The historical Jesus

I'll have to catch this on the podcast. I know many people have tried to cast doubt on the whole story (and it is undeniably true that there is not a shred of historical evidence for *any* of it, outside the gospels themselves - and they are pretty hopeless), but one difficulty they face is that messianic claims, triumphal entries and all, were not entirely unheard of at the time, and the Jesus yarn fits the eschatological expectations - at least the Palm Sunday element. Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that the core events right up to the empty tomb can be pretty much accepted (for the sake of argument). What *is* clear is that the early Christians had a fair degree of disagreement as to *why* the tomb was empty, hence the divergent, contradictory and frankly silly resurrection accounts that got concocted in the following decades, and the shouting down of any dissent. It is a very instructive exercise to read the 4 accounts (MML&J) in parallel in a good cross-referenced translation (I like the RSV, but even the KJV is pretty clear).

But we are still left with the core problem - the only sources of the last week of Jesus's life are the gospels of "Mark" and "John", plus a little bit of embellishment and tweaking here and there from "Matthew" and "Luke". Reconstructing actual history from this mess is somewhat difficult, and certainly does not support an actual "resurrection".

-H

Helio me old china

we have been down this road a few times.

;-)

Mainstream historical reference works accept the main factual outline of the life of Christ without question, taking a neutral stance on the supernatural aspects.

In all discussions I have seen on the matter it seems that the following point made by CS Lewis is still as valid today as ever it was.

And that point is that by the objective standards of professional historians the evidence in the gospels and from historians of the time made the case for Christ very much stronger than that for many other historical figures whose authenticity is NEVER challenged.

At this point it is probably worth reminding outselves that you are an agressive athiest (and that I am a Christian).

Also, the suggestion that the gospels were written to MAKE Christ the long awaited Messiah, always seem to miss one glaring possibility; ie that he actually was the Messiah that was promised in OT prophecy.

https://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml

The number of prophecies he fulfilled simply on the basis of the generall accepted facts of his life are impressive.

Witnesses to a murder or even different newspapers versions of the same event always contrast and may appear to conflict. A perfect harmony would evoke suspicion of a cover up of a crime or pravda-like media manipulation.

The fact is athiests would object to any account of the life of Christ and there is no pleasing an athiest in this regard.

Finally could you please explain why in your opinion the gospels are "pretty hopeless" evidence for the life of Christ; mainstream historical reference works seem to completely disagree with you.

sincerely
OT

Heli-oh

Here's what I'm really glad about; regardless of anything else you appear, to accept the existence of a person called Jesus, good, that gives us something to work with.

Maybe though you'd consider having a quiet word with Brian, I've been debating the parallels (no, sorry, the alleged parallels) of the Jesus story with various pagan myths on another thread, maybe you like to have a wee deco at what we're up to there, but here's the thing he's not sure Jesus existed at all, never mind the miracles and all the rest.

However on the particular point of the resurrection, you do keep going on about wacky middle easterns with a messiah wish and other cooky things like that as you also keep on suggesting that people compare the different gospels side by side, read them horizontally, not vertically, that's the way some put it, isn't it? Now what in the name of the world makes you think that the Christians on here haven't already done that?

I mean, what exactly are the irreconcilable, contradictory differences which appear in the gospels? And look, to save us all a bundle of writing, name the big one or ones, the most persuasive one/s first. You know the faith breakers, let me have it, blast away!!

:-)

Paul makes no mention of an empty tomb, so it seems that the very early Christians didn’t believe it.

The internet is replete with garbage by American Christians reinforcing one another’s delusions about the so-called resurrection of Jesus. Here's an example of this bilge:

"Mohammed's tomb - occupied. Buddha's tomb - occupied. Confucius' tomb - occupied. Jesus's tomb - EMPTY.
Therefore only Jesus rose from the dead!!”

Well, here's another syllogism. Let us assume for the sake of argument that a man called Jesus Christ existed.

Dead men do not rise from the dead;
Jesus Christ was a man;
Therefore Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
QED.

Oh go on, for goodness sake would some of those who call 'contradiction' actually deal with the supposed contradictions.

Put the four gospels side by side and list the substantial irreconcilable contradictions.

It's not my idea, it's Helio's idea.

So, faith breaker please.

If you think it's bilge, and, right enough, the bit about the tombs in Brian's post is daft, then respond to the bilge with your actual arguments.

Sorry, almost forgot.

Helio, if the 4 gospel accounts were exactly the same, word for word, would that actually make a difference to you?

Just wondering.

Brian

I am not sure why you feel that Paul makes no mention of the resurrection (ie empty tommb);-



Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

1 Corinthians 15:13
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.


Romans 1:4
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:


Romans 6:5
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:


Philippians 3:10
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;



OT

I want to commend Nick Page on his defence of the hisotiricity of the gospels
and in particular the events of Easter.
Nick was well interogated by The devil's
advocate .
In defence of the narratives I would add that the early Christians were
convinced by what they heard and read of Jesus;
but primarily by their experience of him
in resurrection.
Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1 v 16
'we have not followed cleverly invented
stories , we were eye witnesses of his
majesty'.

Boys, it is not a question of whether some ridiculous ad hoc fairy tale can be dreamt up to reconcile these accounts. They clearly say different things (e.g. MM&J: "Go to Galilee!"; L: "Don't go to Galilee!"). We know that at the time the author of GMatthew was writing/compiling that the commonly accepted notion was that some followers of Jesus took his body, and that would accord perfectly well with the story in Mark of a young man at the tomb, telliing the disciples to go to Galilee (for the formal funeral). But that is beside the point.

We know that the gospel writers embellished their stories for effect; we know that Matt & Luke used (and abused) Mark. We know that these gospels are not any part of the "Word of God" - they are *purely* human creations, with all the flaws that we expect in such human creations (particularly such slapdash jobs as they are; mainstream historians certainly do NOT treat them "as gospel", any more than they do so for Homer!).

It's not rocket science. When it comes to the resurrection (indeed, the entire life of Jesus) all we have are wee stories. Humans tell wee stories - it is what we do. The real historical events, if any, behind the yarns in the gospels are probably lost forever. Either way, poor old Jesus remains as dead as Hector - assuming *either* existed.

Helio

I take it you mean the, "stay in the city until you are clothed in power form on high", bit, Luke 24:49?

Is that it, is that the biggy?

Is that the faith breaker?

BTW the rest of post nine, from the end of the brackets in paragraph one makes no reference to the actual gospel accounts, you know the ones riddled with contradiction, it's just self affirmation of your position.

So go on, list them all, all the 'contradictions', with cross references, and we'll take them one by one. It's your idea after all.

And here, my question in post 6 needs an answer.

Regards, Peter :-)

Peter, it's been done before - just read 'em. Someone got some things wrong. Are we at least agreed on that?

-H

Oh, and point 6 is a non-point. It is not that they provide "different perspectives" - they contradict each other on important facts.

I thought that guy Nick Page was refreshingly honest about the textual problems facing the Gospels. Perhaps he hasn't fully embraced the implications of the answers he gave. It's hard to hold those answers and remain an evangelical, as he appears to be.

Hi Gus,
I agree; I've just listened to the podcast. The problem for a lot of Christians is that although there are some people who think Jesus never existed, this is still a rather marginal position, as admitted even by William Lane Craig (bless his cotton socks). Indeed, I am quite happy that the central core of the gospels is relatively "historical", so I don't see a *lot* of disagreement between, say, me and Nick Page.
I think he loses it a bit in explaining why this should be - a charming little notion of the early church leaders trying honestly to recover what scraps of history they could by invoking these "eyewitnesses" (not one of the gospels was written by an eyewitness). The more likely reason is a tad more prosaic - different Christian communities had their own private gospels (Luke lets us know this for certain), and they had accumulated certain differences. When they were gathered together as a corpus, those differences were not able to be ironed out, and instead remained semi-fossilised in the records that we have. Only much much later did the pleasant fiction that they were "scripture" evolve, but even that didn't stop fake stories like the woman-caught-in-adultery from being invented and inserted.

So there is certainly (I would suggest) history *there*, but they need to be taken with a large pinch of salt, and I think Nick Page seems to realise this. God's word they ain't.

-H

Helio

Sorry, not good enough, not anywhere near good enough!! :-)

I have read the alleged discrepancies, I have put the gospels together, I know what they say, you are the one making the objection and as everyone on here says, put them in your own words.

Post 6 is relevant, simply because you keep banging on about the accounts not being believable and loosing your faith and studying them an' all. So I'm saying if they were, what then, surely you can hypothetical!

I do agree there were differences, but they are not anywhere near contradictions never mind faith breakers.


Augustine

I thought Nick Page was pretty good too, have you read any of his books?

Some of the discussion wasn't actually about the resurrection but about the theological debate regarding the intentions of the writers and Jesus' self knowledge. This is a different issue and all you have to do is go and read some NT Wright to get a flavour of these ideas.

And what means he can't be an evangelical? You've lost me here! Maybe you are thinking that biblical inerrancy must mean that god 'dictated' the words using the writers as mere type writers, I don't view it that way and I'm an evangelical. (of sorts!)

Maybe this is what H means by "god's words they ain’t".

Luv ya H :-)

Peter, I love you too. So we are agreed that the bible contains mistakes? A small point, but an important one.

Differences.

Your own words please!

Hello petermorrow, Helio,

"So go on, list them all, all the 'contradictions', with cross references, and we'll take them one by one."

Taking them all one by one would take quite a while...

"Peter, it's been done before - just read 'em."

.....as Helio is correct that it has been done. See e.g. the Skeptics Annotated Bible:

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The categories of 'Absurdity', 'Contradictions', 'Prophecies and mispredictions' and 'Science and history' contain many, many entries. How many life times would you be willing to spend on going over each one individually?

Peter

brianmcclinton

Orthodox-tradition[7] has already listed several references to a resurrected Jesus from Paul's writing. To complement these, may I suggest the book of Acts, chapters nine and thirteen. Luke, the acknowledged author of Acts, documents Saul's (Paul's) conversion. Chapter nine is perhaps particularly relevant, given that Paul is said to have interacted directly with Jesus. Luke and Paul's credibility entirely depend on Jesus' resurrection, as highlighted in this chapter. One cannot help but wonder what, apart from a personal encounter with Jesus, might have persuaded Paul to perform such a sudden u-turn which if it is to be believed, caught everyone including the Disciples totally by surprise.

https://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Acts+9
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209&version=9

Darren

Hi Peter,

Good to talk again.

