this board works the other way. First we find facts, then we make conclusions.

Not to derail my own thread, I'm actually quite interested to hear how you will explain the two contradictions set forth. I'm just a little puzzled how you first claim that, as a fact, there are no contradictions in the bible, and when faced with two of them, you need several days before you can explain them.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ryokan
You will find that the people on this board works the other way. First we find facts, then we make conclusions.I dearly wish that were always the case. In fact, people on this board do the exact opposite with surprising regularity, particularly in the R&P forum. In that respect, we are not much different from any other group of people, although we strive to be.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Christian Dude, with all due respect, if you are so ignorant on the subjects that you need several days to research them before you can argue for them... I can't see where ChristianD says that.

I do see that he says he's taking time for "reading up on what we talked about and some other things other people recommended to me to see why you guys really believe in evolution". What more could one ask for? Should he not take days rather than minutes? Stamenflicker did the same, you'll remember. And jhunter. A look at the actual evidence for evolution, and the actual theory of evolution, is all I'd ask.

I can't believe I bumped this thread.

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Christian Dude, with all due respect, if you are so ignorant on the subjects that you need several days to research them before you can argue for them, how come you have such firm belief in them?

To me it looks like you have a conclusion and then run out to find facts to back those conclusions up.

You will find that the people on this board works the other way. First we find facts, then we make conclusions.

Not to derail my own thread, I'm actually quite interested to hear how you will explain the two contradictions set forth. I'm just a little puzzled how you first claim that, as a fact, there are no contradictions in the bible, and when faced with two of them, you need several days before you can explain them.
Ryokan, I would not call my self ignorant on the subject of Bible contradictions. This evening after we first talked about this, I have been going over some of the commentaries I have that answered my questions in the past about these very things. I am just reviewing what I have already studied to give you as clear and concise answer as I can. I will have your answer by Wednesday. I am going to bed now and don't have much time tomorrow.

Now in the area of evolution vs. creation or ID, I am a little bit too ignorant and not up to date to present a good argument. I am working on rectifying that.

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by fowlsound
You're going to need thicker skin than that around here.

When you have your argument, pm me. I'm not holding my breath.
I know what you mean fowlsound, and I do have rino skin. I just want to be nice by choice and hope people respond in kind, thats all.

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
I know what you mean fowlsound, and I do have rino skin. I just want to be nice by choice and hope people respond in kind, thats all.

That's good. More people should think like this. :)

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Now in the area of evolution vs. creation or ID, I am a little bit too ignorant and not up to date to present a good argument. I am working on rectifying that.

I wouldn't worry, it isn't much of an argument anyway. ;)

Originally posted by Ryokan
You will find that the people on this board works the other way. First we find facts, then we make conclusions.

Most people do.

[FrankP]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Which of the two lineages of Jesus given in the Bible is correct?


Originally posted by Fizzer
They both are - one is through Joseph's line, the other through Mary's.

That's a very common attempt at an explanation, but completely wrong as the text shows:

Luke 3:23 When he began [his ministry], Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called the Christ.

So the simplest way to point out the contradiction is to ask, Who was Joseph's father?

It is possible to argue that this man had a double name or used both as alternative names, in which case that would have to apply to every pair of names from the two genealogies all the way back. The problem then is that in a direct male line of descent, one source gives 27 generations between David and Jesus, while the other gives 42. Finally, Luke has his line stem from David's son Nathan while Matthew goes through Solomon and follows the royal line of Judah until the exile. It is an impossibility to have two different lines of direct male descent leading from David to Jesus.

[Genesius]

Why would the Bible bother to list a lineage of Jesus through Joseph? Since Jesus was supposedly miracuously conceived of a virgin, Joseph's lineage has got nothing to do with him.

Other than the need to establish Jesus' legitimate parentage to their contemporaries, due to the difficulty of listing "God Almighty" as the father on Jesus' birth certificate. . .

:D

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Genesius
Why would the Bible bother to list a lineage of Jesus through Joseph? Since Jesus was supposedly miracuously conceived of a virgin, Joseph's lineage has got nothing to do with him.

Other than the need to establish Jesus' legitimate parentage to their contemporaries, due to the difficulty of listing "God Almighty" as the father on Jesus' birth certificate. . .

:D

That's an angle I never thought of before. Nice.

[Ossai]

Fizzer
Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Which of the two lineages of Jesus given in the Bible is correct?
They both are - one is through Joseph's line, the other through Mary's.
They do not match up. Actually write them down side by side.

You’ll notice that both are specified for Joseph. Which is an attempt to link Jesus to David via the father. Now if Jesus was a virgin birth and only through Mary why would Joseph’s lineage even be mentioned? I’ll go ahead and answer the question for you as well. Because of the way inheritance was passed.

You’ll also notice both use quit a bit of the same genealogy. Now if they are for two separate lines the large overlap must be explained especially in regards to the missing generations in each.

The Jehoakim line was kicked out entirely, yet it is listed as part of Jesus’ lineage.

Jeremiah 22: 28-30
"Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol--
A vessel in which is no pleasure?
Why are they cast out, he and his descendants,
And cast into a land which they do not know?
O earth, earth, earth,
Hear the word of the LORD!
Thus says the LORD:
"Write this man down as childless,
A man who shall not prosper in his days;
For none of his descendants shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David,
And ruling anymore in Judah."'

And

Jeremiah 36: 27-32
Now after the king had burned the scroll with the words which Baruch had written at the instruction of Jeremiah, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying:
"Take yet another scroll, and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned.
And you shall say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, "Thus says the LORD: "You have burned this scroll, saying, "Why have you written in it that the king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land, and cause man and beast to cease from here?"'
Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: "He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night.
I will punish him, his family, and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring on them, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and on the men of Judah all the doom that I have pronounced against them; but they did not heed.""'
Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the instruction of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And besides, there were added to them many similar words.

Bold mine.

Ossai

[Scot C. Trypal]

This may help:
(Note Matthew’s use of 1Chr and similarity to Luke)


Gen. Luke 3 Matthew 1 1Chr 3 Matthew's Count
1 Jesus+ Jesus+ --- 13
2 Joseph+ Joseph+ --- 12
3 Heli Jacob --- 11
4 Matthat Matthan --- 10
5 Levi Eleazar --- 9
6 Melchi Eliud --- 8
7 Janna Achim --- 7
8 Joseph Sadoc --- 6
9 Mattathias Azor --- 5
10 Amos Eliakim Jeconiah* 4
11 Naum Abiud Jehoiakim 3
12 Esli Zorobabel Josiah* 2
13 Nagge Salathiel Amon* 1
14 Maath Jechonias* Manasseh* 14
15 Mattathias Josias* Hezekiah* 13
16 Semei Amon* Ahaz* 12
17 Joseph Manasses* Jotham* 11
18 Juda Ezekias* Azariah 10
19 Joanna Achaz* Amaziah 9
20 Rhesa Joatham* Joash 8
21 Zorobabel Ozias* Ahaziah* 7
22 Salathiel Joram* Joram* 6
23 Neri Josaphat* Jehoshaphat* 5
24 Melchi Asa* Asa* 4
25 Addi Abia* Abia* 3
26 Cosam Roboam* Rehoboam* 2
27 Elmodam Solomon* Solomon* 1
28 Er David* David* 14
29 Jose Jesse+ 13
30 Eliezer Obed+ 12
31 Jorim Booz+ 11
32 Matthat Salmon+ 10
33 Levi Naasson+ 9
34 Simeon Aminadab+ 8
35 Juda Aram+ 7
36 Joseph Esrom+ 6
37 Jonan Phares+ 5
38 Eliakim Judas+ 4
39 Melea Jacob+ 3
40 Menan Isaac+ 2
41 Mattatha Abraham+ ` 1
42 Nathan
43 David
44 Jesse
45 Obed+
46 Booz+
47 Salmon+
48 Naasson+
49 Aminadab+
50 Aram+
51 Esrom+
52 Phares+
53 Juda+
54 Jacob+
55 Isaac+
56 Abraham+
57 Thara
58 Nachor
59 Saruch
60 Ragau
61 Phalec
62 Heber
63 Sala
64 Cainan
65 Arphaxad
66 Sem
67 Noe
68 Lamech
69 Mathusala
70 Enoch
71 Jared
72 Maleleel
73 Cainan
74 Enos
75 Seth
76 Adam
77 God

+ = Matthew and Luke match
* = Matthew and 1Chronicles match


To me it seems Matthew was mainly aiming to get his numerology to work out (though it seems there’s a problem there too).

Edited for missing * on Jechonias, but that also makes me note Matthew skips 1Chr's Jehoiakim, which is odd to me as it would fix his numbers. Wouldn’t it?

Edited again 'cause Atlas reminded me there's more skipping in Matt.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
To me it seems Matthew was mainly aiming to get his numerology to work out (though it seems there’s a problem there too). If this gets into a shouting match over who is more authoritive, Matthew or Luke, I think we gotta go with Luke. He takes us all the way back to Adam, for gosh sakes. Why would he lie?

Matthew, on the other hand, can we really trust that guy? He sounds like he’s got an agenda (As Scot points out, his numerology). Look at his lineage, especially between Joram and Jotham.Matthew 1
6 …David became the father of Solomon, …
7 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph.
8 Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah.
9 Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. Doesn’t that seem made up to you? I thought so. But why? Because he could only count to 14 and had to shoehorn events to meet his uinderstanding of spititual math. Thus he says…Matthew 1:17 Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generationsFor the actual story let’s go to the Chronicler himself who gives the correct list of begats centuries earlier.1st Chronicles 3
10 The son of Solomon was Rehoboam, whose son was Abijah, whose son was Asa, whose son was Jehoshaphat,
11 whose son was Joram, whose son was Ahaziah, whose son was Joash,
12 whose son was Amaziah, whose son was Azariah, whose son was Jotham,
13 whose son was Ahaz, whose son was Hezekiah,
I’m sure we’d all like to forget Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah as much as Matthew would, but can we? Aren’t they etched into our collective memory just as deeply as most other dead people?

All scripture is inspired by God, I think those of us who believe in God and those of us who don’t can agree on that. Why did God change his mind and inspire Matthew to fake a short list when he inspired the Chronicler to produce a long list?

[Genesius]

Originally posted by Atlas
All scripture is inspired by God, I think those of us who believe in God and those of us who don’t can agree on that.

I don't agree with that at all! Before you can make a statement like "All scripture is inspired by God" you need to 1) be able to prove such a being exists, and 2) define what you mean by "all scripture". Are the Apocrypha scripture, or just what was approved by the Council of Nicea? How about the Koran? Can you prove what writings are actually "holy" and which are the demented scribblings of people whacked out on the local equivalent of magic mushrooms?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
... Matthew skips 1Chr's Jehoiakim, which is odd to me as it would fix his numbers. Wouldn’t it? Perhaps, but he may also expect us to count Jesus twice because He's coming back. :D

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Genesius
I don't agree with that at all! Before you can make a statement like "All scripture is inspired by God" you need to 1) be able to prove such a being exists, and 2) define what you mean by "all scripture". Are the Apocrypha scripture, or just what was approved by the Council of Nicea? How about the Koran? Can you prove what writings are actually "holy" and which are the demented scribblings of people whacked out on the local equivalent of magic mushrooms? :D I was being cynical. If you don't believe in the desert god, you're really saying that you believe god is the product of imagination. Likewise with scripture - the supernatural part, that is.

[Genesius]

Originally posted by Atlas
I was being cynical. If you don't believe in the desert god, you're really saying that you believe god is the product of imagination. Likewise with scripture - the supernatural part, that is.

:eek:

Massive aplolgies for taking your comment seriously. Just shows that posting while at work is a bad idea - prolonged exposure to a work environment can cause incurable dain bramage!

