Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it seems that Bapfun, after throwing out his bragging challenge and me picking it up is going to run away and post elsewhere.
So it's open to all to make the case for Gospel reliability.
Risky, as the Nativity and Resurrection threads ran on for ever, but maybe the results made it tighter in the conclusion.
So the Big Three are
(1) Nativity
(2) resurrection
(1) No transfiguration in John.
As I said to Bapfun before he ran away, these are undeniable debunks or at least evidence that the Gopels are unreliable (fabricated comes later) and thus the other problems follow and once witness credibility is trashed, even the arguable contradictions aren't so easy to dismiss.
The think with the nativity is not so much the date -discrepancy but that Matthew has Joseph and family resident in Bethlehem (as they plan to return there after coming back from Egypt) but have to relocate to Galilee for safety. Whereas Luke has them come from Nazareth just to register for the 6 AD tax, had Jesus conveniently born in Bethlehem and they they go back home with a fortnight or so.
Totally different stories. Ad the 10 year discrepancy and the nativity is a touchstone case for gospel fabrication.
The resurrection is nearly as bad. The last point that they all agree on is the empty tomb. That is at least a Question which is why it doesn't hit the top of the crap -charts. Mark in fact ends there and the assumption that Mark 'got lost' won't wash. If anything would get lost from a scroll, it's the beginning, not the end. No, Mark has o resurrection other than a claim that Jesus had risen and gone back to Galilee.
Plainly that wouldn't do, so Solid -body appearances had to be invented. And immediately the stories fall apart. Because none of them copied from another, even though Luke and Matthew and John and Luke do use similar material. The degree of contradiction beggars the belief that they knew a contradictory gospel existed (1). In Mark the women run away and said nothing. In the others they all come to tell the disciples. Matthew has the women meet Jesus on the way, but John has the disciples rushing to see and Jesus only turn up for the first time (the angels too) after the disciples had gone. Moreover, Luke has Cleophas telling Jesus (who is supposed to be 'appearing to Simon' in order to fit in with Paul, that the women told about the angels but no mention of meeting Jesus.
Then while in Matthew, the disciples troop off to Galilee to meet Jesus who gives them their evangelical message, Luke and John had Jesus already appear to them Sunday evening and could tell them whatever he needed to. Indeed, in Luke he spends about a month lecturing them on scripture and doctrine.
We know that in the synoptics Jesus and the disciples go to what appears to be Bethsaida, feeds 5000 men (to say 'nothing of the women and children', glosses Matthew), is declared the Messiah by Peter and we can toss in the bin Matthew alone having Peter denounced as the servant of the Devil and the future Pope. even if the history of the Vatican supports that bit of scripture). Then he takes three disciples up on the mountain where they witness a stunning transfiguration with OT saints and voice from heaven and Peter suggesting they'd make a fortune in ticket -sales. Then the return to Capernaum with Jesus walking on water.
But right where that transfiguration should be in John, there is only 'Jesus escaping into the hills because the people wanted to make him a king by force'. This is chronologically the same time, and the transfiguration isn't there and (on a previous thread) nobody's attempt to account for this worked. I won't go into my pet theory (I need money, first) but I suggest that the two events ARE the same, but disguised in different ways.
But what is a good contradiction is that they can no way be treated as reliable eyewitness.
I'll save some other good ones like the 'rejection in Nazareth being turned into a declaration of messiahship and an an attempted assassination - none of which Mark or Matthew have ever heard of, Nor John of course, though like Luke, he seems to have heard the 'no prophet in his own country' passage.
But let the apologists for Jesus do their best, including Bapfun, if he comes out of hiding and shows that he some guts. Or I'll show them to you .
(1) I haven't forgotten Guterwitz' argument that one was 'correcting' the others, but that just too much the jedi -wave excuse. Luke knowing John wouldn't have brought his gospel into line with Thomas being away and the spear - wound? The better explanation is that Luke never saw John.
I'm sorry, but no. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you. You've demonstrated on more than one occasion that it really doesn't matter what is said, you'll end up personally insulting me, other Christians, answer nothing, and claim victory.
The last straw really was you telling me I'm closed-minded for daring to have standards of what my wife would be. As if marriage is some sort of equal opportunity thing and I'm somehow immoral for daring to choose what my wife should be. No, you've jumped the shark, and I'm not taking the bait anymore.