We're specifically speaking of the resurrection here, and Helio does mention it a fair bit with regard to his own atheism and I've seen the skeptics bible thingy before and yes it would take time to go through it all.

So let's stick with the subject of this thread, and give people the opportunity to state in their own words, that's the usual recommendation after all, what the irreconcilable contradictions are.

In the meantime here's a musical interlude, Helio will know the tune:

State the problems
State them one by one
State the problems
On the blog for fun
State the problems
State them one by one
And it will surprise you there are really none!

:-)

OK Peter

Here's a reference from the skeptics annotated bible link you gave, I went for Psalm 1, sorta like just a random selection, first thing popped into my head.

Here's the link

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ps/1.html

Am I supposed to take this seriously?

Now, back to MML&J and the resurrection.

Mark (aka OT, 7):

You say that you are not not sure why I feel that 'Paul makes no mention of the resurrection (ie empty tomb)' and then give several biblical quotes. Believing in a resurrectiion is not the same thing as believing in an empty tomb. What I said was that Paul makes no reference to an empty tomb. Indeed, I would suggest to you that the original Christians did not in fact believe in a physical resurrection (i.e. a resurrection of his corpse). Instead, they probably believed that Jesus was taken up to heaven and given a new body - a more perfect, spiritual body - and then 'the risen Jesus' was seen in visions and dreams, just like the vision which Paul has on the road to Damascus. Visions of gods were a cultural commonplace in those days. So it is likely that the resurrection story told in the Gospels, of a Jesus risen in the flesh, does not represent what the original disciples believed, but was made up later.

Evidence that the original Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection is partly suggested by Paul's Letters, our earliest source of information on any of the details of the original Christian beliefs. You quote several, but Paul never mentions any of the Gospels, so it seems clear that they were not written in his lifetime. This is supported by internal evidence that suggests all the Gospels were written around or after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., well after Paul's last surviving letter, which was written around the year 58.

Yet Paul never mentions Jesus having been resurrected in the flesh and he never mentions empty tombs. In Galatians 1 he tells us that he first met Jesus in a 'revelation' on the road to Damascus, not in the flesh, and the Book of Acts gives several embellished accounts of this event that all clearly reflect not any tradition of a physical encounter, but a startling vision (a light and a voice, nothing more). Then in 1 Corinthians 15 he reports that all the original eye-witnesses - Peter, James, the Twelve Disciples, and hundreds of others - saw Jesus in essentially the same way he did. The only difference, he says, was that they saw it before him. He then goes on to build an elaborate description of how the body that dies is NOT the body that rises, that the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God (verse 50), and how the resurrected body is a new, spiritual body.

All this seems good evidence that Paul did not believe in the resurrection of a corpse, but something fundamentally different.

Brian says:

Dead men do not rise from the dead;
Jesus Christ was a man;
Therefore Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.
QED.

This is indeed a logically valid argument. But the first premise is a matter of debate, so it can't be merely assumed to be true.

Try this one:

Dead men do not rise from the dead unless they both divine and human;
Jesus was divine and human and also died;
Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.
QED.

It just shows you: logic only helps us if we agree that the premises are acceptable.

Peter, *mistakes*, like Matthew's double donkey? You presumably agree that this is a mistake?

petermorrow, in Acts 9.7 Luke tells the story of the conversion of Saul.The men with him stood speechless "hearing a voice" but seeing no man" Then in ch. 22 he quotes Paul,"and they that were with me saw indeed the light , and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me"
Did they hear the voice or not? Inerrancy or contradiction?

My goodness the objections are rolling in now!

None of them about the resurrection. Mmmm.

Strange that after all this time of you guys moaning about the contradictions in the resurrection accounts you're loath to quote them now, even when William's been kind enough to give you a little old thread all of your own.


Helio

'Double Donkey'. Sounds like a new alcopop! Did you like my little ditty BTW?

So you think Matthew thought Jesus rode two donkeys, like in the circus? Gee! (should that be gee gee?) that would have been quite a sight. Would that be two donkeys side by side like the Westerns, or one donkey on top of the other like the cartoons?

Could it be possible he was thinking of Genesis 49 as well as Zechariah? Matthew had a particular interest in Jewish believers keen to comment on the Kingdom and to say yep, this Jesus is our Messiah. Is it possible that an adult donkey was with a younger one? Is it possible that Jesus was sitting on 'them' thar cloaks, not 'them' thar donkeys?

Have you a particular theological view on how the writers in the NT quoted the OT, it's quite an interesting topic.

Hardly a faith breaker.

Mistake Helio, or like a lot of things for us Gentiles reading the bible, lack of cultural knowledge?


Nobledeebee

Try this:

Acts 22:9 

New International Version

" 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

American Standard Version

9"And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.

New Living translation

9 The people with me saw the light but didn't understand the voice speaking to me.

petermorrow, try this.Both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 use the Greek word akouo, to hear (root of English word acoustic). There is a different word meaning to understand.The translators have deliberately chosen the more poetic but less accurate translation in order to avoid a contradiction, and they are not consistent in their translations but there is nothing,grammatical,contextual, or explicit to warrant translating the word here as anything other than hearing a voice. So why use the word understand?

I have said before on this blog that what seems likely in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection is embellishments through time, like any 'tall' story. Let's take them in the likely order. Notice how each story adds to the earlier one.

Mark: Empty tomb, young man

The ending, after verse 16:8, does not actually exist in the earliest versions that survive. It was added some time late in the 2nd century or even later. Before that, Mark ended at verse 16:8. But that means his Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man in a long white garment (v5) that Jesus would be seen in Galilee. Nothing is said of how he would be seen. An ending was added that quickly pinned some physical appearances of Jesus onto the story, and for good measure put in the mouth of Christ violent condemnations of those who didn't believe it (v16-18). The original story supports the notion of a spiritual rather than a physical event. The empty tomb for Mark was possibly meant to be a symbol, not a historical reality, but even if he was repeating what was told to him as true, it was not unusual in the ancient world for the bodies of heroes who became gods to vanish from this world: being deified entailed being taken up into heaven, as happened to men as diverse as Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana, and Mark's story of an empty tomb would simply represent that expectation.

Matthew: earthquakes, angels, feet holding

Here we have 'a great earthquake' (affecting the whole of Palestine?), and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb, an angel blazing like lightning descended from the sky and paralysed two guards that happened to be there. It rolled away the stone single-handedly before several witnesses, and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Obviously we are seeing a clear case of legendary embellishment of the otherwise simple story in Mark. Then a report is given (similar to what was later added to Mark), where, contrary to the angel's announcement, Jesus immediately meets the women that attended to his grave and repeats what the angel said. Matthew is careful to add a hint that this was a physical Jesus, having the women grovel and grab his feet as he speaks.

Luke: two men in dazzling white, fish-eating Jesus in Jerusalem

Suddenly, what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic reenactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself. As happened in Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, which became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more 'authentic', Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating fish and honeycomb. Peter (Morrow, not the apostle) thinks this is of great significance. He is quite wrong. And though both Mark and Matthew say that the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the important city of Jerusalem.

John: Two angels, wound-touching by a doubter

Now the legend has grown full bloom, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, we have two angels at the empty tomb. And outdoing Luke in style, John has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the Disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrations of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof and makes up up a lot of details.

Zealous people often add details and colour to a story they've been told without even thinking about it and, as the story passed to one another, more detail and elaboration was added, strengthening the notion of a physical resurrection in popular belief.

A repeat from elsewhere

1) The Gospels are full of allusions to Jesus' divinity, again the work of Bauckham, Wright, Ben Witherington, Larry Hutardo being relevent. Jesus assumes the authority of I AM when he forgives sins, when he admits individuals into the Kingdom on HIS authority, when he walks on water, when he calms storms (Psalm 77v19, Job 9v8, Psalm 107 v 23-30). Even if you do not believe that these miracles occurred (and I have to confess that many conservative scholars are doubtful) you still have to explain how, in a short period of time, stories were circulating about Jesus comparing him directly to I AM. There are other indirect affirmations that I can give (identifying himself with Divine Wisdom, comparing himself to the Shepherd who seeks and saves those who were lost (Ezekiel 34 v 16)) and also Jesus use of the title "Son of Man".
The usual critical response to this evidence is that it is unlikely that a 1st century Jewish Rabbi would make such claims. Yet Rabbi Akiva was prepared to make high claims for Bar Kochba. It also fails to explain why 1st century Jews (these stories only make sense in a Jewish, not Hellenistic, context) would begin to compare their Messiah to I AM.
2) Oddly enough, nearly every critical scholar accepts the post-Easter appearances to the early Christians, precisely because they don't exactly cohere, and seem a little strange. This shows that there was little editing by the early Church - no cover-up.Critical scholars believe *the disciples believed that they had* had experiences that led to their belief. There is no other plausible explanation for the rise of the church, given the shameful manner of Jesus' death. This of course does not mean that critical scholars are all agreed that the experiences were veridical. Psychological explanations are often given.
3) An empty tomb should have killed off all faith in Jesus. The purpose of the tomb was to preserve the bones, so that they could be honoured by friends and family, and await the Resurrection. Their theft would have been the final desecration.
4) Furthermore, Jews were not expecting a Resurrection until the day of I AM ie. the end of time. Now, it is perfectly conceivable that the disciples may have expected the Messiah to visit them after his death as an "angel" - rather in the same way that they believed that Elijah and Moses could be seen with Jesus at the Transfiguration. It would not have been unusual for them to see visions of Jesus vindicated by I AM, awaiting the resurrection on the final day. But no one was expecting a resurrection in the middle of history. It is preposterous to expect the disciples to leap from the evidence of an empty tomb to the conclusion that Jesus was not only alive, but Resurrected (ie. never to die again) This was literally believing that a piece of the future was walking around in the Present
5) Most skeptical scholars leave the Resurrection stories unexplained.
6) The Jewish god and the Jewish Resurrection are disanalogous in nearly every respect to the pagan gods and the cycle of death and rebirth.
7) Can a prima facie case be made for the reliability of much of the synoptic gospels? Rabbinic communities had reliable techniques for the accurat transmission of tradition. Flexibility was allowed in the retelling of a narrative or teaching. (This explains many of the variations between the gospels.) However the community put checks on just how much flexibility would be allowed. Gerhardson compares the Gospels to reliable Rabbinic traditions passed down through an Oral Culture - his work has been given weighty support by Jacob Neusner. (Look him up on Wiki). Dunn uses sociological research which again shows that oral transmission is a mix of stable themes and fluidity. When the transmission is of importance to the communities identity, great care is taken in transmission. This can be seen in the case of the Early Church as it preserved traditions traditions that (a)emabarrass the disciples or Jesus (eg. rejection by his family and Matthew 10v23), (b)the pre Easter themes (like questions about the Temple Tax, or the lack of a post easter perspective in the Lord's Prayer) ,(c) titles like Son of Man that the Early Church did not use, (d)lack of teaching on the Gentile mission, (e)lack of teaching on circumcision, etc etc etc. The evidence points towards a community that wanted to preserve knowledge of it's founder. Dunn and Gerhardson have provided evidence that they were capable of doing so. (A lengthy reply to this argument can be found in Crossan's "Birth of Christianity".) Bauckham produces evidence from Papias that eyewitnesses, or those close to eyewitnesses, may have had a formal role in controlling the oral traditions.There is evidence, (from Rabbinic tradition and contemporary paralells) that in the First Century, communities could preserve oral tradition to a high degree of accuracy. The synagogues and the Greek lecture houses that Christianity spread through provide the appropriate environment. (Teachings of Philosophers were memorised and we know from Josephus that the Pharisees had a similar practice.) The appointment of elders meant that the tradition could be controlled. This evidence is summarised by Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".
In 1 Cor 15 v3, 1 Cor 1Cor 11v23 Paul uses the technical term for receiving and passing on oral tradition (compare his account in 1 Cor 11 to Luke's).So there is evidence in the New Testament that oral traditions were passed on. Papias gives us external evidence of control of the traditions. the Gospel traditions reflect a Galilean pre-Easter context, not a post Easter gentile context. It is doubtful that residents of Hierapolis or Rome new much about the economics and social customs of Galilee.memorisation aimed to summarise teaching and give the gist of events. Obviously teaching and narratives can be abbreviated in different ways, and told differently to make different points in different contexts, whilst remaining faithful to the original. It is the intent and content of Jesus'words and actions that I believe are faithfully in the Gospels - not every detail.
8) As for competing Early Christianities, they all shared a High Christology. In fact Paul's letters presuppose that this is agreed by all. The Thessalonians and Corinthians were expecting the return of Christ. The Judaisers at least accepted him as Messiah. The Pauline letters refer to Jesus as creator, and the one to whom every knee will bow, and these are pre-Pauline hymns. Jews predicated these of I AM and I AM only. Why did the Early Church accept such a blasphemous belief so early?