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Genesius
Originally posted by Atlas


:eek:

Massive aplolgies for taking your comment seriously. Just shows that posting while at work is a bad idea - prolonged exposure to a work environment can cause incurable dain bramage!


There needs to be scientific study on this topic. I can then use that as my argument for being paid to sit on my ass at home.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Atlas
If this gets into a shouting match over who is more authoritive, Matthew or Luke, I think we gotta go with Luke. He takes us all the way back to Adam, for gosh sakes. Why would he lie?

No, I supposed he'd have no reason to...

Personally though, I like Matthew better. In all, he has better miracles, and I too am a sucker for numbers.

Still, I think this whole debate may be Biblically immoral:

1tim1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Tit 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

So, don’t worry about this “contradiction�; move along. (and please don’t point the LDS to the above passages, their genealogical practices have proven useful to geneticists).

Matthew, on the other hand, can we really trust that guy? He sounds like he’s got an agenda (As Scot points out, his numerology). Look at his lineage, especially between Joram and Jotham.

Oops, I missed that. I corrected the table.

I’m sure we’d all like to forget Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah as much as Matthew would, but can we? Aren’t they etched into our collective memory just as deeply as most other dead people?

Surely, no one will forget the story of Amaziah and the Coat of Itchy Wool, or that time when Joash found a really neat rock.

Anyone know if and where there is another Biblical source for the Adam to Abraham genealogy?

[TragicMonkey]

I'm wondering how Mary could be held to be "without sin", since she did have a child by a male entity who was not her husband. That would seem to be adultery.

Unless the thought is that God is above his own laws, and can exercise droit de dieu.

I don't see how anyone can respect an authority who proclaims rules and then breaks them at will. How many of the ten commandments has God broken in the Bible? Murders aplenty. Didn't he lie a few times as well? And he seems to covet things and people sometimes. At least he never breaks the first commandment, as he is obviously extremely stuck on himself, and is his own best worshipper. Much like Trump.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Unless the thought is that God is above his own laws, and can exercise droit de dieu. Sacre Bleu! Next we'll find out God is French! Wait... where did that Divine Right of Kings thing come from?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Oh, okay, that's a lie. Here's a look at Jesus' last words:

Matthew says: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) Onlookers believed he was calling on Elijah. Then he cried out once more (uh, maybe. This bit is kind of ambiguous) and died. And then the temple curtain was torn in two, the earth shook and rocks split, and the saints came marching in out of their tombs. (Matthew 27:45-53)

Mark says: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" Same comments from onlookers about Elijah. Then he cried out once more and died. The temple curtain was torn in two, but Mark doesn't mention any other weird stuff. (Mark 15:33-38)


Luke says: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." The temple curtain was torn in two some time before, when the sun stopped shining. (Luke 23:44-46)

John says: "It is finished." No darkness, no curtain tearing. (John 19:28-30) In the absence of conflicting explicit statements to the effect that certain specific words were the very last to pass Jesus' lips, however, it is very difficult to demonstrate a formal contradiction. I daresay that with a little effort, any one of us here could come up with a coherent narrative reconstruction based on a synthesis of all four Gospel accounts of Jesus' final moments.

[shemp]

Maybe Joseph had two gay dads?

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
In the absence of conflicting explicit statements to the effect that certain specific words were the very last to pass Jesus' lips, however, it is very difficult to demonstrate a formal contradiction. I daresay that with a little effort, any one of us here could come up with a coherent narrative reconstruction based on a synthesis of all four Gospel accounts of Jesus' final moments.

Luke and John both explicitly say that their respective lines were Jesus' last words. Matthew and Mark mention a loud cry after the call to God/Elijah/whoever, so if you were really keen to do so, you could claim that Jesus said some more stuff between the "lama sabachthani" and his death. Which raises a lot more questions, IMO.

But, do go on. Let's see your coherent narrative reconstruction.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
In the absence of conflicting explicit statements to the effect that certain specific words were the very last to pass Jesus' lips, however, it is very difficult to demonstrate a formal contradiction. I daresay that with a little effort, any one of us here could come up with a coherent narrative reconstruction based on a synthesis of all four Gospel accounts of Jesus' final moments.

As I expressed a long while ago, I’d be interested in seeing such a thing, starting from the crucifixion to the sightings of the resurrected Jesus. I believe, at the time, Rebecca (was it?) had the best narrative. It was necessarily convoluted and impossible by any practical measure, but the best, in the sense that it agreed most, though not fully, with all the Gospels. I’d love to see a better one.

I think such an exercise, if successful, would only show though that contradictions in anyone’s religion don’t necessarily matter.

One guy says the sky was red, and the other says it was green, and so the sky was red and green. Hardly anyone would write myth, fables, or even, for a great part, history in a way to be airtight, in the sense that a contradicting view could be shown to be contradicting in a formal logic sense.

Even where you find a place where a believer in the inerrancy of their religious text admits a contradiction, they can simply jettison reason and say both contradicting facts are “somehow� true, through mystery. Then what? I’ve gone over this many times with a friend of mine who’s a Baptist minister. But now, we mainly just talk about our kids, and it’s a much more healthy relationship :).

[pgwenthold]

Contradictions in the bible?

In the bible, you can find the following claims:

1) God is love
2) Love is not jealous
3) God is a jealous god

I'll let you find the passages, but they are there explicitly.

All three cannot be true.

[FrankP]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Anyone know if and where there is another Biblical source for the Adam to Abraham genealogy?

There's 1 Chr 1:1-27, in particular verses 1 and 24-27:

Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram

This in turn is a summary of material from Gen 5, Gen 10 and Gen 11:10-32, which additionally gives the lifespans which you can add up to get a 6000 year-old earth.

I wonder if any of these old names might come back into fashion. I'm going to call my son Arphaxad.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Luke and John both explicitly say that their respective lines were Jesus' last words. Matthew and Mark mention a loud cry after the call to God/Elijah/whoever, so if you were really keen to do so, you could claim that Jesus said some more stuff between the "lama sabachthani" and his death. Which raises a lot more questions, IMO.

But, do go on. Let's see your coherent narrative reconstruction. I didn't say I particularly cared to do it myself, simply that it could be done. But since it's not too much trouble, I'll do it just to please you.

As a prefatory remark, you are reading too much into Luke and John. Neither explicitly says "these were his very last words". We only know what are the last words reported by each. Depending on the circumstances (and particularly in isolation from other accounts), one might reasonably infer that the last words recorded by a given Gospel should be viewed as the last words spoken by Jesus. But this is not an inference absolutely required by logic.

Consider the following synthesized timeline of Jesus' final utterances:[list=1] Jesus cries out "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani". Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) make a point of mentioning this. Luke and John selectively omit but do not contradict it.

Jesus says "I thirst." John reports it (19:28); Matthew and Mark omit it (perhaps selectively; perhaps because they or their sources do not hear it). Nevertheless, they observe with John the visible response it provokes: someone in attendance procures a wine-soaked sponge for Jesus (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36; Jn 19:29). Luke, presenting the most abbreviated version, omits the entire exchange but does not contradict it.

Jesus says "It is finished." John (19:30), the nearest witness, hears and reports this. Matthew, Mark and Luke omit it - again, either selectively or because they or their sources do not overhear it. No one contradicts it, however.

Jesus calls out, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," before actually expiring. Luke takes particular note of Jesus' words (23:46). Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50) record that Jesus cries out, but fail to say precisely what Jesus cries out. Matthew (27:50) alludes to Jesus' invocation, however, by noting that he was "giving up his spirit" (the substance of Jesus' words, after all, is "I hereby hand over my spirit"). Similarly, John (19:30) omits the exact words selectively, but when he speaks of Jesus "handing over the spirit" he is referring to word and act alike.[/list=1]That took only a couple of minutes of reflection and appears to avoid any overt contradiction, though I'm sure you'll correct me if I've overlooked something. In the interest of equitably sharing the burden of devil's advocacy, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to improve my reconstruction as required (rather than merely to knock it down).

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Genesius
Why would the Bible bother to list a lineage of Jesus through Joseph? Since Jesus was supposedly miracuously conceived of a virgin, Joseph's lineage has got nothing to do with him.

Other than the need to establish Jesus' legitimate parentage to their contemporaries, due to the difficulty of listing "God Almighty" as the father on Jesus' birth certificate. . .

:D


Because Jesus would have to fulfill prophecies as the coming Messiah.

"Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, `The LORD our righteousness.'" (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Therefore, Jesus would have to somehow be a descendant of David. However, Judaic lineage is linked through father and son, and since Jesus is the son of God, he couldn't be linked to King David unless they went through Mary. But somebody tried it through Joseph anyway. Dooh! Looks like Old Testament Messiah isn't fitting New Testament Messiah.

And so, Jesus was killed because he claimed to be the "King of the Jews", trying to fulfill the prophecy laid out in Jeremiah.

Aha, new contradiction:

What was written on the cross that Jesus died on?

Four gospels, four different answers.

[Genesius]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
Judaic lineage is linked through father and son,

Sorry, no. Judaism is matrilineal.

From the site http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/whoisajew.html

The original and current Jewish definition of a born Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish. Even though the Torah forbids a Jewish woman to marry a Gentile man, if she does, her children will still be Jewish.

The Torah also forbids a Jewish man to marry a Gentile woman, and if he does, his children by that woman will not be Jewish.

However, in order to fulfill prophecy Jesus does still need to be a descendant of David, which is why Christian apologists (like Fizzer, above) claim that one of the listed geneologies is Mary's even though the Bible states them to both be Joseph's

Can't wait for ChristianDude to show back up and explain how there is no contradiction. Take it away, 'Dude. . .

[juryjone]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Jesus says "It is finished." John (19:30), the nearest witness, hears and reports this. Matthew, Mark and Luke omit it - again, either selectively or because they or their sources do not overhear it. No one contradicts it, however.


I may be confused after all I've read on this site over the past few years. It was my impression that it was established that none of the writers of the Gospels were contemporaries of Jesus and they could not have heard him say anything. Is this true?

Jesus calls out, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," before actually expiring. Luke takes particular note of Jesus' words (23:46). Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50) record that Jesus cries out, but fail to say precisely what Jesus cries out. Matthew (27:50) alludes to Jesus' invocation, however, by noting that he was "giving up his spirit" (the substance of Jesus' words, after all, is "I hereby hand over my spirit"). Similarly, John (19:30) omits the exact words selectively, but when he speaks of Jesus "handing over the spirit" he is referring to word and act alike.

John (19:30), in the King James version, says "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." I'm not seeing where it is even implied that John "is referring to word and act alike".

In another thread today I was talking about the ease with which people will misunderstand statements. You seem to want to read things into this verse that I do not. Much of the Bible can be twisted to bolster any argument. Is it so unbelievable that some could find things in one part of the Bible that contradict other parts of the bible?

[pgwenthold]

sniff...isn't anyone going to try to address my example of a blatent contradiction in the bible?

Here are the passages that I mentioned in the other thread:

1 Corinthians 13:4 - Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;

Exodus 34:14 - (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
(or many others)

1 John 4:8 - He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
(or John 4:16)


We have three statements

1) God is jealous
2) God is love
3) Love is not jealous

They cannot all be true. Not in "word and act alike" or any other such contrivences.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I didn't say I particularly cared to do it myself, simply that it could be done. But since it's not too much trouble, I'll do it just to please you.

As a prefatory remark, you are reading too much into Luke and John. Neither explicitly says "these were his very last words". We only know what are the last words reported by each. Depending on the circumstances (and particularly in isolation from other accounts), one might reasonably infer that the last words recorded by a given Gospel should be viewed as the last words spoken by Jesus. But this is not an inference absolutely required by logic.

Consider the following synthesized timeline of Jesus' final utterances:[list=1] Jesus cries out "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani". Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) make a point of mentioning this. Luke and John selectively omit but do not contradict it.