I recently read the Ian Caldwell novel The Fifth Gospel. It's mystery surrounding the death of a man who is studying the four gospels and the Diatesseron, which was an actual ancient attempt to create a harmony of the four gospels in one volume, with a Greek Catholic priest in an effort to prove the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin despite the radiocarbon-dating. It takes place in Vatican City, where the narrator (the Greek Catholic priest) lives with his young son, and it is pretty detailed as to what life is like within.
The Gospel of John and whether it was written to be historical or symbolic plays heavily into the outcome of the story. You might find the tale interesting. I haven't looked into whether the take on John in the novel is based on actual scholarly research or simply the imagination of the author, but given the depth of information in the story, I'm guessing it may be. It made a lot of sense.
I'm sorry, but no. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you. You've demonstrated on more than one occasion that it really doesn't matter what is said, you'll end up personally insulting me, other Christians, answer nothing, and claim victory.
The last straw really was you telling me I'm closed-minded for daring to have standards of what my wife would be. As if marriage is some sort of equal opportunity thing and I'm somehow immoral for daring to choose what my wife should be. No, you've jumped the shark, and I'm not taking the bait anymore.
You fight with the strength of many mice, sir knight. You must be thankful that I gave you an excuse to excuse yourself from the fray
Well, we shall have to see whether any other warriors for Jesus have anything to offer by way of combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
I recently read the Ian Caldwell novel The Fifth Gospel. It's mystery surrounding the death of a man who is studying the four gospels and the Diatesseron, which was an actual ancient attempt to create a harmony of the four gospels in one volume, with a Greek Catholic priest in an effort to prove the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin despite the radiocarbon-dating. It takes place in Vatican City, where the narrator (the Greek Catholic priest) lives with his young son, and it is pretty detailed as to what life is like within.
The Gospel of John and whether it was written to be historical or symbolic plays heavily into the outcome of the story. You might find the tale interesting. I haven't looked into whether the take on John in the novel is based on actual scholarly research or simply the imagination of the author, but given the depth of information in the story, I'm guessing it may be. It made a lot of sense.
The shroud was indeed called 'The fifth gospel' because it was supposed to be evidence for the resurrection. It isn't in fact any better evidence than the gospels themselves. Not so much the C14 date, which is debated, but that it is a flat image, which (despite some imaginative efforts) doesn't work as any kind of wrap or even drape -around.
I did start by trying to make the gospels work together, but what we are left with is a very basic tale which looks rather different from what the Gospels are at paints to portray.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-20-2020 at 11:14 AM..
Well, we shall have to see whether any other warriors for Jesus have anything to offer by way of combat.
The shroud was indeed called 'The fifth gospel' because it was supposed to be evidence for the resurrection. It isn't in fact any better evidence than the gospels themselves. Not so much the C14 date, which is debated, but that it is a flat image, which (despite some imaginative efforts) doesn't work as any kind of wrap or even drape -around.
I did start by trying to make the gospels work together, but what we are left with is a very basic tale which looks rather different from what the Gospels are at paints to portray.
Since I doubt you'll read the novel, and it wouldn't really ruin the whole thing if you did, you can look at this if you like:
Spoiler
The man trying to use the gospels to prove the Shroud is real comes to believe that John's gospel is not and never was meant to be historical but rather spiritual and symbolic. The spear wound in the side appears only in John's gospel and is therefore of a symbolic meaning, not an actual occurrence, and since the spear wound appears on the Shroud, he realizes it must be a fake.
Interesting. Of course, as soon as the Bible becomes 'symbolic' or 'metaphorical' there isn't anything to argue about.
'Metaphorally untrue' means 'Not true at all'.
The problem is that the spear thrust becomes untrue by default and without explanation. The claim that it's an actual record requires that the claims be evaluated.
The description of the crucifixion in the synoptics has Jesus expiring on the nails and not a spear thrust in sight. I've seen attempt to have the stick with the 'Spunge' on it being mistaken for the spear being stuck in the side, but that ignores that it was before the death, bot after. Fine, fine, fie. Wave it away and imperfect recollection.
But we don't even need to go there. On the Sunday night Luke has the eleven (less Judas of course) seeing Jesus turning up showing (specifically) his hands and feet. There is no wound in the side, let alone Thomas rolling up later on to put his finger in.