That's just a repeat of some of the historical *evidence* I've given for the gospels and the resurrection.

GV

And it's not the details (how many angels) but the core I want to defend.
Jesus had messianic self-consciousness, acted in a way that caused his immediate followers to put him on an equal footing with YHWH, and that his tomb was empty after his crucifixion. This was accompanied by sightings of Jesus, that convinced his immediate followers that he not only had risen from the dead but was resurrected.

Contra Brian, a Pharisee could not have conceived of a non-physical resurrection. In Thessalonians (universally accepted as Pauline) Paul describes the general resurrection of the saints in PHYSICAL terms.

GV

Nobledebee (post 27)

Given your lack of references, I am going to have to assume that you are a Greek scholar, that you know the bible thoroughly, can read it in Greek (and possibly Hebrew), can translate it from the original and cross reference it.

Unfortunately I am not such a scholar, as the old joke goes, 'Greek? It's all Hebrew to me', therefore I have to rely on the abilities of others in this regard. However before I post my links, references and understanding of the possibilities, maybe you should outline the breadth of this debate in relation to these accounts; you must be aware of it.


Brian

Well at least you have referred to the differences in the accounts of the resurrection.

I see though you can't help yourself adopting the premise of 'embellishment', 'tall story' and the context of myth. So is there any point in me adopting a different premise, that of a real live resurrection? All that's going to happen here is that you'll say embellishment and I'll say supplementary. But I mean, obviously, if it isn't true, then it isn't true!

I see too that you think I am 'quite wrong', yes, I know you do, and I don't mind you telling others, I'm quite wrong about lots of things, but you have ample opportunity on the plagiarism (I can now spell that word correctly without having to think!) thread to explain exactly how I am wrong and why the significant differences between the Jesus myth and the rest of the Pagan ones don't count. As far as I remember there are still a few things awaiting your response.

Hi petermorrow, I am not a Greek scholar either and I am relying on the work of others but I don't think there is any interpretation involved. Either the word is there or it is not. Unlike the translations which you quote and which depend very much on the stance of those doing the translation.

Gveale, do you ever do any teaching in that school of yours? You seem to spend the whole day contributing monster blogs with copius references to boot. The ESA might be watching you know.

Noble, hi

Part of the trouble with the bible is that it isn't always easy to read or understand, I would never claim that I understand everything nor would I say I get everything right. Unfortunately however we live in a context where some people make too little of it, others, perhaps too much. None of this of course means that the bible cannot be understood, someone on here a while ago, portwyne perhaps, said something like, the most difficult parts of the bible to deal with are the bits which are most straight forward.

In terms of the accounts of Paul's conversion which you highlight, the following is my understanding.

First there are three accounts in Acts regarding this event, Acts 9, Acts 22 which you mentioned and also Acts 26. Interestingly in this third account there is no mention at all of what the others with Paul heard or did not hear.

Second, and remember I'm relying others here, I understand that the word translated 'hear/d' can be written with the genitive or the accusative and this can alter the meaning of the word. Then there is the word translated 'voice' which can also refer to 'sound'.

Third there is the wider biblical context of hearing or not hearing the 'voice' of God, there are various references throughout the old and new testaments.

Hopefully you will at least find these to be fair responses, even if you don't agree.

Remember though, I'm not saying the above understanding cannot be debated or disputed, but what we can say is that there is debate and that this example is not really a faith breaker.

Some pretty stiff claims being made here with apparently very little inclination to stand them up;-

Helio, we are still waiting for you to justify why the gospels are "pretty hopeless" as historical documents. This flies in the face of all mainstream history???!!!

Can you show me a *mainstream* historical reference work which pours the disdain on the gospels as you do Helio? I am not talking about a lone ranger radical heretic, here mainstream refs please.


And Brian. if you "suggest" that the early Christians did not believe in a resurrection, you might like to substantiate this. PLease can you cite your sources?

Now if you are going to cite gnostic writings you will have to explain how Jesus cooked and ate fish after his resurrection and how Thomas put his fingers in the wounds on his hands.

And they you will have to explain why the mainstream church accepted these writings and rejected your gnostic writings.

You will also have to account for John in 1John4 when he writes (Amplified Version);-

1BELOVED, DO not put faith in every spirit, but prove (test) the spirits to discover whether they proceed from God; for many false prophets have gone forth into the world.
2By this you may know (perceive and recognize) the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges and confesses [the fact] that Jesus Christ (the Messiah) [actually] has become man and has come in the flesh is of God [has God for its source];

3And every spirit which does not acknowledge and confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [but would [a]annul, destroy, [b]sever, disunite Him] is not of God [does not proceed from Him]. This [[c]nonconfession] is the [spirit] of the antichrist, [of] which you heard that it was coming, and now it is already in the world.


You are also going to find Peter preaching in the early church quite a pain;-

Acts2
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.



Luke 24:3
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

Luke 24:23
And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.



As for suggestions that the resurrection was not in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, I normally find that all such problems are quickly resolved by looking at the majority or Byzantine manuscripts that were used used by the early church and not gnostic type counterfeits.

Byzantine text as relied on by KJV and NKJV resolve all your problems here Brian. Why choose to trust a so called "earliest" text against the manuscripts which were used by the majority of the church?

Also, why "suggest" that the resurrection was an embellishment???

That sounds awfully like a weak attempt at a jedi mind trick. Werent you a teacher Brian? Lets see some evidence for such a claim please.


Perhaps the funniest thing here is the athiests using contrasting parts of documents which recorded things never done by a man who never existed in order to prove that he never did such things and that he never existed.

It would be interesting to see them justify such techniques to a professional historian or a jury.

Very pertient question from Peter Morrow restated; would the athiests accept the four gospels if they were all word for word identical on the insignificant verses they cite?

I dont see any contradiction of note in the verses quoted. Such issues can all easily be put down to differences in timing, perception and location of the witnesses in relation to the events.

Obviously the athiests want to undermine the whole story and they are majoring on minors. But GV is quite right, the elephant in the room is the fact that there was widespread agreement in the early church that Christ rose from the dead and that this was the centre of their faith.



Anyway, the gospels did circulate widely long before any canon was completed so I dont know what exactly you hold as authentic as texts of the early church. do tell or are you reluctant to put your cards on the table?


Finally, sorry but I have to point out the unversal significance placed on the life of Christ by the world today. The UN dates all its business from the date of his early life;-

https://www.un.org/

Not bad for an ordinary uneducated working class man who died a criminal's death almost 2000 years ago and had absolutely nothing remarkable about him.

So anyway Helio and Brian, please start citing some actual references for your claims if you think they can stand scrutiny.

Can you really be certain that no man ever bodily rose from the grave at any time throughout history? Are you absolutely 100% certain? How?

Wouldnt it be more strictly and intellectually honest to say that you are making an agnostic argument on this matter, as you really cant make a watertight argument in your favour can you?

good debate guys

shalom
OT

My, we are getting tangled up, aren't we? Peter & Graham, we are agreed that the Bible contains some mistakes, yes?

yes we are in a tangle, the gospels have no historical credibility but helio has for the moment lost all citations of such reference works....

;-)

Nobledee

It would appear the authority you are relying on for the "contradiction" in the use of the greek word akouo in post 27 and 32 is quite wrong.

The term means both "understand" and "hear";-

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G191&t=KJV

So would it not be reasonable to read the passages in Acts as saying that the men could hear the voice speaking to Saul but they could not understand it?

This type of situation seems not uncommon in visitations in scripture.

I am also reminded of this passage;-


Mark 4
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.



shalom
OT

Also Brian

Maybe I did not make my point too clearly about your choice of manuscript.

I am minded to put my trust in the NT manuscript that was trusted by the majority of Christians in the early church and which is STILL trusted by Greek speaking churches today.