Jesus says "I thirst." John reports it (19:28); Matthew and Mark omit it (perhaps selectively; perhaps because they or their sources do not hear it). Nevertheless, they observe with John the visible response it provokes: someone in attendance procures a wine-soaked sponge for Jesus (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36; Jn 19:29). Luke, presenting the most abbreviated version, omits the entire exchange but does not contradict it.

Jesus says "It is finished." John (19:30), the nearest witness, hears and reports this. Matthew, Mark and Luke omit it - again, either selectively or because they or their sources do not overhear it. No one contradicts it, however.

Jesus calls out, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit," before actually expiring. Luke takes particular note of Jesus' words (23:46). Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50) record that Jesus cries out, but fail to say precisely what Jesus cries out. Matthew (27:50) alludes to Jesus' invocation, however, by noting that he was "giving up his spirit" (the substance of Jesus' words, after all, is "I hereby hand over my spirit"). Similarly, John (19:30) omits the exact words selectively, but when he speaks of Jesus "handing over the spirit" he is referring to word and act alike.[/list=1]That took only a couple of minutes of reflection and appears to avoid any overt contradiction, though I'm sure you'll correct me if I've overlooked something. In the interest of equitably sharing the burden of devil's advocacy, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to improve my reconstruction as required (rather than merely to knock it down).

Say, that's pretty good. I like the way you interpreted John's "handing over the spirit" as Luke's last words instead of simply "giving up the ghost" ie: dying.

I figured you (or, well, CD) would do something like this, and I agree it's the simplest solution to the dilemma. I can't really improve on it, but I'll just point out it's making a few ad hoc assumptions.

a) That the passages (indeed, the entire gospels) are either written by witnesses to the events or based on their testimonies. This is, to put it mildly, highly questionable.

b) That the four scribes had either very selective hearing or selective writing. Which opens up a huge can of worms, doesn't it. What else was left unsaid?

c) That John 19:30 really means what Luke wrote, and not a fancy way of saying "he died."

d) It assumes that Jesus goes from afraid and pleading, all "why have you forsaken me?", immediately to being resigned and calm. I admit this is pretty subjective, but the tones of the different passages don't mesh up.

[Ryokan]

Now how about those people at the tomb? A bit harder to explain, I believe.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by juryjone
I may be confused after all I've read on this site over the past few years. It was my impression that it was established that none of the writers of the Gospels were contemporaries of Jesus and they could not have heard him say anything. Is this true?Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was established beyond doubt for all four Gospels, but it doesn't really matter for purposes of my hypothetical. With regard to the Gospel of John, it works just as well if the document was written by someone based on material ultimately derived from John. For that matter, it doesn't have to be linked even indirectly to John himself, so long as it was based indirectly on an account of someone who actually heard it. I have no idea if it was or not.
Originally posted by juryjone
John (19:30), in the King James version, says "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." I'm not seeing where it is even implied that John "is referring to word and act alike".Let's say I'm a fugitive criminal who walks into a police station and says "I hereby give myself up." An eyewitness might well describe this simply by saying "He walked into the police station, and gave himself up," and no one would consider this testimony necessarily to imply that I did not actually say anything. "Giving oneself up" refers both to the words I spoke and to the larger action they imply, inasmuch as the words are really just an expression of what I'm doing.

It's true that we usually take "give up the ghost" simply to mean "die", but the last words reported by Luke's Gospel really amount to Jesus saying "I hereby give up the ghost (into the Father's hands)." Thus, Luke's account has Jesus expend his dying breath on a ceremonious verbal gesture, but it's not illogical to infer that John is referring to the exact same events when he observes that Jesus "gave up the ghost", without more.

Even if this were not true (for example, even if Luke had Jesus saying with his final breath "I'd rather be in Philadelphia"), it would not necessarily detract from my overall (hypothetical) analysis. So long as John does not explicitly state that Jesus spoke no more words before dying, the possibility (however unlikely) that John simply selectively omitted the last words rescues the two accounts from a formal contradiction.
Originally posted by juryjone
In another thread today I was talking about the ease with which people will misunderstand statements. You seem to want to read things into this verse that I do not. Much of the Bible can be twisted to bolster any argument. Is it so unbelievable that some could find things in one part of the Bible that contradict other parts of the bible? I don't find it unbelievable at all that there could exist formal internal contradictions in the Bible. I just don't think the superficial discrepancy in the accounts of Jesus' last words constitutes one. And it's not that I want to read anything in particular into these verses, it's that Palimpsest challenged me to play devil's advocate. I might not personally find that reading to be the most persuasive, but I can't attack it on strictly logical grounds.
Originally posted by Palimpsest
I figured you (or, well, CD) would do something like this, and I agree it's the simplest solution to the dilemma. I can't really improve on it, but I'll just point out it's making a few ad hoc assumptions.It certainly does make assumptions that I would not necessarily want to make, but they aren't entirely inadmissible, and I suppose Christians must make them (otherwise there really is no way, in my view, to reconcile the passages). Then, the argument comes down to which set of assumptions are the most justified.
Originally posted by Palimpsest
a) That the passages (indeed, the entire gospels) are either written by witnesses to the events or based on their testimonies. This is, to put it mildly, highly questionable.I question it myself, but I'm not familiar with all the arguments.
Originally posted by Palimpsest
b) That the four scribes had either very selective hearing or selective writing. Which opens up a huge can of worms, doesn't it. What else was left unsaid?That's true, and your question is a very good one. I guess Christians assume that anything left unsaid (or at least implied) in all four Gospels was not important to their salvation.
Originally posted by Palimpsest
c) That John 19:30 really means what Luke wrote, and not a fancy way of saying "he died."I'm rather fond of my hypothetical reading of John 19:30 because it does "double duty," if you see what I mean. But you're right.
Originally posted by Palimpsest
d) It assumes that Jesus goes from afraid and pleading, all "why have you forsaken me?", immediately to being resigned and calm. I admit this is pretty subjective, but the tones of the different passages don't mesh up.Now that you mention it, I see it too. Still, there's a difference between criticizing the texts for presenting an inconsistent and unconvincing psychological portrait of the protagonist, and criticizing them for unavoidably leading to logical contradictions.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
d) It assumes that Jesus goes from afraid and pleading, all "why have you forsaken me?", immediately to being resigned and calm. I admit this is pretty subjective, but the tones of the different passages don't mesh up.
However this is often thought of as not afraid and pleading, but a reference to the 22nd Psalm that contains echoes of his predicament. ('Like a poet' as Jack Kerouac says).

[FrankP]

Originally posted by juryjone
I may be confused after all I've read on this site over the past few years. It was my impression that it was established that none of the writers of the Gospels were contemporaries of Jesus and they could not have heard him say anything. Is this true?

Is it so unbelievable that some could find things in one part of the Bible that contradict other parts of the bible?



If you consider the Bible as a book (or books) written by humans, then of course it's not surprising. What's going on here is a rhetorical device to investigate the alternative hypothesis put forward by ChristianDude:

Originally posted by ChristianDude
I do consider the Bible the infallible, inerrant, eternal and unchanging word of the one true God.



The logic as follows -- If the Bible were this special god-given infallible book every word of which is true, it couldn't or shouldn't contain any outright contradictions, like Jesus having two lineages in the male line to David.

So, lots of contradictions are displayed, each fairly minor in themselves but serving to break down this very strong claim. Only then could we get on to discuss what the book really might mean and what its significance is. For example, a weaker claim of divine inspiration and human transmission could allow fallibility to enter in and we could accept a few non-critical contradictions.

As far as eye-witnesses go, you are right that the scholarly consensus is that none of the gospels are first-hand accounts. What is important here is that two of them make claims themselves -- John 21:24 says that book was written by an eye-witness and Luke 1:1 says his immediate sources include eye-witnesses. On the inerrancy hypothesis we can then take these claims as true and see what consequences follow.

The attraction of the inerrancy hypothesis is that it lets us off any hard thinking about what is good and bad in the Bible and provides a foundation of certainty in other matters too:

Originally posted by ChristianDude
I absolutely believe every passage of the Bible, no matter how harsh and unjust it might seem to a non-Christian, is filled with wisdom that we can learn to better our lives. There can not be any untrue or bad stuff in the bible or the Christian faith falls apart. There would be no way for us to tell what is a good part or a bad part if that was the case. It all has to be good and true or there is no reason to believe it. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:14 says - and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. The same holds true of all of scripture. That is why it is essential for a Christian to be able to give a clear, logical and reasonable account of their faith and the truth of scripture; and why the discussion on evolution and creation is so important to us.

[Ossai]

shemp
Maybe Joseph had two gay dads?
No the real secret is that both Joseph and Mary were brother and sister hermaphrodites. Apparently it was a family thing, which explains why the family tree doesn’t branch often.

Ossai

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Atlas
Sacre Bleu! Next we'll find out God is French!
That is blasphemy! We all know that God is British, as the Miracle of Trent Bridge shows...
:uk:

[juryjone]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Thus, Luke's account has Jesus expend his dying breath on a ceremonious verbal gesture, but it's not illogical to infer that John is referring to the exact same events when he observes that Jesus "gave up the ghost", without more.


It's not illogical to infer that Luke put words into Jesus' mouth to "voice" the action taking place, either. However, in either case there was some inaccurate reportage being done. What other "inferring" must we do throughout the Bible? In order to more accurately "infer" something shouldn't we have other sources to help us try to determine which interpretation is more likely?

But we don't have any of those. And we have a god that is reticent about providing any help in interpretation.

[juryjone]

I do want to say that there seems to be a distinction in types of contradictions that are being posited here. The examples are "apparent" contradictions. They are contradictions which arise out of taking the statements at face value.

ceo_esq is discussing "logical" contradictions. These are contradictions which are only contradictions because there is no possible positive spin that can be made that would allow the statements to be anything other than contradictions.

It's a given that there will be more apparent contradictions in the Bible than logical ones. After all, Christian apologists have made their living for years on coming up with the positive spin required.

To me, however, a document "inspired by God" should have no contradictions, logical or apparent. That is why ceo_esq's arguments are so unsatisfying to me.

But I have to give him credit for arguing his position so eloquently while the person this thread was created for is still absent.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by juryjone
Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50) record that Jesus cries out, but fail to say precisely what Jesus cries out.


"I'll never know the love of a woman. I was robbed!"

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by Beerina
"I'll never know the love of a woman. I was robbed!"

On the other hand, he did know the love of twelve men.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

It certainly does make assumptions that I would not necessarily want to make, but they aren't entirely inadmissible, and I suppose Christians must make them (otherwise there really is no way, in my view, to reconcile the passages). Then, the argument comes down to which set of assumptions are the most justified.

Yes... which is a subjectivee judgement call in itself. To a Christian already convinced that the Gospels are true and consistent, any assumption is justified, no matter how twisted. Whereas your average skeptic will ask, how likely is each scenario?


(re: assumption that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses)

I question it myself, but I'm not familiar with all the arguments..

Well, the fact that they come from oral traditions with anonymous authors, written down decades after the (alleged) events, are written with an omniscient narrator voice and not that of an eyewitness, relate events that are not recorded outside the gospels but should have been if they'd actually happened, probably relate some events which would have had no witnesses (I'm too lazy to look them up, but I'm sure they exist), and are filled with magic and miracles...

Now that you mention it, I see it too. Still, there's a difference between criticizing the texts for presenting an inconsistent and unconvincing psychological portrait of the protagonist, and criticizing them for unavoidably leading to logical contradictions.

That's true, and I debated whether or not to include it in my list of objections. But it definitely hit me when I read the four passages side-by-side for the first time (ie: last night). And though it's not grounds for invalidation, per se, it's definitely suspicious.

[ernon]

You don't even have to leave the first page of the Bible before finding one.

The order of Creation is different in the first Chapter of Genesis than the order given in the second chapter of Genesis. Which is correct?