It might be possible to argue that 'Luke left it out' but this fails with Thomas being there, according to Luke, and that's why the test cases that show these people invent stuff are important. Because that becomes the best explanation for no spear thrust.
But where did John get it from? Well, it wasn't from the 'original' gospel, so either he picked up some material that used the Psalms 'prophecy' and someone had provided screenplay or John just did that himself. I'd go with the former as John does tend to do prophecy from OT material, and there is that example of the showing of the hands and feet anf the eating of fish, which we seem to get in both gospels but used totally differently. What's more Like and John and even Matthew seem to have a 'miraculous draft of fish' but used in totally different places, and when you think of it, a sinking Simon after the resurrection in John, at the calling of disciples in Luke and the walking on water in Matthew. So there's a case for these later writers picking up stories and prophecies and using them.
Like the palsied man who takes up his pallet and walks. In Jerusalem in John but in Galilee in the Synoptics.
And what about the healing of the Centurion's son or servant? As I recall it isn't in Mark, but it appears in John, but Jesus heals 'at a distance' from Cana. It has to be the same miracle, but in a different place, and a Centurion rather than a 'Ruler'.
So while John's spear looks like his own invention perhaps a borrowing might make more sense.
The penitent Thief. In Matthew and Mark, the 'robbers' both give Jesus a hard time, but Luke has one of them berating the other and attesting to Jesus having done 'nothing wrong'. (Like he and the other 'robber' wasn't with Jesus at that bust up in the Temple (1), and that at festival time when Pilate and 1000 Roman solders were on guard). And Jesus gives him an entry ticket to 'Paradise'.
It is a bit of a relief not to have to debate whether this is the Bosom of Abraham or the 2nd heaven, before ascending to the 3rd heaven with Mohamed operating the coffee machine while Jesus entertains visitors like Paul (the two Cor 12). or whether this means that Jesus rose on the Friday, elevating this Malefactor along with him, because it's just Luke making stuff up. And any court of law would see that plainly and have Luke and his witness testimony slung out into the street.
It's in the same vein as the Rejection at Nazareth in the synoptics with 'is this not the Carpenter's son?' (and variants) making them the same event as in Luke right at the start of his Galilee mission, though in Matthew and Mark it comes a lot later. But Mark and Matthew had no declaration in the synagogue, never mind the ludicrous attempt of the neighbours to assassinate Jesus.
This is Luke inventing wholesale and making the Jews look as bad as possible. And if you keep that modus operandi in mind, you won't go far wrong. And that's for ALL the gospels, mind.
(1) this in in My novel (based on my Pet theory).
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-20-2020 at 03:40 PM..
So it seems that Bapfun, after throwing out his bragging challenge and me picking it up is going to run away and post elsewhere.
So it's open to all to make the case for Gospel reliability.
Risky, as the Nativity and Resurrection threads ran on for ever, but maybe the results made it tighter in the conclusion.
So the Big Three are
(1) Nativity
(2) resurrection
(1) No transfiguration in John.
As I said to Bapfun before he ran away, these are undeniable debunks or at least evidence that the Gopels are unreliable (fabricated comes later) and thus the other problems follow and once witness credibility is trashed, even the arguable contradictions aren't so easy to dismiss.
This is between you and BF, so I'm not even going to address it.
Quote:
The think with the nativity is not so much the date -discrepancy but that Matthew has Joseph and family resident in Bethlehem (as they plan to return there after coming back from Egypt) but have to relocate to Galilee for safety. Whereas Luke has them come from Nazareth just to register for the 6 AD tax, had Jesus conveniently born in Bethlehem and they they go back home with a fortnight or so.
Totally different stories.
Ad the 10 year discrepancy and the nativity is a touchstone case for gospel fabrication.
Wait a minute...
Matthew does NOT say that the family was "residents" of Bethlehem. I think you're connecting Matthew 1:24 with Matthew 2:1, and assuming that the family actually lived in Bethlehem.
They didn't. Joseph was originally from Bethlehem, but he had been living in Nazareth ( which is in Galilee). They traveled to Bethlehem from Nazareth in order to be counted in the census. While there, Mary went into labor, and had Jesus.
Jesus was born in Joseph's home town of Bethlehem. From there they went to Egypt and then BACK to Nazareth.
No discrepancy. Between Matthew and Luke it gives a more complete report as to what happened.