I think the unbroken confidence by Greek speaking Christians in the Byzantine/Majority text is worth noting and quickly takes us through the fog of the many other incomplete, fringe, or heretical texts available.

Again, this mss is what the KJV and NKJV are based on... this rationale seems to resolve all such mss "variation problems" in my experience.

OT

My reference works are MMLJ&A for the purposes of this discussion. If we really want to move along here, can we just agree that the Bible does contain mistakes?

What's the problem? Do I detect some evasiveness? Graham, Peter - kindly inform our leser-brained colleagues - the Bible contains errors. Yes?

Sorry to harp on at this, but it's important.

Sure Helio

I will agree with you that the bible contains mistakes no problem, oh, you wouldnt mind just listing some first please?

You are rather avoiding the point by citing MMLJ and Acts as your sources.


I am stating the point clearly that the gospels are highly respected by mainstream historians and you appear to be agreeing to their historical validity for the most part.

When I ask for mainstream historians that support your argument you cite primary evidence instead?

You speak of evasiveness Helio, yes I do see some here.

You describe the gospels as "pretty hopeless" historical evidence ie in post one and yet agree in post 14 that thy are "relatively historical!!?"

Which is it and why??? A bit of a tangle.

My we really are in a mess Helio arent we?

Helio

is this the best mistake you can come up with?

the fact that one gospel reports that Jesus rode on a donkey and its colt and that other gospels only mention the one.

Could it be that other gospels did not think it significant to the story to mention that the donkey's colt came along too?

Is that really the gospels discredited???

Surely you can do better than that!!!




As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

My goodness - I do think this is perhaps the first time in my life that I have been criticised for going back to the source evidence, rather than trying to cobble together the opinions of a bunch of derivative punters who might happen to agree or disagree with my stance. Excuse me a moment while I unbutton my collar.

I would invite the assembled multitude to actually READ Mark 11 and the secondary passage Matthew 21 (shouldn't take more than a few minutes folks- blow that dust off your bible!), as well as Luke 19. Assuming Mark is correct, Matthew is wrong. Error.

But it is an interesting error - Matthew drops the ball precisely because he is trying to tie it in to the passage in Zechariah, which he has misunderstood - he thinks the passage is referring to two beasts, whereas it is only referring to one, but poetically re-emphasising itself.

So OT agrees with us too now, which is helpful. The bible contains errors.

With this point established (as virtually all historians agree), we can move on. Shall we?

Helio

ref post 14, where you say that not one of the gospels was written by an eye wtiness...

is this the second attempted jedi mind trick from the athiests here???

;-)

Please can you cite a mainstream historian to supprt such a claim?

Matthew, Mark and John have traditionally been considered eye witnesses and I understand Luke is well respected by secular historians as a reliable historian of the events in his gospel and in Acts.

I know some people have attempted to context these views but I dont believe they have mainstream credibility.

Agains Helio.... any authorities for such claims....or is it just another athiest jedi mind trick?

;-)

OT

Helio

sorry your jedi mind tricks are NOT working.

I said I would quickly agree with you that the bible contains errors AS SOON AS YOU ACUTALLY PROVIDED SOME.

Apart from your own radical opinions, which you dont actually even argue very well, you are not citing any evidence or authorities to support your case.

By all means go back to the evidence - but dont pretend that excuses you from admitting that your opinions are radical nonsense that are not supported by mainstream historians, which was the point you were asked about.

Can you actyally name any of the historians you are talking about?

OT

Helio

So this is what it boils down to.

The authority of the gospels will stand or fall on whether or not Jesus rode on a single donkey or whether it was accompanied by its colt.

And the fact that some gospels mention one and others mention both totally discredits any possibility that the gospels were divinely inspired???

All..rrrrright.

And that is the most significant "error" that you can find in the gospels?

My I really have had my eyes opened.

OT

Helio

Nope, not in a tangle.

Nope, not being evasive either.

Actually what I have been is drinking tea and eating ginger cake at me mum's. The ginger cake was good, came with butter (naughty naughty) and roasted almonds on top. Here, tell me this do you say a-monds or all-monds. Wouldn't want an 'l' of a copyist error now would we?

Right now, where were we, oh yes, it's Holy Week (but only for the superstitious) so we must be discussing the resurrection, and ehem, donkeys. That's another thing, a few years back we took the kids to Scotland and when we were there we noticed this competition run by Ribena (can I say Ribena on the BBC?) and you know what the prize was, yes, that's right, a donkey, the competition was called 'Win a Donkey', no kidding, now, who would want to win a donkey, not Matthew (obviously), he already had two donkeys, I mean what would he do with a third, who ever heard of anyone having a trinity of donkeys?

Oh yes, almost forgot, the resurrection, have we got to that bit yet, you know the list of contradictions, differences, discrepancies, changes, lies, damned lies and statistics, statistics? is that donkeys again?

Speaking of farm animals did you know that God owns all the cows in the world, that'll come a a shock to a few mid-Ulster farmers, them getting EU payments and all that and God owning the whole lot.

Nuts! just checked the bible, seems God doesn't own all the cattle, only the ones on a thousand hills. Now does anyone know which thousand hills. There's a hill near me, might it be included? He does however own, actually I mean he knows all the birds in the air, yep that's definitely in the bible so it must be true. Knows all the birds, imagine that!

Anyway resurrection. Are we there yet? Nope, don't think so, we're discussing mistakes now. Helio you seem to need us to agree with you, I wonder why that is, I'm wondering what's so important about it. Why do you desperately seem to need this concession, I mean where are you going to go with it? Has it something to do with the theology of inspiration? Something to do with the bible not being reliable, like none of it, or just the God bit. Would that be it, the whole bible is reliable except the bits which mention God, especially the bits which seem the indicate God is in some way real, and has 2 donkeys, they're the made up bits with all the errors, yea, that must be it.

Why's it so important to you H? I mean, is it a discussion on the original autographs you're after, or perhaps it is the extent and number of manuscripts we have, or the reliability of the manuscripts, or the time period during which they were written, is it Mark's source material you want to discuss, Q perhaps (I don't mean James Bond), copyist errors, higher criticism or lower criticism, perhaps you wish to discuss the Tubingen School, or do you just want me to say 'mistakes'?

Night night.

A thousand hills? Who would have thought that the "Divine Economy" extended to ensuring that the all those cows qualified for the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Scheme?

(I come from a farming background).

It's not Easter yet. Why the flap, boys? Simple question: we are agreed that the bible contains errors, yes?

Nope, not in a flap.

Just an aside - but, Helio, whatever about the errors (and I certainly acknowledge them) do you think the Bible contains truth?

Portwyne

An aside, surely not.


Helio, if I were you I'd take care with that question.

Maybe Portwyne just means, is there a place called Jerusalem, or maybe he means something like the fullness of the deity living in Christ.

I wouldn't know though, I'm not Portwyne.

Ok Helio

Ill play your silly game for a bit.

I dont think the one donkey or the one donkey with its foal contrast undermines the veracity of the gospels.

On the contrary this actually supports the idea that they are eye witness testimony (aside from Luke who was an historian gathering eye witness testimony).

This point is often made here and the athiests seem determined to ignore it, they seem afraid to grapple with it;-

Eye witness testimonies that agree in every detail raise suspicions from people who deal professionally with them eg police officers and the media.

You have refused to acknowledge the question - would your confidence in the 4 gospels be strengthened if they agreed 100% in all details of real events?

You know of course that if this was the case you would be saying "The gospels cannot possible be eye witness testimony because everyone knows that eye witness testimony NEVER agrees in all details".

So while we are all enjoying the joke, it is time to return to the grown up discssion.

The one donkey or one donkey and a foal contrast strengthens the case for the gospels, it does not undermine it.

You also ignore the mistake in your own arguments above;- if the gospels are "pretty hopeless" historical evidence how and why do you explicitly say you accept the main historical facts of Christ's life.

Seems a bit of a tangle.


It would seem that you know in your heart they are darned good evidence, because historians place great trust in them, but you just cant bring yourself to say these words with your own lips!

Helio

INERRANCY

As you've mentioned even a very strict fundamentalist can rescue the appearance of errors with ad hoc hypotheses.

But "inerrancy" is a theological commitment. I don't see why it would be of interest to anyone outside the Church. And the meaning of "inerrancy" is a little vague. There are so many qualifiers. Scribal errors are permitted. The genre must be identified correctly. The author's intention must be identified correctly.

For example, take the resurrection of the dead saints in Matthew. Would Matthew's intended audience have taken that literally, or apocalyptically? Would they have recognised the "doubling up" of donkeys etc. in Matthew as a literary device? Or take the large numbers in the Old Testament. They are wildly inaccurate by modern standards. But ancient readers knew to take 120 000 Assyrians as meaning "WOW! there were loads!" They didn't expect or want an accurate tally.

Which leaves you wondering just what it would take to show that the Scriptures aren't inerrant. I think inerrancy is meant to defend the claim that the bible is God speaking authoritatively and truthfully.
But it isn't essential to believe in inerrancy (however defined) to accept, say, the Apostle's Creed, or even the UCCF doctrinal statement -
https://www.uccf.org.uk/about-us/doctrinal-basis.htm
- and they're a pretty conseravtive bunch.


In any case, even the signatories of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy would agree that the Bible contains errors - copyist's errors. So why the focus on a minor issue? Would a few factual errors in the originals prevent you from believing the gospel? I wouldn't lose any sleep.


HISTORY and THE GOSPEL

I've presented arguments for the historical accuracy of the Gospels, and historicsl support for the Resurrection above. However that hardly grounds my belief in the Gospel.
My grounds would be experiential, pragmatic,personal and existential. They all blend into each other.

Experiential

It seems as obvious to me that I needed to be forgiven, have been forgiven, and that I am in communion with God through His Son, as it is obvious that cruelty is wrong, mutilation is horrible and that beauty is valuable.
The experience is analogous to moral experience, and it is as deep. It certainly coheres with my life experience.
Now -of course- that doesn't mean it's true. But, as Luther put it, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe, and unless someone can provide a defeater for my belief, I'm fully within my right sto hold on to it.