Related question- How did the plants and trees live in between their creation and the later creation of the sun?
(note- 'they grew by the light of God's presence' is not an acceptable answer)

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by Ryokan
What were Jesus' last words?

Who was present when his tomb was found open?

Both of these seemingly contradictions you bring up are basically the same and a matter of not understanding who each gospel was written for, and thinking through the normal way different people might describe the same thing. Two of the gospels are direct eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. Mark’s could be an eye witness account or an account put together from the events told to him by other Apostles. Luke’s is definitely an account that is from the events being told to him by Apostles. All four gospels are inspired by God, but it is important to remember, God does not take over a persons’ body and they supernaturally write down words while they are in a trance. God inspires the person and their intellect and personalities come through while writing. Also, with God’s inspiration and guidance, they don’t make any mistakes. It is the same for all books of the Bible, Old and New Testament.

Say that you and I witnessed something and someone asked us to tell our account of what happened. I might describe the exact same thing with a difference in what was important. I might say that I saw three men go into a building. You might say that you saw two men go in, and then one man go in a little later. Both are true, but to me the important thing was that three men went in, I didn’t think it was that important that one went in a little later. But you, on the other hand, were more concerned with a deeper level of detail. I might also recount a conversation different that you by giving an account of what was said that differs from yours. I will account for what I thought was important and I may have been distracted and did not hear something said that you did. So, the person interviewing us does not dismiss anything ether one of us said if we are reputable people, he just puts it all together to get the complete picture. That is what is going on in the differences in the accounts in the four gospels.

I will take on the simplest one first, what Jesus’ last words on the cross were. Matthew and Mark do not tell what Jesus said just before he died. Luke and John tell us what Jesus said. Each is correct, Jesus didn’t say only one thing or the other, he said both. They are complimentary to each other. Put together they give us a more complete picture of what happened. Luke was a physician, he was writing to the Greek, the philosophers and thinking people so to speak. He presented Jesus as the perfect man. When he recorded the events as described to him, he put down what was important to presenting Jesus to the Greek. Since he was showing that Jesus was perfect, it was important to him to show his reader that the perfect man died gracefully.

John was writing to believers and presenting Jesus as God incarnate that came to redeem his beloved children. What was important to him was to show that the work of redemption was completed. Jesus said both things and we have the more complete picture because of the different accounts.

It is the same for the events at the empty tomb. So when you work it out an put the accounts from the four gospels together in the correct order, you find that the first people that are recorded to see the empty tomb are Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome. Other women were following along behind bringing spices to anoint the body. The first three find the tomb empty, Mary M. immediately leaves to tell the disciples (Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1,2). The other Mary goes closer to the tomb and sees the angel (Matthew 28:2) She leaves to meet the other women who are coming along behind. While that has been going on, Mary M. has talked with Peter and John and the two men arrive at the empty tomb, inspect it and leave (John 20:3-10). Mary M. has made it back and sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18). Then she leaves to tell the disciples what has happened as Jesus told her to do. And while all that was going on, the other Mary has caught up with the other women and they all show up together at the empty tomb and see two angels (Luke 24:4,5; Mark 16:5). They also receive an angelic message. They leave to go to the disciples and run into Jesus as well (Matthew 28:8-10).

They are accounts of the same morning given by four different men that are all true and provide the complete picture, almost; I wonder what Salome did that morning, not enough is said about her. Maybe she fainted and was passed out on the road side while all the commotion was going on. Or, maybe she just sat there with a huge smile on her face. As you can see, things like that are not truly important to what is really being communicated to us in these events in scripture. What is important is that Jesus is exactly who he said he is, and has risen, and has bridged the gap between God and man by his death and resurrection all for the forgiveness of our sins.

- Dude

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
. All four gospels are inspired by God, but it is important to remember, God does not take over a persons’ body and they supernaturally write down words while they are in a trance. God inspires the person and their intellect and personalities come through while writing. Also, with God’s inspiration and guidance, they don’t make any mistakes. It is the same for all books of the Bible, Old and New Testament.


- Dude


Do you even see the inconsistency in that?

[Ryokan]

So that's how it is.

"There are no contradictions in the Bible, except those done by human mistake. Ignore them."

Gotcha.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ryokan
So that's how it is.

"There are no contradictions in the Bible, except those done by human mistake. Ignore them."

Gotcha.


Not only did he say that, he went on to say that God then makes sure no mistakes are made.

So there are, but there aren't, but there are, but they're arent mistakes.



Almost dizzying.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Almost dizzying.

Indeed, his own contradictions are almost... biblical ;)

But I thank you, Christian Dude, for replying, although I must say I find your conclusions lacking.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
All four gospels are inspired by God, but it is important to remember, God does not take over a persons' body and they supernaturally write down words while they are in a trance. God inspires the person and their intellect and personalities come through while writing. Also, with God’s inspiration and guidance, they don’t make any mistakes. It is the same for all books of the Bible, Old and New Testament.


Originally posted by fowlsound
Do you even see the inconsistency in that?

What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Two of the gospels are direct eye witness accounts, Matthew and John.
No they are not; all of the gospels were written far too late for that. For John to have witnessed the crucifixion and understood it, and then to have put pen to paper 70 years later, means that he would have been at least 90 years old. Highly unlikely.
The fact is, the gospels were hearsay from the time they were written.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by jjramsey
What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.


By saying God insipres the writing and their personalities come through in the writing he is skirting the statement they're only human and make mistakes. He then says God corrects mistakes made by the writers. Yet there ARE inconsistencies in the bible.

So by his logic, god inspires it, man makes mistakes, and god fixes them. Yet they aren't fixed.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
It is the same for the events at the empty tomb. So when you work it out an put the accounts from the four gospels together in the correct order, you find that the first people that are recorded to see the empty tomb are Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome. Other women were following along behind bringing spices to anoint the body. The first three find the tomb empty, Mary M. immediately leaves to tell the disciples (Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1,2). The other Mary goes closer to the tomb and sees the angel (Matthew 28:2) She leaves to meet the other women who are coming along behind. While that has been going on, Mary M. has talked with Peter and John and the two men arrive at the empty tomb, inspect it and leave (John 20:3-10). Mary M. has made it back and sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18). Then she leaves to tell the disciples what has happened as Jesus told her to do. And while all that was going on, the other Mary has caught up with the other women and they all show up together at the empty tomb and see two angels (Luke 24:4,5; Mark 16:5). They also receive an angelic message. They leave to go to the disciples and run into Jesus as well (Matthew 28:8-10).


*slow clap*

Bravo. Well done. Truly worth the wait. Just a few tiny nits to pick.

[list=1]
The angel mentioned in Matthew 28:2 rolled the stone away and scared the Roman guards who were keeping an eye on the tomb. How could the first three women have (a) found the tomb empty and (b) not seen the angel, who came down like lightning and caused an earthquake? Seems like that sort of thing'd be hard to miss.
Luke 24:10 says it's "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others" who run back to tell the Apostles, not just Mary M. It's only John who says she ran back alone.
The angel mentioned in Matthew spoke to "the women", plural, not just the other Mary. Did he also address the group of spice-bearing women coming up behind?
Mark 16:1 mentions that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome were also bearing spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:1 says they just went to look at the tomb. Which was it?
With all of this coming and going, you'd think some of these groups would run into each other. Don't you think it odd that Mary M didn't accompany the disciples to the tomb? What were the "other women" doing while Mary M and the disciples were schlepping up and down the countryside? Were they so far behind?
Did the women tell anyone at first? Mark 16:8 says they didn't.
[/list=1]

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by jjramsey
What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.

Originally posted by fowlsound
By saying God insipres the writing and their personalities come through in the writing he is skirting the statement they're only human and make mistakes. He then says God corrects mistakes made by the writers. Yet there ARE inconsistencies in the bible.

So by his logic, god inspires it, man makes mistakes, and god fixes them. Yet they aren't fixed.

I think this conflates two different issues: (1) whether it is valid to say that God's inspiration guarded the Biblical writers against error but didn't totally submerge their personalities, and (2) whether the Bible is in fact free of error. I'm not sure that I am reading you correctly, but I think that you are assuming that the "theory of inspiration" mentioned in point 1 is meant to cover and explain all the apparent contradictions in the Bible. It isn't. What it does do is give Christian Dude some wiggle room to write off certain kinds of apparent inconsistencies as not being errors at all. This apologetic tactic is not comprehensive but works mostly for cases where the apparent contradictions are arguably due to selective reporting and can be harmonized as ceo_esq does above (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871040430#post1871040430) in the case of Jesus' last words on the cross. Other kinds of apparent contradictions are explained away by other tactics.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Both of these seemingly contradictions you bring up are basically the same and a matter of not understanding who each gospel was written for, and thinking through the normal way different people might describe the same thing. Two of the gospels are direct eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. Mark’s could be an eye witness account or an account put together from the events told to him by other Apostles. Luke’s is definitely an account that is from the events being told to him by Apostles.
CDude, I'm very limited in time tonight so I'll only gnaw on the very first bone I have to pick with your post.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write their respective pieces. Period. And they were not written by eyewitnesses as Kimpatsu has correctly pointed out already. Two (I'll give specifics later) have considerable overlap and are likely based on a common document called "Q".

But I'll agree with one point you made, namely, that the gospels can only be understood by understanding who the audience was. As I wrote in another thread long ago, these writings are not historical, they are political; they are designed to influence and convert various audiences over the 50-100 year period they were written.

More later.......

[Robin]

Originally posted by jjramsey
What inconsistency? Christian Dude is simply saying that instead of God using the Biblical writers as scribes for dictation, the Biblical authors mostly have the same level of autonomy that they would have if they were writing something secular, but God helps out here and there to make sure that they don't make any outright mistakes. Now you can certainly object that the evidence for this contention is lacking, but I would hardly call it an inconsistency.
I don't think anybody here has any problems with the idea that four different accounts of the same event might differ. But when you are claiming the Bible is inerrant then they must be consistent. The last moments of Jesus are quite clear - he recites two lines from Psalms 22, then says "it is completed" (ie the scripture is fulfilled) and then "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit".

So Matthew and Mark catch and report the first line of scripture. Luke does not catch any of the remarks about scripture. John misses the first line about scripture but gets the second and the comment "It is completed".

But Luke and John both state different final words, it is clear from the reading of these that they are claiming Jesus spoke and then died. It is silly to say that when Luke says "And after he said this he breathed his last" he meant "after this and some other stuff he breathed his last". Or to say that when John says "Then he bowed his head and gave up the spirit" he really meant. "Then after some other stuff he bowed his head and gave up the spirit".

This is a genuine (and to Christians that accept this quite trivial) example of a contradiction in the Bible. If you are claiming the Bible is completely inerrant then this shows you are wrong.

Really Genesis 1 and 2 are the killers for Bible contradictions, as well as the very nature of God.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Robin
This is a genuine (and to Christians that accept this quite trivial) example of a contradiction in the Bible. If you are claiming the Bible is completely inerrant then this shows you are wrong.I take it that you think my earlier attempt at reconciling these passages holds no water. :D

I'll be the first to admit that it is not the most natural interpretation of the four accounts, and not the one I would favor, but I disagree that it is silly or irrational.

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Do you even see the inconsistency in that?
No, there isn't one. You are missing the point. God does not use robots, he never takes away a person's individuality. Not even when they are writing a book of the Bible under inspiration.

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by Ryokan
So that's how it is.

"There are no contradictions in the Bible, except those done by human mistake. Ignore them."

Gotcha.
Ryokan, you don't have to accept my explanation, but don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. There are no mistakes, the accounts are complimentary. They all work together to give us the more complete picture. You don't have to accept that if you don't want to, but your trite remark is not truthful. It is just a mean spirited dig trying to make it look like I said something I didn't.

[Robin]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I take it that you think my earlier attempt at reconciling these passages holds no water. :D

I'll be the first to admit that it is not the most natural interpretation of the four accounts, and not the one I would favor, but I disagree that it is silly or irrational.
I am sorry to say I didn't read it properly. Yes, what you say does make sense, he might be reporting the sense of the words.

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No they are not; all of the gospels were written far too late for that. For John to have witnessed the crucifixion and understood it, and then to have put pen to paper 70 years later, means that he would have been at least 90 years old. Highly unlikely.
The fact is, the gospels were hearsay from the time they were written.
Kimpatsu, how can you say the a person that actually was there at the time and watched these things unfold with their own eyes are not eye witnesses? Just because I tell the story of what I saw some time later, no matter how soon or not, I am still an eye witness.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Kimpatsu, how can you say the a person that actually was there at the time and watched these things unfold with their own eyes are not eye witnesses? Just because I tell the story of what I saw some time later, no matter how soon or not, I am still an eye witness.
Because none of the gospel writers were present at the crucifixion! It's that simple. They were recording tales they had heard second- or third-hand.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
No, there isn't one. You are missing the point. God does not use robots, he never takes away a person's individuality. Not even when they are writing a book of the Bible under inspiration.


So what you're saying is there is room for human error? But you also said God corrects that.

Which is it? Human error, or no error at all?

[cyborg]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Just because I tell the story of what I saw some time later, no matter how soon or not, I am still an eye witness.

Yes, but just because you tell the story that some local nutter CLAIMS he saw, no matter how soon or not, you are still not an eye witness. The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses no matter how much you want to shout about it.

And I love the description of the Gospels as 'complimentary'. I could imagine a similar apologetic if someone were to create a book of US and USSR propaganda during the cold-war and claim it as a difinitive history of the world from 1946 - 1992.

[pgwenthold]

I still want to know how

1) God can be love, and
2) God can be jealous, but
3) Love is not jealous

It is an explicit logical contradiction. Bible passages are listed above.

[Atlas]

And I still want to hear how Matthew and Chronicles differ by three the generations between Joram and Jotham.
Matthew 1
6 …David became the father of Solomon, …
7 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph.
8 Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah.
9 Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
...
17 Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations

1st Chronicles 3
10 The son of Solomon was Rehoboam, whose son was Abijah, whose son was Asa, whose son was Jehoshaphat,
11 whose son was Joram, whose son was Ahaziah, whose son was Joash,
12 whose son was Amaziah, whose son was Azariah, whose son was Jotham,
13 whose son was Ahaz, whose son was Hezekiah

Did God inspire Matthew to shoehorn reality into 14 generations by leaving out 3 generations of Jews?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Atlas
And I still want to hear how Matthew and Chronicles differ by three the generations between Joram and Jotham.



I guess they'd rather bicker over these things that they can bicker over. It's a lot better than facing the blatent, irrefutable issues.

[Robin]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I guess they'd rather bicker over these things that they can bicker over. It's a lot better than facing the blatent, irrefutable issues.
Like the contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God.

The Old Testament God was a primitive, savage Deity prepared to sanction genocide but the NT God says "Love your enemies". Just doesn't gel unless we subscribe to some really audacious form of moral relativism.

If the Bible is the inerrant and authoritative word of God then clearly the implication is that God sanctions the massacre of children. Most of us could not even imagine in our darkest moment even harming a child, yet God orders their massacre without qualm.

So if the Bible is inerrant then any religion based on it is clearly morally indefensible.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I still want to know how

1) God can be love, and
2) God can be jealous, but
3) Love is not jealous

It is an explicit logical contradiction. Bible passages are listed above. On a similar note, I'd like to know how

1) Breadcrumbs are better than nothing, and
2) Nothing is better than a nice juicy steak, but
3) A nice juicy steak is better than breadcrumbs.

Seriously, though, there's no contradiction in your example as long as the word jealous is being used in two different senses (like the word nothing in my example).

Take your pick from the following, non-exhaustive list of definitions of jealous found in the OED: Devoted, eager, zealous
Ardently amorous; covetous of the love of another, fond, lustful
Zealous or solicitous for the preservation or well-being of something possessed or esteemed; vigilant or careful in guarding; suspiciously careful or watchful
Resentful towards another on account of known or suspected rivalry
Feeling ill-will towards another on account of some advantage or superiority which he possesses or may possess; grudging, envious
Having a love which will tolerate no unfaithfulness or defection in the beloved objectAs long as you use any two definitions that are not themselves mutually incompatible, there is no logical contradiction.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
On a similar note, I'd like to know how

Seriously, though, there's no contradiction in your example as long as the word jealous is being used in two different senses

Let me translate:

There is no contradiction if jealous does not mean jealous, but means something else.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Robin
Like the contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God.

The Old Testament God was a primitive, savage Deity prepared to sanction genocide but the NT God says "Love your enemies".

The NT God certainly demands kindness and niceness from his followers but still reserves the right to be brutal himself. Remember that the book of Acts has the account of Ananias and Sapphira being struck dead for lying about giving all that they had to the Church, and of course, there is HELLFIRE. The difference between the OT God and the NT God is that the latter doesn't delegate his cruelty but does it himself. There is a change in the demands on followers, but not a real change in the character of God from OT to NT.

Not that any of this makes God look good.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Let me translate:

There is no contradiction if jealous does not mean jealous, but means something else. I'm not suggesting that anyone should interpret jealous to mean something else, if by "something else" you mean "something that does not correspond to a valid definition of jealous."

You have two different words in two different languages used in two different contexts at two different times by two different writers, both rendered into English as jealous, a word known to lend itself to different usages. Somehow, I don't think anyone else is going to get too stirred up about this fact. Certainly, it is insufficient to establish a formal contradiction.

[Christian Dude]

Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the time.

Now, for the differences in the genealogy for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Fizzer is right, they are two different genealogies. Matthew’s is his legal one, written to the Jew to show Jesus’ legal claim to the throne. It is traced through his earthly, but not blood related dad Joseph. Luke is his genealogy through Mary his mom. Luke is writing to show that Jesus is the perfect sinless man. It is Mary’s line that is important in this. Here are the two items that show this is true. If you look at the son of king David listed in each line, you will see that they are different sons, Solomon in Matthew and Nathan in Luke. One is a granddad in Joseph’s line, one is a granddad in Mary’s line. The other distinction that shows Luke is tracing Mary’s line is the verse Luke 3:23 where Luke says “Jesus... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph�.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
*slow clap*

Bravo. Well done. Truly worth the wait. Just a few tiny nits to pick.

[list=1]
The angel mentioned in Matthew 28:2 rolled the stone away and scared the Roman guards who were keeping an eye on the tomb. How could the first three women have (a) found the tomb empty and (b) not seen the angel, who came down like lightning and caused an earthquake? Seems like that sort of thing'd be hard to miss.
Luke 24:10 says it's "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others" who run back to tell the Apostles, not just Mary M. It's only John who says she ran back alone.
The angel mentioned in Matthew spoke to "the women", plural, not just the other Mary. Did he also address the group of spice-bearing women coming up behind?
Mark 16:1 mentions that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome were also bearing spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:1 says they just went to look at the tomb. Which was it?
With all of this coming and going, you'd think some of these groups would run into each other. Don't you think it odd that Mary M didn't accompany the disciples to the tomb? What were the "other women" doing while Mary M and the disciples were schlepping up and down the countryside? Were they so far behind?
Did the women tell anyone at first? Mark 16:8 says they didn't.
[/list=1]

1) Why do you think that this all had to happen in a very close time frame? The women could have been somewhere they didn’t hear and see all the commotion. All they did is show up and find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty at first.
2) Yes, this is relating the time all of them had finally made it back to talk about all this.
3) This is the other Mary and Salome.
4) It does not say that they “just� came to look at the grave. I don’t understand why they can’t do both.
5) If they did or didn’t run into each other; why do we have to be given a level of detail that is not important to what is being communicated here. Those things are not important to what has happened to Jesus, he is risen and he is already ministering to his beloved children.
6) When they were walking back, apparently they passed people on the way and did not say anything to them. Who the people were, maybe just strangers or not, is not given. Again a level of detail not reveled to us because it is not important to what is being communicated here in scripture.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Because none of the gospel writers were present at the crucifixion! It's that simple. They were recording tales they had heard second- or third-hand.
I believe that all four men are the writers of the books that bear their names, and two for sure, maybe even three, were eyewitness’ to the crucifixion and all events there after. What you bring up is a whole different debate. I do not have time, nor desire, to get into that one now. I can’t keep up with the stuff I already am discussing here on this forum.

Originally posted by fowlsound
So what you're saying is there is room for human error? But you also said God corrects that.

Which is it? Human error, or no error at all?

No, I am not saying there is room for human error. What I am saying is that you see the personalities and intellect of each writer in scripture in the books they write. That means, when they are giving eyewitness accounts, what they found important comes through, and who their audience is, also directs what is important to what is being communicated. They also might have missed a detail another writer didn’t miss. They never lie or make up anything in their own account, it is the true account of what happened from their prospective. And it is not a distorted prospective, God makes sure that their prospective is completely correct. Just because a writers account does not contain absolutely every little nit-pick’n detail does not make it inaccurate or incomplete in what is important to communicate. The accounts contain what is important to the writers audience and what they are trying to get across to them.

That is why I say putting the accounts together, accounts that are not inaccurate, gives us a more complete picture. They compliment each other, not contradict each other. God does insure to us that the original manuscripts are inerrant. He did help them in not making errors, but that did not make them scribe robots without their own personalities and intellect coming through.

-Dude

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the time.
So the people writing the Bible may have left certain things out according to their own cultural preferences?

[Ipecac]

Luke is his genealogy through Mary his mom. Luke is writing to show that Jesus is the perfect sinless man. It is Mary’s line that is important in this. Here are the two items that show this is true. If you look at the son of king David listed in each line, you will see that they are different sons, Solomon in Matthew and Nathan in Luke. One is a granddad in Joseph’s line, one is a granddad in Mary’s line. The other distinction that shows Luke is tracing Mary’s line is the verse Luke 3:23 where Luke says “Jesus... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph�.


I see. And exactly WHERE in the bible does it say specifically that the Luke genealogy is Mary's line?

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I see. And exactly WHERE in the bible does it say specifically that the Luke genealogy is Mary's line?

this was dealt with on page 1 of this thread.

Luke 3:23 When he began [his ministry], Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called the Christ.


They both show it as Joseph's lineage.

Old news.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by fowlsound
this was dealt with on page 1 of this thread.


They both show it as Joseph's lineage.

Old news.


*I* know that! I'm trying to see if Christian Dude does. He's the one who insists it's Mary's.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Ipecac
*I* know that! I'm trying to see if Christian Dude does. He's the one who insists it's Mary's.


Sadly, I don't think we'll get an answer from him on this, though kudos for the try.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
1) Why do you think that this all had to happen in a very close time frame? The women could have been somewhere they didn’t hear and see all the commotion. All they did is show up and find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty at first.
2) Yes, this is relating the time all of them had finally made it back to talk about all this.
3) This is the other Mary and Salome.
4) It does not say that they “just� came to look at the grave. I don’t understand why they can’t do both.
5) If they did or didn’t run into each other; why do we have to be given a level of detail that is not important to what is being communicated here. Those things are not important to what has happened to Jesus, he is risen and he is already ministering to his beloved children.
6) When they were walking back, apparently they passed people on the way and did not say anything to them. Who the people were, maybe just strangers or not, is not given. Again a level of detail not reveled to us because it is not important to what is being communicated here in scripture.


Let's quote the original attempt, shall we?