I can also speak to experiences of "Anfechtung" (terror of the infinite compared to my finitude, terror of goodness compared to my lack of goodness. It sounds a bit poncey, but thats the best way to describe the experience. I hpoe you get the point.
I can describe the relief the Gospel brought. And I speak to experiences of Joy when considering the Gospel. (this allsounds very impersonal, but I don't want to sound like I'm testifying).
Now psychological explanations can be offered for my religious experiences, but they can also be offered for my moral and aesthetic experiences. Other belivers (Buddhists etc) have had different experiences. But a Marxist may have had a different set of moral experiences. I won't be giving up my belief in goodness or beauty anytime soon.

Pragmatic
If I'm going to be moral, I need to believe that I'll be successful. That is, that I'll make the world a better place. That I am contributing to a greater good.
But evil seems to outweigh good - isn't that the inevitable point of the problem of evil? That the earth would be better off lifeless?
On Good Friday it seemed that God had abandoned Jesus.The Resurrection reassures me that, appearances to the contrary, there is Hope (capitalised).
This gives me the motivation to pursue morality.
Good Friday also confirms my belief that evil is not just an absurdity. It is real, and requires a great cost to deal with.
Finally, why should I be good if there is a huge gap between what I know I should be and what I am? And if there is no prospect of closing that gap? I'm pursuing what cannot be achieved. Again Good Friday closes that gap. There is divine assistance in the form of Atonement.
So I can believe for pragmatic reasons. I haven't lost anything if I'm wrong (as we're all headed to the void in that case.) I've gained an eternal truth if I'm right. And that's got to be a valuable state of affairs, along with the other eternal goods. And in the present I gain hope, and the motivation to pursue the good. Now that's a pretty good bet. So long as I have a reasonable chance of getting it right (nothing too close to zero on the evidence), I'll bet my life on that.

Again that's a bit more impersonal and calculating than the way it's all worked out. But I'll sound mooshy and sentimental if I start giving a spiritual autobiography.

Existential
Quoting from CS Lewis, speaking of our experiences of beauty and romance.
"And part of the bitterness which mixes with the sweetnessof that message is due to the fact that it so seldom seems to be a message intended for us but rather something we have overheard. By bitterness I mean pain, not resentment. We should hardly dare to ask that any notice be taken of ourselves. **But we pine.** The sense that in this universe we
are treated as strangers, the longing to be acknowledged, to meet with some
response, to bridge some chasm that yawns between us and reality, is part of our inconsolable secret. And surely, from this point of view, the promise of glory, in the sense described, becomes highly relevant to our deep desire. For glory meant good report with God, acceptance by God, response, acknowledgment, and welcome
into the heart of things. The door on
which we have been knocking all our lives will open at last.
Perhaps it seems rather crude to describe glory as the fact of being "noticed" by God. But this is almost the language of the New Testament. St. Paul promises to those
who love God not, as we should expect, that they will know Him, but that they will be known by Him (I Cor. viii. 3)"

The whole experience of God's love (measured in what he sacrificed, not sentimental feelings) makes me feel that and believe that I'm "home". If you want to get a passage that captures the essence Isaiah 43 "Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine."


PERSONAL

I love Jesus. There, I said it. Not as much as I should (measured in sacrifice, and feelings). But I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Like Peter in John 6

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." "

Of course I don't want to worry that my belief isn't knowledge (that I'm believing for the wrong reasons, or that my belief isn't true). So for personal I keep a close eye on the evidence/arguments. I find it reassuring to see that they're in good shape.

GV

Sorry chaps, I'm having a fit of the giggles here! So we have some folks (eg Portwyne and me) who are happy to acknowledge the fact that the bible contains errors (it certainly does, as do pretty much ALL historical texts, after all - nobody thinks Herodotus got everything right, for instance),

whereas

OT and PeterM seem remarkably reluctant to admit this. Why not just admit the obvious fact?

My choice of the Double Donkey issue was essentially to get at the core here, and it is topical because last Sunday was Palm Sunday. We can get to the resurrection later :-).

The DD is an error, but a highly revealing one. No serious scholar argues that the author of Matthew was an "eyewitness" to the Triumphal Entry (nor were the others, but that's another story). He was working off Mark, and applying his own "prophetic" embellishments, and he made a mistake because he didn't understand the Hebrew in Zechariah. Importantly, he inserts the DD into the actual *words* of Jesus.

The fanciful notion that there really *were* two donkeys, and Luke and Mark "didn't think it was important to mention the colt" is a ridiculous ad hoc explanation because Matthew (and Luke) were NOT eyewitnesses, but were directly working off Mark's original text.

So, once again, boys, are we agreed that the Bible contains errors?

Perhaps a little analysis of the Double Donkey is required. Read the following texts, and decide whether they stem from a common literary source, or whether they are the reports of "eyewitnesses".

MARK11:1&ff
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, to Bethphage[a] and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples; 2 and He said to them, “Go into the village opposite you; and as soon as you have entered it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it. 3 And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he will send it here.”
4 So they went their way, and found the[b] colt tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it. 5 But some of those who stood there said to them, “What are you doing, loosing the colt?”
6 And they spoke to them just as Jesus had commanded. So they let them go.


MATT21:1&ff
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage,[a] at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”
4 All[b] this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
5 “ Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘ Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”[c]
6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them.


LUKE 19:28&ff
When He had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 And it came to pass, when He drew near to Bethphage[c] and Bethany, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of His disciples, 30 saying, “Go into the village opposite you, where as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Loose it and bring it here. 31 And if anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing it?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the Lord has need of it.’”
32 So those who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them. 33 But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, “Why are you loosing the colt?”
34 And they said, “The Lord has need of him.”

[Courtesy of BibleGateway.com; New King James Version]

About how many donkeys there may have been?

I see no problem with that.

What's your point though?

Bernard, if we average over all 4 gospels, we get an average of just 1 donkey - Matthew has 2, Mark & Luke each have 1; John doesn't mention one at all. Maybe Matthew took John's one.

No, the point is that the bible does contain errors. That is a simple fact. I am merely trying to establish with certainty that Peter and OT are in clear agreement with this fact, and then we can move on.

I'm not clear on why they seem unable to acknowledge this.

-H

Do they refuse to acknowledge that we're not too sure how many donkeys there are?

I think the point may be that it doesn't matter how many donkeys there are

Bernard, you are quite correct - it does not matter how many donkeys there were. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the bible contains errors.

As the DD clearly shows, it does.

I'm just trying to establish whether our feathered friends are up to speed with the rest of us on this.

Helio

I think you are mis-reading me here, I have no problem using the word error I never said I did, indeed if you read back to my post 47 you will see I included the word in a list of possible discussion topics.

But here's what we need to know, and it's what I have been completely up front about, amid all my flippancy, what exactly do you mean by 'error/mistake' Helio? I've asked you why the issue is important to you, why you need us to use the word, what the implications of saying, 'error' are. But you don't really want to give much away there.

We get a little closer in your post 55, you say this donkey error is 'highly revealing' because it demonstrates a prophetic mis-understanding on the part of Matthew, it does? and you know this? would you mind explaining to us why this is the only possible understanding of Matthew's words?

Why do you think I've been asking you about divine inspiration, about reliability and so on? Do you have a definition for scriptural inspiration, apart from it not being inspired, what did you used to think inspiration was, do you know?

Helio I could go on. We could discuss Rabbinical exegetical and interpretative methodology, maybe the extent, form and purpose of the apostolic use of the OT in the NT, the degree to which the OT is or is not eschatological, maybe you want a discussion on the Kingdom of God in the Old and New Testaments, or the concept of redemptive history through OT and NT.

Do you know what Matthew was doing, do you know what the various options are for what he might have been doing ? Did you read Genesis 49?

Here's verse 10 and 11,

10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs?and the obedience of the nations is his.

11 He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch; he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes.

Biblegateway NIV

Scepter, Judah, ruler, to whom it belongs, obedience of nations, garments, wine, robes, blood.

Remind you of anyone?

Do you want to discuss the apostles progressive understanding of Jesus taking the role of Messiah?

What exactly is the donkey episode central, 'core' to? Do you want to discuss the purpose, audience and intentions Matthew had in mind when he wrote his version? What exactly is it you want to do here except cry 'error'?

Helio, like I said at the start, I have no problem using the word error, but you have given me little insight into your definition of the word as it relates to the bible, the implications you have in mind for the use of the word or how it relates to the concept of biblical inerrancy (we could discuss that too).

I'm not reluctant at all, but I tell you what I'm not going to do, use an undefined word just because you want me to. Why would I be that dumb?

Hello my friends, I have just joined this site. I would like to pick up on a few points. First, Nick Page in his interview with William Crawley on Sunday morning said that, outside the bible his main evidence for an historicial Jesus was Tacitus. Nowhere in Tacitus's works can we even find the word Jesus. Tacitus refers to someone called 'Christus' and said his name derived from the people called Christians. But at that time, worshipers of the Sun-god 'Serapis' were also called Christians and had a large following in Rome, especially among the common people. There are many other reason which point to the fact that he was not referring to the so called Jesus of the bible. Tacitus wasn't even born until the year 55. He didn't start writting until about 80 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Can you imagine starting to write about someone who lived 80 years previous? Tacitus may well have repeated just what the legend said about Jesus. As far as Josephus is concerned, many theologians believe the few verses which he mentions are an interpolation, besides he was not a contemporary of Jesus either. He wasn't born until the year 38 and only started writting some 20 years after the death of the supposed Jesus. Futhermore, three short paragraphs are a meagre and derisory contribution to the history of someone considered to be the most important person who ever lived. Regarding the coments of 'gveale 'who refers to the errors in the bible as 'copyist's'errors and to 'Orthodox-Tradition' who wanted an example of an error, try to explain this one...How did King Saul die? 1 Samuel 31:4 says that Saul took a sword and fell upon it and killed himself. 2 Samuel 1:8 to 10 says an Amalekite killed him. 2 Samuel 21:12 says Philistines killed him. This is just one example of hundreds in the bible which cannot be put down to so called copyist errors. Lets hear an explanation for this contradiction.

So the donkeys "error" doesn't matter then? We're agreed on that?

What are the "errors" that do matter? Eh Helio? Surely that's should be what you're aiming for here, instead of a load of guff about donkeys.

Surely worshippers of the sun-god serapis were called serapists, no?

:)

And really, if we're now saying that it's impossible to write about someone who lived 80 years previous without that being legend, we really are talking nonsense.

Perhaps all of those text books about the first world war just copy what the legends say about it.