So when you work it out an put the accounts from the four gospels together in the correct order, you find that the first people that are recorded to see the empty tomb are Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome. Other women were following along behind bringing spices to anoint the body. The first three find the tomb empty, Mary M. immediately leaves to tell the disciples (Luke 23:55-24:9; John 20:1,2). The other Mary goes closer to the tomb and sees the angel (Matthew 28:2) She leaves to meet the other women who are coming along behind. While that has been going on, Mary M. has talked with Peter and John and the two men arrive at the empty tomb, inspect it and leave (John 20:3-10). Mary M. has made it back and sees the two angels and then Jesus (John 20:11-18). Then she leaves to tell the disciples what has happened as Jesus told her to do. And while all that was going on, the other Mary has caught up with the other women and they all show up together at the empty tomb and see two angels (Luke 24:4,5; Mark 16:5). They also receive an angelic message. They leave to go to the disciples and run into Jesus as well (Matthew 28:8-10).

1) Because when there is only a sentence break between two events, one assumes they are closely related temporally (without further information, of course). The angel sat on the stone after rolling it away (Matt 28:2). Or did he go away when the women approached, and then come back? Was he invisible?

2) So, the second trip to tell the Disciples? Then you shouldn't quote Luke 24:4 side-by side with John 20:2. Also, Mark 16:5 only mentions one angel, not two like Luke does.

3) The same Mary and Salome who Matthew says ran from the tomb to tell the Disciples? (ie: not to meet the women coming up behind) And who, upon meeting these women, apparently do not tell them about the angel but instead let them all walk back to the tomb and see for themselves? Why else would they wonder about not seeing Jesus' body, if they already got the message that he was risen?

4) And I don't understand, if they intended to do both A and B, why some Gospel writers said A and some said B (and one said neither). This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all?

5) So why not just say that? Why inspire five different, individually misleading accounts of the resurrection that caused numerous headaches to believers and caused some to drop their faith because they couldn't reconcile them? Why not just say: "He is risen. He is alive. End of story."

And the question of whether they ran into each other or not in this little scenario of your is important: because don't you think they would have said something? Some were coming up to check out an empty tomb, some were coming down to talk about angels or resurrected messiahs, some just expected to mourn and make with the spices. Seems like words would have been exchanged. Doesn't it?

6) Mark 16:8 says the women had no intention of telling anyone, even the disciples, because they were afraid. What changed their minds? Jesus' appearance on the way back to town?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
4) And I don't understand, if they intended to do both A and B, why some Gospel writers said A and some said B (and one said neither). This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all? The resurrection story is the most important story that God has to tell. Jesus can say he's the son of God all day long, anybody can, but if anybody can rise from the dead - by his own authority, no less - it gives the guy some street cred.

Why would a God - who can do anything - not articulate a clear, coherent, unarguably true, communication to those he clearly wants to save?

Maybe he really doesn't want to save. Leave the story inconsistent and ambiguous. Sure, tell everybody that he died for ALL their sins but let's make heaven only for the gullible, unskeptical, and unquestioning. They're much easier to control.

[Skeptical Greg]

As if clearing up the contradictions will make it all true, and about 4 billion people ignorant of the true God...:rolleyes:

What a bunch of arrogant asses.. ( Christians, that is .. )

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the timeYou've got it backwards CD. It was Matthew who left out 3 generations. He had a point to make. It wasn't about skipping the unimportant. He said:Matthew 1:17 Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations 14, 14, and 14 generations. 3 tuplets of 7. It's an example and proof of God's beautifully symmetrical plan.

The question is, why did Chronicles add in 3 fakes? Do you know if that was another thing the Jews did to the truth they were inspired to write?

By the way, I'd never heard of your explanation of leaving out the bad and unimportant. Do you have a Rabbinic source for that? They seemed to retain so much of the bad and unimportant, to hide 3 whole generations seems absurd.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
4)Mark 16:1 mentions that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome were also bearing spices to anoint Jesus' body. Matthew 28:1 says they just went to look at the tomb. Which was it?


Originally posted by Christian Dude
4) It does not say that they “just� came to look at the grave. I don’t understand why they can’t do both.


Originally posted by Palimpsest
4) And I don't understand, if they intended to do both A and B, why some Gospel writers said A and some said B (and one said neither). This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all?

As reasons to reject the resurrection go, this has got to be at the bottom of the list. Why should Matthew feel a huge need to mention the spices? It's an interesting detail, but a trivial one, and not nearly as important as having them be at the tomb to witness the angel saying Jesus has risen.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
6) Mark 16:8 says the women had no intention of telling anyone, even the disciples, because they were afraid. What changed their minds?

Mark 16:8 did not say that the women had no intention of telling anyone, but that they were simply scared silent by what was presumably an angel (the "man in white"). They are portrayed as having an emotional reaction, not as making a conscious decision. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that Mark expected his readers to presume that the women got over their fright and did what the angel told them to do.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by jjramsey
As reasons to reject the resurrection go, this has got to be at the bottom of the list. Why should Matthew feel a huge need to mention the spices? It's an interesting detail, but a trivial one, and not nearly as important as having them be at the tomb to witness the angel saying Jesus has risen.

You tell me: why should Mark or Luke feel a huge need to mention the spices? If it's such a trivial detail, why is it in even one gospel, let alone two?

Mark 16:8 did not say that the women had no intention of telling anyone, but that they were simply scared silent by what was presumably an angel (the "man in white"). They are portrayed as having an emotional reaction, not as making a conscious decision. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that Mark expected his readers to presume that the women got over their fright and did what the angel told them to do.

Yes, it is a stretch because that's where the gospel ends, at least the earlier versions. You don't get to decide what the author meant to say, especially if your assumption contradicts the verse which says quite explicitly "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
You tell me: why should Mark or Luke feel a huge need to mention the spices? If it's such a trivial detail, why is it in even one gospel, let alone two?

Who knows? Who cares? All right, you care. Mentioning the spices adds a little color, and that might have been one reason Mark mentioned it. What, you think it has some special allegorical meaning?

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Yes, it is a stretch because that's where the gospel ends, at least the earlier versions. You don't get to decide what the author meant to say, especially if your assumption contradicts the verse which says quite explicitly "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Here's a thought experiment. Pretend that you are a Christian reading Mark, so you actually believe what was written in it. Now if the women never said anything to anyone, ever, how would Mark even know about them? Presuming that Mark is telling the truth--which is what the intended audience of Mark would assume--at some point, the women would have had to break their silence just for Mark to know that they had been silent in the first place. Does it really take a genius to figure that after the initial shock that kept them silent had faded, they would go and do what the man in white had said, which was to go tell the disciples that Jesus had risen?

Your interpretation that the readers of Mark would conclude that the women's fear kept them clammed up permanently is much more of a stretch.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Who knows? Who cares? All right, you care. Mentioning the spices adds a little color, and that might have been one reason Mark mentioned it. What, you think it has some special allegorical meaning?

No, it's just one of many inconsistencies, big and small, between the gospels. And you just made my point for me. Also, opened up a big can of worms. So the bit about spices just adds a little colour? What else is in the gospels just to add a little colour? Some good parables? A couple of nifty miracles to make the crowds go "ooooo" when it's read aloud? How much did the authors of the gospels just make up?

Here's a thought experiment. Pretend that you are a Christian reading Mark, so you actually believe what was written in it. Now if the women never said anything to anyone, ever, how would Mark even know about them? Presuming that Mark is telling the truth--which is what the intended audience of Mark would assume--at some point, the women would have had to break their silence just for Mark to know that they had been silent in the first place. Does it really take a genius to figure that after the initial shock that kept them silent had faded, they would go and do what the man in white had said, which was to go tell the disciples that Jesus had risen?

Your interpretation that the readers of Mark would conclude that the women's fear kept them clammed up permanently is much more of a stretch.

No, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all. The gospel of Mark never claimed to have been written by an eyewitness. So any Xian readers back then would think it was inspired by the Holy Spirit or whatever. And really, any reader that reached the end of the gospel without being bothered by all the absurdities and magic won't be fazed by this. Just ask Kathy or Christian Dude.

[RebeccaBradley]

Hi people. Haven't been around for a while--came back to find this lovely thread in progress. Last year I posted a precis of Gleason Archer's hilarious "harmonization" of the resurrection narratives, which I think would bear repeating. (In fact, Scot was kind enough to mention it, early on in this thread.) Here's the link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870664648#post1870664648

On the topic of inspiration and inerrancy, I grew up among cover-to-cover hardline Fundamentalists who would not even consider that a single word of the Bible might be in error. My uncle the Fundamentalist minister (hereafter MUTFM) preached that not only were the original scribes divinely and inerrantly inspired, but the translators were too. But not all the translators--only the ones that produced the KJV. All the other translations, he claimed, were demonic snares and delusions meant to lure God's people into false cults and watered-down sissy-pants ecumenical movements. So yeah, some people do believe it 100%.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
All the other translations, he claimed, were demonic snares and delusions meant to lure God's people into false cults and watered-down sissy-pants ecumenical movements. Demonstrating the sort of grasp on the relationship between cause and effect that has kept religion in business for the last few millennia.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by jjramsey
What, you think it has some special allegorical meaning?

Originally posted by Palimpsest
No, it's just one of many inconsistencies, big and small, between the gospels.

Leaving out--emphasis on "leaving out"--an interesting but unnecessary detail is hardly worth calling an inconsistency.

By the way, you do know that the gospel of Mark is probably the first Gospel, right? And that Matthew and Luke share Mark's outline of events and much of his material? If a detail is included in Mark but left out of Matthew, it is most likely that the author of Matthew left the detail out.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
And you just made my point for me. Also, opened up a big can of worms. So the bit about spices just adds a little colour? What else is in the gospels just to add a little colour?

No, you just showed that you failed to understand the difference between mentioning a pre-existing detail to add color, and embellishing to add color. Mind you, I would not assume that the Gospel writers didn't embellish, but your particular argument for the detail of the spices being an embellishment is rubbish, especially since it seems to presume that Mark is using Matthew as a source and not vice versa.

Originally posted by jjramsey
Presuming that Mark is telling the truth--which is what the intended audience of Mark would assume--at some point, the women would have had to break their silence just for Mark to know that they had been silent in the first place. . . .

Your interpretation that the readers of Mark would conclude that the women's fear kept them clammed up permanently is much more of a stretch.


Originally posted by Palimpsest
No, I don't think it's much of a stretch at all. The gospel of Mark never claimed to have been written by an eyewitness. . . . So any Xian readers back then would think it was inspired by the Holy Spirit or whatever.

The eyewitness aspect is irrelevant. I'm not talking of the women telling Mark directly, or Mark seeing what the women did, but about the women breaking silence, and telling somebody who eventually told Mark. The idea that the readers of Mark would presume that Mark knew of the women's silence due to holy clairvoyance, rather than due to the women having broken their silence at some point, isn't totally ludicrous, but it is an unnecessary complication. It is clear from the text that the women were dumbstruck from emotional shock, and it is far simpler for a reader to presume that once the shock faded, they stopped being silent.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Leaving out--emphasis on "leaving out"--an interesting but unnecessary detail is hardly worth calling an inconsistency.
Really? For anal retentives like me, that's totally damning. I'm a boring raconteur precisely because I omit nothing; exactly what a sin of omission is not. It's certainly not divine.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Leaving out--emphasis on "leaving out"--an interesting but unnecessary detail is hardly worth calling an inconsistency.

No, you just showed that you failed to understand the difference between mentioning a pre-existing detail to add color, and embellishing to add color. Mind you, I would not assume that the Gospel writers didn't embellish, but your particular argument for the detail of the spices being an embellishment is rubbish, especially since it seems to presume that Mark is using Matthew as a source and not vice versa.

It doesn't presume any such thing. Whether Mark added the bit with the spices or Matthew took it out is not the point. You're arguing that adding or leaving out an irrelevant detail doesn't make for a contradiction. But my point is that it begs the question: which details are relevant and which details are not? Arguing that all inconsistent details are irrelevant smacks of ad hoc rationalization to me.