Come on.

and Samuel 1:8 says that the Amalekite said he killed him.

And the Amalekite was killed for saying so.

Is that neccessarily contradictory?

Helio -

nice footwork, you dodged just about every question I have posed!!

well done.

Yet again you contradict yourself - you say that "no serious scholar" doubts that Matthew was an eyewitness and yet you reject this very point.

You continue to fail to give any authority for such radical claims, I note.

I will certainly agree that the bible is full of "errors".... as soon as you admit you would reject all four gospels if they were word for word the same.

;-)

FF Bruce noted that although the bible was historically reliable it was not always precise. Sounds fair.

You seem to assume that if the bible is the word of God it must have been downloaded by automatic writing in a trance, bypassing human personality. This is nonsense, it dehumanises man and undermines God's purpose for him. Only occult writing comes like this.


BTW, yes we guess about the Q documents (there is no hard evidence) but why do you assume that IF other written accounts made use of Mark as a foundation document that this discredits the idea that all four could have been divinely inspired???

This reminds me of your "success" in "discrediting" the book of proverbs because you had "discovered" that some of the proverbs had come from Egypt.

But in Ecclesiastes 12 Solomon explicitly states that he had gathered proverbs together from all over, also noting that even though he had not originated them, their wisdom had all come from the same God;-

Ecc12
9 And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. 10 The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright—words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars[b] are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.

I'll leave with a quote from another intellectual athiest who was leading academic in ancient literature Helio;-

"The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true."

Of course that was from CS Lewis.

We might wonder how with all your intellect and insight you previously fervently believed everything you now scorn Helio, and that as a well trained professional adult.

What are the chances that you could you be wrong a second time?


;-)

OT

I have to agree with PM about the definition of the term "error".

It is just like the athiests getting some Christians to agree to the fact that they hold to a "literal" reading of the bible.

The athiests understand one thing and the Christians understand another.

And the result is the complete mess we saw with Marcus AII insisting that Genesis 2 HAD to be a chronology contradicting Genesis 1, without any explanation of justification.

Of course this wouldnt be a deliberate ploy by the athiests to "win" a debate.

OT

An interesting challenge from "gettothepoint" about the "mistake" in the biblical account of Saul.


1 Samuel 31:4 says that Saul took a sword and fell upon it and killed himself.
A SUGGESTED EXPLANATION;- The text says Saul he was "severely wounded" by Philstine archers and fell on his own sword. NKJV

2 Samuel 1:8 to 10 says an Amalekite killed him.
A SUGGESTED EXPLANATION: Seems widely accepted that the Amalekite was lying in his claim in order to win a reward from David.

2 Samuel 21:12 says Philistines killed him.
A SUGGESTED EXPLANATION: The hebrew word for slay here is "naka" which is normally translated as "smite". Both translations of the word are permissable;-
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5221&t=KJV

So we know Saul was gravely injured by Philistine archers and fell on his own sword. It is suggested an Amakalite later claimed to have killed Saul, David's rival in order to win a reward. The later passage, in 2 Samuel can simply be read to say that the Philstines smote Saul during the battle.
They might be forgiven for claiming his life in battle, perhaps, as they forced him to take his own??


GTTP, I am not claiming this is actually what happened, but I will say that if you say it definitely didnt you will need to provide a pretty stiff argument to prove your point. Over to you.


NB, It might be nice to hear nobledee at least offer a thanks for the trouble posters took to explain to him why there need be no contradiction in those with Paul hearing the voice of Christ but not understanding it. see above.

BTW I am not volunteering to answer every query about "mistakes" in the bible. I think that if you actually google in any question you can think of, several answers will pop up, so it appears.

;-)

OT

OK folks, thanks. Let it therefore be agreed that the Bible contains errors. Graham, where did you get this funny wee notion:
Yet again you contradict yourself - you say that "no serious scholar" doubts that Matthew was an eyewitness and yet you reject this very point.

No - quite the reverse. "Matthew" (i.e. the anonymous author of the gospel that we call that of Matthew) was most assuredly NOT an eyewitness - don't know where you got the idea that I thought he was. Matthew definitely used Mark (or a common source) as one of his sources for the events of the life of Jesus, and added his embellishments. THAT is what no serious scholar doubts.

So, therefore we have:
1. A document that contains proven errors is not 100% reliable
2. The Bible is comprised of documents that contain errors
3. Therefore the Bible is not 100% reliable.

And since the ONLY evidence for the resurrection (which is the important bit, and we'll get to that on Sunday) is contained within the Bible, and there are explicitly provable errors in the account, we would be very foolish to rely on it.

So, even though it is as logically impossible to DISPROVE the resurrection as it is to disprove that Satan impregnated the Virgin Mary, both events are highly improbable, and "belief" is an inappropriate response, given the degraded and error-prone nature of the information.

-H

Sorry - moment of madness, error there - attributing OT's decerebrate cobblers to Graham! I do apologise. OT, FF Bruce is not a "serious scholar"!

FWIW, it would not matter whether the gospels were all the same or not. The point is simply that the bible contains errors. There are things in there that are WRONG. Different accounts are perfectly OK, as long as they don't flat-out contradict each other, as long as we can verify them. Indeed, the only thing that we CAN say with complete certainty is that the bible is a flawed text, like any other human creation.

So you're happy now Helio, finished licking the remnants of the plum off your thumb yet?

Good, I don't like to see people upset.

Then again, when you define your own terms, without stating them, fail to note what other people are saying, and then pronounce yourself right, this debating malarky becomes pretty easy.

Whateva.

BTW don't bother with the resurrection business come Sunday, hopefully I'll be in some cafe or other eating breakfast, (I'm not sure I can stick singing, "Up from the grave he arose", for another year) anyway I could probably throw up your argument for you, it's pretty limited, honestly, it is. But you don't have to take my word for it, you know it is.

:-)

And Helio, in case you think I can't write your argument for you, remember what I predicted in post 47,

"Why do you desperately seem to need this concession, I mean where are you going to go with it? Has it something to do with the theology of inspiration? Something to do with the bible not being reliable, like none of it, or just the God bit. Would that be it, the whole bible is reliable except the bits which mention God, especially the bits which seem the indicate God is in some way real, and has 2 donkeys, they're the made up bits with all the errors, yea, that must be it."

Plain. Nose. Face.

Luv ya.

PM said of Helio;-

"Then again, when you define your own terms, without stating them, fail to note what other people are saying, and then pronounce yourself right, this debating malarky becomes pretty easy."


Spot on Peter. King Canute, whatever he says is, he doesnt have to justify such ridiculous statements as he is making above about the gospels, we should just take his word for it and the waves will just stop as if by magic.

;-)
.

Prof FF Bruce is not a serious scholar, but Helio is....???

He has yet to show anywhere that the bible is "wrong" ...or prove how Matthew didnt write a gospel and wasnt an eye witness etc etc.

We have seen three specific attempts above pretty quickly put into reasonable context and heard nothing more from two of the sources who were confident they had found mistakes in the bible.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion (forgive me if anyone else was already there) that these debates are just smokescreens for the real inner issues, ie personal controversies directly with God. It just happens to be that anyone who identifies with God bears the brunt of it, and the real debate has got flip all to do with whether there were one or two donkeys but is more likely to do with pride and determination to live independently of God and without ultimate accountability.

I mean, seriously, Helio is a medic of some description so far as I can make out, from Dungannon area....why is he spending hours on a computer arguing about the number of donkeys in the gospels?

Peter seems to be getting at the same point. The real debate here has nothing at all to do with the words being typed.

OT

PS I have to apologise to Helio, I did misread his post when he affirmed that serious scholars support Matthew as an eyewitness and the author of a gospel. That would be a ludicrous statement for Helio to make!

OT, it's a pity your detective skills did not extend to historical appraisal of the gospels. I'm sorry to have to keep PeterM lumped in with you, but that's the nature of the game here. As I explained, the number of donkeys is actually irrelevant - the relevant point is that Matthew CHANGED the text of Mark to make a purely rhetorical/theological point (that was based on his own misunderstanding of the OT).

Where am I going with this? Not where Peter supposes - or maybe a little bit. I am interested in this whole thing because I used to believe it wholeheartedly. Now I have had the chance to look at it critically, I don't believe it at all, but I still (like Nick Page and many others) regard it as a fascinating historical/psychological problem.

To cut to the chase, the issue is this: the resurrection (and virgin birth & miracles etc etc) is a story in the bible. There is no (i.e. not ANY) corroborating evidence outside the bible. But as we have seen, the bible contains errors, so you can't believe everything that is written there, especially when it was written in such eschatologically and politically charged times as C1-C2CE in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. Mystery religions and syncretistic cults were rife, and there *was* no clear-cut orthodoxy. The place was coming down with preachers and messiahs and prophets, and superstition was commonplace.

What we are trying to explain, therefore, is NOT a resurrection, but the bible itself, as a corpus of flawed (as you admit) documents. Whether there is some "inspiration" behind it or not is precisely irrelevant. We *know* that a lot of it was written not as "analytical history" but as propaganda and polemic. Matthew's tinkering with the text is prima facie evidence for this.

So, without babbling *too* much, why not go back to the three excerps I quoted above. Do you accept that these derive from a common literary source, or do you think they are the records of "independent witnesses"?

Either way, the rather amusing irony here is that the only person on this thread treating the gospels as historical documents (i.e. treating them as a historian would treat *any* documentary evidence from antiquity or recent times) would appear to be *me*!

Helio

I'm heading out here in a few minutes so this can only be quick and I'll get back later, but here's what's not in dispute:

Looking at it critically is good, I've done that probably more than you think.
Mark, and probably another source (and who knows maybe more) was the basis for Luke's account and Matthew's.
Matthew rewrote Mark
Matthew added to Mark
Matthew probably rearranged the story to suit his purposes
Matthew has some of his own material as has Luke.

And the big deal is?

Comments on the rest of your points will have to wait.

And apologies for being so forthright last night, I was too sarcastic, especially in post 73, but I do wish you'd also stop making light of OT, sometimes, in the heat of debate we all get a bit too personal on here.

Anyway apologies.

Helio

How do you prove that Matthew changed the text of Mark?

Remember Matthew is still generally accepted as an eyewitness of the events he was writing about. Why is he not permitted to start with Mark and create his own document about events he saw personally?