The eyewitness aspect is irrelevant. I'm not talking of the women telling Mark directly, or Mark seeing what the women did, but about the women breaking silence, and telling somebody who eventually told Mark. The idea that the readers of Mark would presume that Mark knew of the women's silence due to holy clairvoyance, rather than due to the women having broken their silence at some point, isn't totally ludicrous, but it is an unnecessary complication. It is clear from the text that the women were dumbstruck from emotional shock, and it is far simpler for a reader to presume that once the shock faded, they stopped being silent.

Maybe. And? So what if it's an unnecessary complication? This is a holy book we're talking about. Logic and streamlined plots don't have to enter into it.

And the eyewitness aspect is extremely relevant. You seem to be assuming that the author of Mark wouldn't have included the bit with the silent women unless it actually happened. But maybe it's just an embellishment, to add colour. Maybe he was just recycling an urban legend about the messiah's resurrection.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
You're arguing that adding or leaving out an irrelevant detail doesn't make for a contradiction.

Yes, I am.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
But my point is that it begs the question: which details are relevant and which details are not?

A little common sense here, Palimpsest! What is the general thrust of the empty tomb accounts? People come to the tomb and see it empty, and maybe see an angel or Jesus himself explain that he has risen. Even in the accounts that mention the detail about the spices, that detail drops out of sight and gets overshadowed by other events in the account. The emptiness of the tomb and the explanations of its significance are clearly more important to the Gospel writers.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Arguing that all inconsistent details are irrelevant smacks of ad hoc rationalization to me.

And arguing that there is no such thing as an unimportant detail that a writer might choose to exclude is patently silly.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
You seem to be assuming that the author of Mark wouldn't have included the bit with the silent women unless it actually happened.

No, I am assuming that Mark is writing for readers who presume that he is telling the truth. I am also assuming that Mark's readers would not even bother to think that Mark was clairvoyant since there was nothing in the text of Mark that would force one to assume that the women stayed silent permanently.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by jjramsey

And arguing that there is no such thing as an unimportant detail that a writer might choose to exclude is patently silly.

Depends who you're talking to. This is the Bible, after all. Inspired by God, some say. Dictated word-for-word by God in Elizabethan English, some others say. In a book like that, is there such a thing as an unimportant detail?

No, I am assuming that Mark is writing for readers who presume that he is telling the truth. I am also assuming that Mark's readers would not even bother to think that Mark was clairvoyant since there was nothing in the text of Mark that would force one to assume that the women stayed silent permanently.

Well, yeah, you could make assumptions 'til you're blue in the face about people dead for 2,000 years. Of course it's always possible to ask "Then what happened?" and add eleven verses at the end of the gospel. Or make up your own. Lots of people were doing it at that time, I understand.

[jjramsey]

Here's another thought experiment for you, Palimpsest. Pretend that you have come across two ancient historical documents with the following parallel accounts:

Account 1: Mary and Salome went to the tomb of their late master, Rabbi Yeshua, bringing spices to anoint his body. They found the tomb empty, without the body. The linen grave clothes were found ripped up in a loose pile, and a few bones strewn about. Salome cried out, "They stole our teacher's body!"

Account 2: The women went to see the tomb of Rabbi Yeshua, but found his body missing and his grave clothes in disarray. They realized that their master's body had been stolen, and they wailed.

Now neither of these accounts have miracles in them, and they aren't from the Bible. Do you consider them contradictory?

And now that I've wound you up about a phantom contradiction about the spices, here is a real one:

Mark 16:1-2
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

Luke 23:55-56
The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

You were so insistent on making a contradiction out of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices that you neglected that the real problem was the timing of when they were bought.

[Dubium]

JJ Ramsey - Is it possible for you to engage in debate without belittling the person with whom you are debating?

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Here's another thought experiment for you, Palimpsest.

Hre's a thought experiment for you, jjramsey. How about you address my point?

And now that I've wound you up about a phantom contradiction about the spices, here is a real one:

Please don't flatter yourself. Who winding up whom? You're the one who's focusing on a couple of my objections to CD's account, while being quite insulting about it.

You were so insistent on making a contradiction out of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices that you neglected that the real problem was the timing of when they were bought.

Thank you. Of course that's the only reason I could have missed that. Well, I'll be sure to bring it up to Christian Dude when he comes back.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Hre's a thought experiment for you, jjramsey. How about you address my point?

If your argument is, gosh, the Bible can't have any unimportant details, because, well, it's the Bible, then there is little to address. You have then adopted a straw man that is hardly consonant with the viewpoints of most conservative Christians, including the fundies.

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Please don't flatter yourself. Who winding up whom? You're the one who's focusing on a couple of my objections to CD's account, while being quite insulting about it.

I got insulting because your arguments in those couple objections seemed to be in bad faith. You made a mountain out of the molehill of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices and absurdly claimed that to be a contradiction. You also seemed to willfully miss the obvious reason why the women would break their silence. In short, you seemed more interested in bashing the Bible, even if it involved poor arguments, than in getting at the truth.

Originally posted by Dubium
Is it possible for you to engage in debate without belittling the person with whom you are debating?

Sure. It helps if I think that they are playing fair in their arguments and not being willfully obtuse.

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by jjramsey
If your argument is, gosh, the Bible can't have any unimportant details, because, well, it's the Bible, then there is little to address. You have then adopted a straw man that is hardly consonant with the viewpoints of most conservative Christians, including the fundies.

Is it? Possibly. But I'm interested in CDude's viewpoint He's said that some things that happened weren't recorded because they're irrelevant to the message of the gospels. Also, that the gospel writers never lie or make up anything. So anything that's in the gospels is both factual and relevant. This is my understanding of CDude's beliefs, which he's welcome to clarify. So my question to CDude still stands:

This is not being complementary, this is being misleading. Either the women's intent is relevant, in which case why lie by omission? Or, their intent is irrelevant, in which case why include it at all?

I got insulting because your arguments in those couple objections seemed to be in bad faith. You made a mountain out of the molehill of Matthew leaving out the detail of the spices and absurdly claimed that to be a contradiction. You also seemed to willfully miss the obvious reason why the women would break their silence.

No, I didn't miss it. I just didn't think it'd be appropriate to apply Earth logic to a legend in a holy book. It's just like asking, "Then what happened? Did the prince and the princess really live happily ever after? They didn't have any fights? He didn't get bored and go slaying dragons again? She didn't get tired of waiting for him to come back from his quests, and start fooling around with that hot young stableboy? Really? Happily ever after. Okay."

[Skeptical Greg]

O.K., How many real contradictions do we have to come up with, to cast doubt on the idea that The Holy Bible is the primary means of communication between the creator of the Universe and the people ( that it created ) on the planet earth.

The following seems like a contradiction to me..

_______________________________________________
Genesis 6
7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


John 3
16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
__________________________________________

[Beerina]

Personally, I like the one where they mention the Titans of Olde or whatever, who came down and mated with mortal women; their sons became ye olde Men of Reknown.

Then the Noah and the Ark incident happens, providing a choke point for human genetics.

Then later on it refers to other quasi super-humans also descended from those same old Titan/angels/whatever. Clearly Noah must have been part of this line of descent or such descendents after the Ark incident could not exist.

Since that is silly, others must have survived the Flood besides Noah & Co., or the Flood never actually happened; in either case, the Bible is wrong.

[Z]

I'm too lazy to look it up myself... Beerina, would you mind posting references? Thanks.

Very interesting point.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Beerina
Personally, I like the one where they mention the Titans of Olde or whatever, who came down and mated with mortal women; their sons became ye olde Men of Reknown.

Then the Noah and the Ark incident happens, providing a choke point for human genetics.

Then later on it refers to other quasi super-humans also descended from those same old Titan/angels/whatever. Clearly Noah must have been part of this line of descent or such descendents after the Ark incident could not exist.

Since that is silly, others must have survived the Flood besides Noah & Co., or the Flood never actually happened; in either case, the Bible is wrong. If we were discounting ' silly ', there wouldn't be much point in going over the contradictions.


" God works in mysterious ways. "

Translation


" God can do all the silly stuff he wants. "

[timokay]

The flood story always interested me.

Firstly, I assumed that God had predetermined everything, knows every atom and every thought of every being, from before the time of man... yada yada....

And yet often he is wrathful, angry, etc...

How are you angry if you are pulling the strings on everything? If it is all "Your Plan", then how do you get teed off concerning any aspect of it?

Ok, back to the flood. If the purpose of the flood was to kill off every sinner (mind you, you knew this was gonna happen, predestiny and all that), so you come up with basically what comes down to drowning the cat in order to remove sin from the world.

Well, it didn't work.

Did God fail? Why not?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
I believe that all four men are the writers of the books that bear their names, and two for sure, maybe even three, were eyewitness’ to the crucifixion and all events there after.
Nitpicking: I thought was fairly well-established that the Gospels were anoynomous works, see the Catholic Encyclopedia - Title of the Gospels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm):
The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles ..., which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.

Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom., I, xxi), and St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made.
The titles of the Gospels are not the names of the authors or the eyewitnesses, the titles were attached to each of the Gospels long after they were written.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm too lazy to look it up myself... Beerina, would you mind posting references? Thanks.

Very interesting point. I was interested in Beerina's point too. I found these items from before and after Noah.Genesis 6
1 When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose.
3 Then the LORD said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."
4 At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. ("men of reknown" sometime translated as "giants" - Atlas)
5 When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6 he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
7 So the LORD said: "I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them."
8 But Noah found favor with the LORD. Here's a connection between Nephilim and Anakim.
"And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim; and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (Numbers 13:33 RSV)Here is more of the story but the reference is not explicit here.
Numbers 13
...
27 They told Moses: "We went into the land to which you sent us. It does indeed flow with milk and honey, and here is its fruit.
28 However, the people who are living in the land are fierce, and the towns are fortified and very strong. Besides, we saw descendants of the Anakim there.
29 Amalekites live in the region of the Negeb; Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites dwell in the highlands, and Canaanites along the seacoast and the banks of the Jordan."
30 Caleb, however, to quiet the people toward Moses, said, "We ought to go up and seize the land, for we can certainly do so."
31 But the men who had gone up with him said, "We cannot attack these people; they are too strong for us."
32 So they spread discouraging reports among the Israelites about the land they had scouted, saying, "The land that we explored is a country that consumes its inhabitants. And all the people we saw there are huge men,
33 veritable giants (the Anakim were a race of giants); we felt like mere grasshoppers, and so we must have seemed to them."

Deuteronomy 2
...
7 The LORD, your God, has blessed you in all your undertakings; he has been concerned about your journey through this vast desert. It is now forty years that he has been with you, and you have never been in want.
8 "Then we left behind us the Arabah route, Elath, Ezion-geber, and Seir, where our kinsmen, the descendants of Esau, live; and we went on toward the desert of Moab.
9 And the LORD said to me, 'Do not show hostility to the Moabites or engage them in battle, for I will not give you possession of any of their land, since I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as their own.
10 (Formerly the Emim lived there, a people strong and numerous and tall like the Anakim;
11 like them they were considered Rephaim. It was the Moabites who called them Emim.