Peter Morrow makes this same point in his last post, which I have made several times (also ref book of proverbs), and which you pointedly ignore.

You have still not even attempted to justify your extreme scepticism about this despite at least three requests.

You say that you changed your mind about faith because you “had the chance” to examine it all. That does not quite make sense.

You were a professional adult working in medicine when you left your faith. You are really saying you accepted it uncritically before? I find that hard to believe. Medics are not dumb and tend to be a sceptical lot.

You have also leapt from the unsubstantiated claim that there are errors in the bible to to the conclusion that you “cant believe everything” written there, ie I presume you mean specifically the parts about God.

It is also a very bold (and wrong) claim to suggest there is not ANY corroborating evidence outside the bible. Archaeology and secular history knock you down twice on that. But you knew that.

Also, if there was no clear cut orthodoxy how did we end up with a “majority text” of the NT ie the one used by the vast majority of early Christians and which is the most complete mss, ie without “problem” heresy variations often thrown up on this blog.

That is of course before we get into the orthodoxy of the pre-canon letters and gospels (later in the canon) and the various historical creeds.

Mystery religions, by the way, did not tie their events to specific people times and places as the gospels do. No historian today suggests such stories are historical events, unlike those in the gospels, which are widely respected historical documents.

Correction, I never admitted the bible was flawed, I challenged you to prove such assertions, in which you have clearly failed.

Again, I challenge you to PROVE that Matthew was not an eye witness and did not write the gospel of his name. I can only conclude you know your evidence is laughable and that is why you fail to bring it forward despite repeated challenges.

It does appear that you are playing the extreme devils advocate for laughs.

Because you are far too intelligent to be possibly taking your own posts seriously.

;-)

OT

Helio

Just on the authorship of Matthew thing.

I am checking the facts and it was universally accepted by all the early witnesses that Matthew did write the gospel.

After almost 2000 years a few people have questioned this but I cannot discern a credible argument from them on two points;

1) How do they dismiss the early universal testimony among the people so close to the actual people and events (oral traditions count too, so dont try that one)?

2) What positive case do they make for dismissing the Matthew as the author?

I would also make the point that you are simply factually wrong if you are going to hold to the position that nobody believes the traditional view any more.

So far as I can make out your opinion is very "fringe" and not at all the mainstream view.

I am sure you can dredge up a radical or two who have little connection to any actual church, but sorry, you are on to a loser here.

OT

Helio

if you really feel you ARE the only person using an actual historical method to examine the gospel of Matthew you will have a very sharp argument to dismiss all the early church written witnesses who disagree with you.

And you will also have a very sharp argument to explain why there are no equivalent witnesses to support you.

Should be interesting.

OT

While working in Africa, three young Moslem men visited the compound where I was staying. I welcomed them, showed them round the hospital, gave them some refreshments and chatted to them for a while.

It wasnt long before they got onto the subject of why Islam is the only true faith and why Christianity is so flawed.

They couldnt understand why there were four accounts of Jesus' life and took this as proof that Christianity is a false religion. In their thinking, if Christianity were true, there would only be one account.

I gave them pen and paper and asked them to write down, without conferring, their recollection of their visit to me - when they got home.

They returned the next day and we read their accounts together. It was amazing.

They were like three different accounts. At times contradictory, differing in emphasis, subjective, important omissions etc..

I had intended the exercise to challenge these young enthusiastic Moslems to question their own dismissive attitude towards Christianity. Instead, the exercise served to challenge me on my 'certainties' about the sources and content of the gospels.

I concur with Orthodox-tradition[74]. Critical analysis often places emphasis on a single element at the expense of the overall picture, instead of assisting efforts to complete that picture. Countless scholars have debated the accuracy of scripture. Some become deluded with God's message, while others find their faith strengthened by their research.

To anyone seeking historical evidence in support of the gospels, I'd recommend Lee Strobel's book entitled "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus" published by Zondervan Publishing House (1 Sep 1998).

I challenge anyone to find a human with more love and compassion for all men and women than the Jesus described in the gospels. Who else can forgive a man for trying to arrest him for a crime he never committed and demonstrate this crazy approach by instantly regrowing his assailant's ear.

There has been a bit of discussion here re the variation in the Gospels MML+J.
The New Testament is a compilation of selected writings, and there are many other manuscripts of that era.
There are other Gospels or fragments of Gospels not included in the NT.
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Thomas
Coptic Gospel
etc.
I can't tell you what any of them have to say, not had the time to do the reading.
Would anyone like to comment on the non canonical Gospels.

Hi Rocharlie

I am not claiming to be an expert, but here goes.

As a rule of thumb I think the books not included in the canon(s) may fall into two camps. Some were considered of high quality and for a time considered scripture. Some were considered outright frauds and contained heresies.

A good standard to measure them by is whether they harmonise with the rest of scripture and whether they have outright heresies.

I feel people often throw such books into the mix because they just dont want to consider that Christ is who he says he is and who his church says he is and they are looking for some way to escape his love.

But I have yet to hear the advocates of such books suggest just one thing there might be in them that we dont have in the current western canon.

sincerely
OT

RJB

An interesting story about your time in Africa but I am totally at a loss to how you concluded that the differing accounts of the three men's journey undermined your faith?

Why did it not authenticate the story telling perspectives of the three gospels?

OT

Helio
Like I said, Inerrancy is a very vague theological position that I think I very vaguely hold to. EVERYONE is admitting mistakes in the Bible AS WE HAVE IT. So I'm not sure what the term means in practice.

If you want to approach the Gospels as historical documents you have to put inerrancy aside. That means I have to drop all the "ad hoc"hypotheses that remove the appearance of error, and acknowledge that on historical terms these very probably are errors.
Why should a Christian do this? I should want to see what I can agree with a Secular Historian on. Then, for apologetic reasons, I should see if there are parts of the Gospels a person should take as historically credible if we remove the Methodological Naturalism (MN) from the historical method.
MN seems to be the only solid ground for denying the Resurrection as "historical" (a finding of historical science). And even if it is not properly part of the results of historical science,
historical science certainly provides a warrant for believing in it. A philosophical "defeater" against miracles is needed. (And I don't see that you've provided such a defeater.)

So what about the two Donkeys? If Matthew "doubled up" (he did this repeatedly) with his MArkan source as a literary device, and could reasonably expect his audience to realise that this was a literary device, then I don't see the problem.

If not, you've probably spotted a mistake. You and 1900 years of readers.

So what exactly? Should I now renounce the Faith? I'm a little confused. What is your point here. That you've disproved the Gospel or the Creeds? Or that Christians can't do History? (Of course they can - they just drop religious presuppositions about the Bible. They're not allowed to use them in Historical Research. If they keep them they're doing theology. Which doesn't automatically make the results irrational. But we should just keep our objectives clear.)

I'll let others decide if I'm an "inerrantist" after reading this and my comments on the "large numbers" in the Old Testament. I've given up trying to figure it out.

In the meantime, when you've stopped giggling - what are you trying to prove here?

GV

I've provided detailed arguments for the Resurection and the general reliability of the Gospels. Where are the flaws in your opinion?

Off to the in-laws on the morrow, so I'll try to reply FRI.

See ya
GV

Hi O.T. I refer to your 69 comment. You say a suggested explanation for the contradiction in 2 Samuel 1 :8 to 10, is that the Amalekite was lying in order to win a reward from David. Apologists who come up with such remarks are in danger of God's wrath, according to the bible. The bible makes it clear that no one should add to God's word. Proverbs 30:6, or they 'will be 'reproved' by Him and found a liar' Nowhere in 2 Samuel does it indicate that the Amalekite lied or was seeking a reward. Stick to what is in the bible. Apologists will try anything in order to ameliorate contradictions. You say it is up to me to prove my point, but i just have O T. You have been unable to give me a satisfactory explanation for the contradictions. It is not up to me to prove the contradictions in the bible, the bible clearly reveals that itself. It is up to the apologists to prove the additional bits they wish to add or 'make up' and add to the bible. The explanation that the Amalekite must have lied has been doing the rounds on the Internet. The apologist who dreamt the above explanation up is, Gleason L Archer. He says, in his book, 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties' that we have to conclude that a lie was told by the Amalekite. He backs up his explanation by citing three other occasion in the bible where lies are told. What he glaringly fails to mention is that in the three examples he quotes, the bible makes it abundantly clear that lies are being told. In contrast, nowhere in the book of Samuel does it indicate or remotely suggest a lie is being told by the Amalekite.
I also refer to your penultimate paragraph on the subject when you say, ' it is suggested that an Amalakite later claimed to have killed Saul. ' The bible does NOT suggest this, it ACTUALLY STATES IT! Best Wishes

Hi Romejellybean, re your comment 80. There is one glaring error in your comment. The three young Muslims you asked to write an account of their visit to you were not inspired by God. They were fallible humans and therefor subject to making mistakes. The four 'contradictory' versions of the gospels on the other hand are supposed to be the inspired word of God, written by 'Holy' men filled with the Holy Ghost. To use God's own words....'Every word of God is flawless' Proverbs 30:5. but as we can see from the four different accounts, they are full of flaws. Best Wishes

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

BTW, OT, you are a funny little chap. It's no wonder you have trouble doing this!
I challenge you to PROVE that Matthew was not an eye witness and did not write the gospel of his name.

It is not up to me to disprove anything - it is up to you to prove that he (i.e. the disciple Matthew) DID write it. I think you will find that most scholars are of the opinion that Matthew was NOT written by the disciple of that name - that attribution only arose in C2CE.

Try harder :-)

GTTP

I never said I was right about the amalakite, I said it was possible and so it is. You have not suggested a reason why this is not possible.

You have not even begun to refute my suggested argument. ergo you have not proven a mistake in the bible.

I take it you accept my argument about the third passage as plausible or you would have picked up on it. Perhaps your generosity or lack of it on this point may tell us something of your genuiness in asking these questions?



Dont forget in the first passage Saul asked his armour bearer to kill him and the armour bearer refused. The first passage said that Saul died after falling on his own sword and that his armour bearer died too.

The amalakite was apparently not the armour bearer as he said he was on the mountain "by chance".

Certainly sounds like an opportunist to me.





Helio

Calling me a funny little chap does not airbrush away the fact that you are completely exposed and embarassed here.

The burden of historical evidence is that Matthew was universally accepted as the author of his gospel in the early church.

"Most" scholars support your view???

Well why didnt you say so before. This argument is so convincing.

No bigger argument from authority have can I recall seeing on this blog!

So you are admitting you have no evidence or even an argument to explain why you reject all the early testimonies about Matthew writing the gospel of his name.

All you have got is a laughable and flawed argument from SUPPOSED authority, claiming "most" scholars now agree with you, when I know of course that they dont.

I refer you back to post 79.

OT

Also GTTP

You are quite wrong to suggest that Mr Archer came up with the idea that the Amalakite was lying.


eg Matthew Henry wrote circa 1700 that most scholars thought this at that time;-


"It is doubtful whether this story be true. If it be, the righteousness of God is to be observed, that Saul, who spared the Amalekites in contempt of the divine command, received his death's wound from an Amalekite. But most interpreters think that it was false, and that, though he might happen to be present, yet he was not assisting in the death of Saul, but told David so in expectation that he would reward him for it, as having done him a piece of good service..."


OT

Oh dear - seems like I used a rude word - sorry! Here's my post again (offending words removed):

Graham, see this is the problem. I find you a relatively productive person to argue against, even though you are clearly mad as the proverbial box of frogs (I forget exactly where in Proverbs the box of frogs is mentioned - or it might have been Ecclesiastes).

I have a couple of points. Firstly, the readers of "Matthew" would not have had "Mark" (or "Luke" or "John") to compare to. Each gospel was written/evolved to service a different community of believers, and in those days communications were a tad slower than they are today (Dungannon to Belfast in *nanoseconds*!!). It was only after they had all been going their separate ways for over 100 years (maybe more) that someone decided that a bit of standardisation was in order, and we ended up with today's "canon", and much of the other stuff (it was mostly nonsense too) was cut out. Of course, the fake Timothies and other thingies were left in, but that's old hat. Even nowadays, with a full bibble in front of 'em, most Christians are unaware of the Double Donkey. Ask them - do a survey!

Anyway, the original Matthean readers would not have known about this contradiction, and once the compilation was arranged (probably with the different groups lobbying for *their* favourite texts to be included, of course), it was fossilised, and correction became a tad difficult, if not impossible.

So that's why we have all these gospels and contradictions. Other gospels, like "Peter", with Jesuzilla and the Talking Cross, were too crazy even for these guys, and got left out. To answer OT's rather silly point - it does not matter whether they agree or not. We are not trying to establish that. We are trying to use them as evidence to establish what *actually* happened back then.

But then we run into this problem of the theistic rejection of methodological naturalism. This is a real throwing out of babies, leaving the bathwater, and is intellectual laziness or devious cheating of the highest order - whichever. Because there are many perfectly natural explanations of how we could have ended up with the stories we have now, *without* invoking either miracles or divine interventions etc. It is arguably remarkable, but it is not *that* remarkable.

What would be a lot *more* remarkable would be if the Brilliant Plan of the creator of this wonderfully conceived universe (OT, sit down - I am using this as a rhetorical device) concocted such a *stupid* plan of salvation for mankind - to use a shabby, unevidenced fairy tale (or, at least to leave records that are indistinguishable from a shabby unevidenced fairy tale) relying on a cheap stunt (i.e. resurrection) as the sole means of saving billions of sentient beings from falling into a Very Hot Place that they would have been saved from in the first place if he had only had the wit to plant a certain tree in Antarctica or on Mars or something, instead of by the shores of Lake Van, at convenient shoulder-height to his latest masterpiece, homo sapiens.

My point is that EVEN IF the resurrection took place (and I do not think it did, don't worry! :-), the gospels are NOT remotely adequate evidence for it, and I say that as someone who has spent rather a long time studying ancient history, and I sure don't believe everything I read in Herodotus! Methodological Naturalism is our friend - indeed, it is the only lifeline in history against descent into the hairiest excrescences of superstitious woo, of which the biologically *banal* resurrection is a prime example.

Can't you see what Matthew is doing here? If anything, this is God saying "look, whatever you do, don't believe everything you read here for dear sake!"

-H

OT, by "early church" you mean people writing in the late second century CE, over 100 years since Jesus was dead. Not convincing at all. Please supply *evidence* for Matthew's authorship, because it is YOU who is claiming that he was an eyewitness, despite his mistake(s).

Helio

Your comments are desperate interesting.

Here's what I'd like to know, what kind of a Christian were you?

There's a lot of cliched stuff in these posts of yours.

Helio

you arent pulling that trick;

I am not the one on the defensive here, it is you that is challenging the status quo with a radical new theory.

The onus is on you to explain why Matthew did not write Matthew.

You ARE really having a giggle arent you?

In any event I am away from home and dont have access to my ref works.

OT

Cant help but notice the persistantly pejorative language that Helio uses towards Christians/God.

Why go out of your way to persistantly use such a contemptous tone towards people whose religious beliefs you disagree with???

It certainly is not because of objectively collected rational thoughts.

This is the language and tone of hatred and contempt.

So why do you bother to expend so much time and energy hating Christians/God Helio???

Something much deeper going on here Helio...?

Peter M, any thoughts?

OT

Heres one morsel for you Helio, evidence which supports the early church view that Matthew wrote a gospel;-

Matthew is the only gospel which record Mattew's calling by Jesus, in Matt9:9.

This makes perfect sense if it is an eyewitness account of Christ by Matthew.

If it was not written by an eyewitness than why bother to include such a detail when it is not mentioned in Mark or any other gospel? Matthew was a very low key character.

I dont contend it settles the debate, but it certainly strongly supports the view of the church for over 1900 years on the matter.

Firstly, OT, if you are reading contempt of Christians into what I have written, then I suggest you are merely projecting your own feelings. I actually rather like Christians, and I enjoy debating with them, particularly people who can be both pleasant and challenging, like PeterM and Graham. You should take a leaf out of their book, I would suggest.

I will admit to being a bit robust in my challenges sometimes, but I think you lads need that, and I know that asking you for *evidence* makes you feel uncomfortable. What you need to do is search out the source of that discomfort. I would suggest that it is the result of cognitive dissonance working away at you - perhaps you realise that Christianity is not actually true. Use that niggle. Work away at it. Scratch that itch, and look beneath the surface.

So that's the best you can come up with for Matthew being the author of Matthew? It's a bit pants, don't you think? You say "over 1900 years" - it is actually less than 1900 years. Exercise for you - WHY did the C2CE church (well, some of them at least) ascribe this late C1CE document to Matthew-of-the-twelve? What evidence did they have for this?

I know I've harped on about this before, but I would advise you to read "The Unauthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox. He actually thinks that "John" may have been based on a genuine first-hand account (written down many many years later, of course, with a lot of the details blurred, and reflecting more of a Jerusalem perspective), which, if correct, is very interesting. Of course, that is notwithstanding the fact that John was tampered with afterwards - the story of the woman caught in adultery, for example, is a late addition (probably a story about another rabbi, such as Honi the "Circle-Drawer"), and several scholars think that the last chapter of John, which is very obviously a tag-on, was the original ending of *Mark*, which as you know was cut off, and a prosthetic ending applied.

It's fascinating stuff, of course, and I would commend it to your consideration. However, my point is closely allied with that of people like Bart Ehrman - I know he is a hate figure for fundagelicals, but I think he nails it (although I disagree with some of his points). There is *always* a natural explanation that, although relatively *improbable* is still more likely than the "god did it" cop-out.

I think I have mentioned before that as a Christian I value truth very highly indeed (call it my upbringing if you will), and I feel that the bible should be held to the same standards as other documents from the period, and the same standards as we apply to the documents of other religions. Simply arguing to the authority of the bible or the "early church" (a notoriously murky concept, let's face it) or Jesus the Nazarene or God or the angel Gabriel is *invalid* reasoning.

Sorry if that represents a pea under your mattress, princess, but the pea is not the problem :-)

-H

Helio,

Startling unawareness of yourself here.

Remember, you got pulled for using obscene language in this debate??

And Peter M also asked you to stop being so personal.

You repeatedly use phrases like;-

"stupid"

"silly"

"lesserbrained colleagues"

"fundagelicals"


I concurr with Peter Morrow that you are not seriously engaging with the issues but trying rhetorical tricks to "win" your debate.

He said:"Then again, when you define your own terms, without stating them, fail to note what other people are saying, and then pronounce yourself right, this debating malarky becomes pretty easy."


It is quite funny to impy that you dont find me challenging. That would explain why you keep avoiding my questions but still keep coming back for more?

Perhaps you are singling me out because I am the one holding you to account here?


You didnt read my post, I only said the quote from Matt 9:9 was a morsel to keep you going. But it is a very good one.

And you refuse to tackle it. Hmmm.

I also said above I am away from home and don't have access to my ref works.

But hey, it is more fun to accuse me of refusing to look for evidence so dont let me stop you.

I certainly admit the 1900 years was a rough figure. But I will stand by this estimation for the time being;

The early church unanimously knew and believed that Matthew wrote the gospel. They knew Matthew and the other disciples and the events were all within living memory. They said Matthew was the author.

This has only been challenged by isolated voices withint the past 100-200 years.

But the mainstream conservative Churches do not accept this view.

I must be wearing you down Helio because the best evidence you have been able to come up with is name dropping Robin Lane Fox, surprise surprise, an athiest.

Remember that you dont like arguments from authority??


As for the add on part to Mark, as I said previously, as I understand it, all such "problems" disappear if you discard all mss except the "majority text" ie the one used by the vast majority of the early church and still held to by Greek speaking churches.

As I understand it all the other mss do indeed have huge holes and/or errors in them. so why use them?

And more name dropping, Bart Erhman, well why didnt you say before. Hold on a second, isnt that another argument from authority and surprise surprise one highly sceptical about God.

Remember what CS Lewis said, the only point many scholars REFUSE to consider when looking at ancient documents is that they just might be true.

IN fact hold on a second, you havent even mentioned how and why Fox and Ehrman reject Matthew as author of the gospel!!!???!!!

I have to presume you are having another one of your giggles that you then conclude that "as a Christian" you are an earnest seeker after truth and searcher for actual historical evidence.

Time enough for me to question if I have some cognitive dissonance when you actually provide me with some evidence to rattle me.

I am not afraid to be challenged, for example debates on slavery and the bible here over several years have certainly had me scratching my head, but I think I have won through.

Anyhows, interesting discussion and thanks for your time.

Shalom

OT