2 Samuel 21
15 There was another battle between the Philistines and Israel. David went down with his servants and fought the Philistines, but David grew tired.
16 Dadu, one of the Rephaim, whose bronze spear weighed three hundred shekels, was about to take him captive. Dadu was girt with a new sword and planned to kill David,
17 but Abishai, son of Zeruiah, came to his assistance and struck and killed the Philistine. Then David's men swore to him, "You must not go out to battle with us again, lest you quench the lamp of Israel."
18 After this there was another battle with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Sibbecai, from Husha, killed Saph, one of the Rephaim.
19 There was another battle with the Philistines in Gob, in which Elhanan, son of Jair from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's heddle-bar.
20 There was another battle at Gath in which there was a man of large stature with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot--twenty-four in all. He too was one of the Rephaim.
21 And when he insulted Israel, Jonathan, son of David's brother Shimei, killed him.
22 These four were Rephaim in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his servants. Found a decent link. (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/20020118.htm)

[Ossai]

Christian Dude
Guys, on this genealogy stuff. You are missing a few important facts. First if you look at genealogies all through scripture, you will find differences in them for the same people in when different books give the genealogy of the same person. The reason for this is in ancient Hebrew culture it was acceptable to skip over a dad or granddad or two if the writer didn’t think those people were important in the line he was talking about. So bad dudes got left out or guys that didn’t do a whole lot got left out all the time. I call bullship ;) . The ancient Hebrew culture did not skip over generations. Unimportant people were not regularly left out. Go reference the begots in the OT.

Now, for the differences in the genealogy for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Fizzer is right, they are two different genealogies. Matthew’s is his legal one, written to the Jew to show Jesus’ legal claim to the throne. It is traced through his earthly, but not blood related dad Joseph. Luke is his genealogy through Mary his mom. While this is standard Catholic doctrine, it very clearly contradicts the written word.

Luke is writing to show that Jesus is the perfect sinless man. It is Mary’s line that is important in this. Here are the two items that show this is true. If you look at the son of king David listed in each line, you will see that they are different sons, Solomon in Matthew and Nathan in Luke. One is a granddad in Joseph’s line, one is a granddad in Mary’s line. The other distinction that shows Luke is tracing Mary’s line is the verse Luke 3:23 where Luke says “Jesus... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph�. Lying by omission is still lying.
Here is the whole verse.
Luke 3:23 When he began [his ministry], Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli You have proven your dishonesty. Congratulations. Step up to the other contradictions and see what lies you can weave around them.

Ossai

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Atlas
I was interested in Beerina's point too. I found these items from before and after Noah. Yes, but it says:Then the LORD said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."
4 At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. My copy of the Bible made the point clearer, but nonetheless you can see that there's wiggle room here, in that you can argue that the "sons of heaven" descended and impregnated some of Noah's female ancestors after the flood.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yes, but it says: My copy of the Bible made the point clearer, but nonetheless you can see that there's wiggle room here, in that you can argue that the "sons of heaven" descended and impregnated some of Noah's female ancestors after the flood. Good point. Noah is not necessarily the choke point as Beerina described. It gives a twist to the Annunciation, as well.

If the "sons of God" were not of the highest moral stature and wanted to "do it" with Earth girls - what would stop them from lying and saying "This is from God, little girl."

I also wonder if this is a souce for tales of the incubus.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Atlas
...I also wonder if this is a souce for tales of the incubus. Googling found no quick direct relationship but the incubus was certainly a supernatural creature.Nightmare
No, a nightmare is not a dream about a scary horse. The origin is fairly simple, but not obvious. The night portion is straightforward, it comes from the word night. It's the mare part that makes people think it has to do with horses.
Mare is simply an Old English term for a demon. So a nightmare is a demon that visits you at night--a scary dream. A mare was a demon, known as an incubus (male) or succubus (female) that descended on a sleeper, paralyzing and suffocating them, and had sexual relations with the sleeper. Origin: Europe. Closely related to the incubi/sucubi are the Slavic mora, the German mahr, and the Scandinavian mara, from which the word 'nightmare' is derived. incubus c.1205, from L.L. (Augustine), from L. incubo "nightmare, one who lies down on (the sleeper)," from incubare "to lie upon" (see incubate). Plural is incubi. In the Middle Ages, their existence was recognized by law.

[Ossai]

Has Christian Dude left the building?

[Palimpsest]

Seems like it. Ah, well. Easy come, easy go.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Palimpsest
Seems like it. Ah, well. Easy come, easy go.


How utterly shocking that someone with extraordinary claims and religious/pseuoscientific rhetoric would run away from specific requests for evidence, from logical inquiry and proper discourse, and chalenges to their thought.

I am completely.....what's the word.........underwhelmed.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by fowlsound
How utterly shocking that someone with extraordinary claims and religious/pseuoscientific rhetoric would run away from specific requests for evidence, from logical inquiry and proper discourse, and chalenges to their thought.

I am completely.....what's the word.........underwhelmed. I think he ended up be overwhelmed by all the questions. It ended up being too time consuming for him to pursue.

He seemed to show up first in support of kurious_kathy, joining 2 days after her. But he did try for a time to support his own appreciation of the spiritual realities with ideas and links. It probably seemed like a losing battle to him. kurious_kathy has outlasted him, but there was never any danger that she would try to present intellectually sound arguments... Not when she believes a 'sound' argument is the song, "Jesus loves me, this I know."

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Beerina
Personally, I like the one where they mention the Titans of Olde or whatever, who came down and mated with mortal women; their sons became ye olde Men of Reknown. ... I just ran across something else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel) relating to this topic. Azazel is an enigmatic name from the Hebrew scriptures, possibly referring to a person, angel or fallen angel, or place. The word's first appearances are in Leviticus 16, when in the ritual for Yom Kippur the scapegoat is to be taken to Azazel and cast into the wilderness, but the text is unclear as to the actual identity of Azazel.

According to the apocryphal Book of Enoch, Azazel was a leader of the grigori (also known as "watchers"), a group of fallen angels who mated with mortal women, giving rise to a race of giants known as the Nephilim. Azazel is particularly noteworthy among the grigori because it was he who taught men how to make weapons of war as well as teaching women how to make and wear cosmetics. Eventually, Azazel's teachings created such iniquity that God decided to destroy all life on Earth with a great flood, sparing only Noah, Noah's family, and seven pairs of each species of "clean" animals, and one pair of each "unclean" species, all of whom escaped destruction by living for forty days and forty nights on an ark that God instructed Noah to build.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Diogenes
If we were discounting ' silly ', there wouldn't be much point in going over the contradictions.


" God works in mysterious ways. "

Translation


" God can do all the silly stuff he wants. "

So you are suggesting Resolved: Noah was a descendent of these Titans/Angels/Whatever.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by timokay
The flood story always interested me.

Firstly, I assumed that God had predetermined everything, knows every atom and every thought of every being, from before the time of man... yada yada....

And yet often he is wrathful, angry, etc...

How are you angry if you are pulling the strings on everything? If it is all "Your Plan", then how do you get teed off concerning any aspect of it?

It reminds one of a child who builds something with an Erector Set, finds it doesn't work, and gets mad and punches it, doesn't it?

Except it's worse since God knew exactly what his construct would do, and the buffoon still gets mad at what it does, anyway.



Ok, back to the flood. If the purpose of the flood was to kill off every sinner (mind you, you knew this was gonna happen, predestiny and all that), so you come up with basically what comes down to drowning the cat in order to remove sin from the world.

Well, it didn't work.

No, it didn't, did it? Although one might point out that God never said the world wouldn't descend into decadence and sin again -- only that destroying it was a terrible thing to do, so he'd never do it again.

Although why this doesn't cast doubt on God being good and perfect in his decision making, I don't know...

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Atlas
Googling found no quick direct relationship but the incubus was certainly a supernatural creature. ...or succubus (female) that descended on a sleeper, paralyzing and suffocating them, and had sexual relations with the sleeper

Damn, if only that were true. Supernatural skanks whose inclination and special superpower is to force you to have hot sex with them against your will...

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Beerina
It reminds one of a child who builds something with an Erector Set, finds it doesn't work, and gets mad and punches it, doesn't it?If the Erector Set in question has free will, then perhaps. Otherwise, not really.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If the Erector Set in question has free will, then perhaps. Otherwise, not really. You left out:

" The child gives the Erector Set free will, but gets mad when the Erector Set exercises it .. " i.e. " You have a choice to love me, but if you don't, I'm going to kick the crap out of you.. "


Not much of a choice, huh ?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Diogenes
" The child gives the Erector Set free will, but gets mad when the Erector Set exercises it .. " "The law gave me the right to bear arms, but gets mad when I use it..." Hypocrisy, I tell you.

Seriously, when was the last time you got mad at someone for something that didn't involve an exercise of their free will?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
"The law gave me the right to bear arms, but gets mad when I use it..." Hypocrisy, I tell you.

Seriously, when was the last time you got mad at someone for something that didn't involve an exercise of their free will? Can't say for sure, but I can say it didn't involve their refusal to worship me.. :)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If the Erector Set in question has free will, then perhaps. Otherwise, not really.

So tell me, counselor, what is the basis for your implication that God gave us free will?

How do you distinguish true free will from apparent free will?

[timokay]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
So tell me, counselor, what is the basis for your implication that God gave us free will?

How do you distinguish true free will from apparent free will?

If I make a being that is "perfect", that is, it is without sin, and yet still sins....then it is not perfect, free will or no.

God goofed.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
So tell me, counselor, what is the basis for your implication that God gave us free will?I didn't mean to imply that "God" actually gave us "free will", simply that something like that happened in the story of which timokay, Beerina et al. were trying to make sense.
Originally posted by pgwenthold
How do you distinguish true free will from apparent free will? I don't necessarily distinguish them, but does an Erector Set have either one? And I think that the more persuasive interpretation of the Bible is that it is set in a universe where human beings have genuine rather than merely apparent free will. I offer no opinion as to whether the same conditions obtain in real life as in the book.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I don't necessarily distinguish them, but does an Erector Set have either one?


If humans only have the appearance of free will, then they are no different from an erector set, regardless of whether they think they are, and regardless of what the erector set thinks.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I didn't mean to imply that "God" actually gave us "free will", simply that something like that happened in the story of which timokay, Beerina et al. were trying to make sense.


BTW, where does it actually say in the bible that humans have free will?

I know that God has certainly controlled actions (hardening Pharoah's heart) and some would argue that the claim that God knows everything that is going to happen is inconsistent with free will in the first place.

Is there somewhere in the bible that actually claims "we have free will," or has that been added to the story to rationalize the problem of evil?

[timokay]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
BTW, where does it actually say in the bible that humans have free will?

I know that God has certainly controlled actions (hardening Pharoah's heart) and some would argue that the claim that God knows everything that is going to happen is inconsistent with free will in the first place.

Is there somewhere in the bible that actually claims "we have free will," or has that been added to the story to rationalize the problem of evil?

Whether or not God "controls" us or not, he certainly knows what is in our "hearts" (if you follow along that line), and if there was sin in the heart of Adam and Eve, or the capacity for it, then he put it there, and did not make perfection.

If it is all part of a plan, then God needs to take a couple of management classes. Unless Tony Robbins IS God. He sure has the jawline.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
If humans only have the appearance of free will, then they are no different from an erector set, regardless of whether they think they are, and regardless of what the erector set thinks. True enough, but tangential to my earlier comment. Since Erector Sets lack even the appearance of free will, it strikes me as curious to hold, as Beerina did, that the account of human activity offered in the Bible is especially reminiscent of an Erector Set. Especially given that, arguably, no human mind has the subjective perception (whether or not actually correct) of lacking free will, it seems counterintuitive that a human being would read the Bible and naturally be put in mind of an Erector Set.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
True enough, but tangential to my earlier comment. Since Erector Sets lack even the appearance of free will, it strikes me as curious to hold, as Beerina did, that the account of human activity offered in the Bible is especially reminiscent of an Erector Set. Especially given that, arguably, no human mind has the subjective perception (whether or not actually correct) of lacking free will, it seems counterintuitive that a human being would read the Bible and naturally be put in mind of an Erector Set. I think you lost the point Of Beerina's post, which compared God creating the Earth, to a brat playing with an Erector Set; then you threw in the ' free will thing ', as it applied to an Erector Set, which is like saying that dirt has free will.. We made the mistake of playing along, and not pointing this out earlier...


What we need to do, is give the Army Men, who inhabit the Erector Set world free will, then try this again.