Quote:
The resurrection is nearly as bad. The last point that they all agree on is the empty tomb. That is at least a Question which is why it doesn't hit the top of the crap -charts. Mark in fact ends there and the assumption that Mark 'got lost' won't wash. If anything would get lost from a scroll, it's the beginning, not the end. No, Mark has o resurrection other than a claim that Jesus had risen and gone back to Galilee.
Again, your interpretation doesn't "prove" anything. If you mis-read what happened regarding Jesus' birth, then it's very possible that you also misinterpret what happened with the resurrection, too.
Quote:
Plainly that wouldn't do, so Solid -body appearances had to be invented. And immediately the stories fall apart. Because none of them copied from another, even though Luke and Matthew and John and Luke do use similar material. The degree of contradiction beggars the belief that they knew a contradictory gospel existed (1). In Mark the women run away and said nothing. In the others they all come to tell the disciples. Matthew has the women meet Jesus on the way, but John has the disciples rushing to see and Jesus only turn up for the first time (the angels too) after the disciples had gone. Moreover, Luke has Cleophas telling Jesus (who is supposed to be 'appearing to Simon' in order to fit in with Paul, that the women told about the angels but no mention of meeting Jesus.
Hope you have massive amounts of evidence that solid-body appearances were "invented", just like you require from us.
Then while in Matthew, the disciples troop off to Galilee to meet Jesus who gives them their evangelical message, Luke and John had Jesus already appear to them Sunday evening and could tell them whatever he needed to. Indeed, in Luke he spends about a month lecturing them on scripture and doctrine.
We know that in the synoptics Jesus and the disciples go to what appears to be Bethsaida, feeds 5000 men (to say 'nothing of the women and children', glosses Matthew), is declared the Messiah by Peter and we can toss in the bin Matthew alone having Peter denounced as the servant of the Devil and the future Pope. even if the history of the Vatican supports that bit of scripture). Then he takes three disciples up on the mountain where they witness a stunning transfiguration with OT saints and voice from heaven and Peter suggesting they'd make a fortune in ticket -sales. Then the return to Capernaum with Jesus walking on water.
But right where that transfiguration should be in John, there is only 'Jesus escaping into the hills because the people wanted to make him a king by force'. This is chronologically the same time, and the transfiguration isn't there and (on a previous thread) nobody's attempt to account for this worked. I won't go into my pet theory (I need money, first) but I suggest that the two events ARE the same, but disguised in different ways.
But what is a good contradiction is that they can no way be treated as reliable eyewitness.
I'll save some other good ones like the 'rejection in Nazareth being turned into a declaration of messiahship and an an attempted assassination - none of which Mark or Matthew have ever heard of, Nor John of course, though like Luke, he seems to have heard the 'no prophet in his own country' passage.
But let the apologists for Jesus do their best, including Bapfun, if he comes out of hiding and shows that he some guts. Or I'll show them to you .
(1) I haven't forgotten Guterwitz' argument that one was 'correcting' the others, but that just too much the jedi -wave excuse. Luke knowing John wouldn't have brought his gospel into line with Thomas being away and the spear - wound? The better explanation is that Luke never saw John.[/quote]
The one thing I've noticed about atheists and other bible scoffers is that when they read the bible, they don't seem to "put it ALL together". They take bits and pieces and weigh them against other bits and pieces and say, "AHA! The bits and pieces contradict!" Meanwhile, both bits and pieces are part of the same story...just with more detail. Or, both bits and pieces apply to two different situations. Yet, you refuse to see it that way.
Witnesses don't see a traffic accident happen from the same point of view. If you already know this (and I'm sure you do), why can't you see the different Gospel writers in the same way?
This is between you and BF, so I'm not even going to address it.
Quite.
Quote:
Wait a minute...
Matthew does NOT say that the family was "residents" of Bethlehem. I think you're connecting Matthew 1:24 with Matthew 2:1, and assuming that the family actually lived in Bethlehem.
They didn't. Joseph was originally from Bethlehem, but he had been living in Nazareth ( which is in Galilee). They traveled to Bethlehem from Nazareth in order to be counted in the census. While there, Mary went into labor, and had Jesus.
Jesus was born in Joseph's home town of Bethlehem. From there they went to Egypt and then BACK to Nazareth.
No discrepancy. Between Matthew and Luke it gives a more complete report as to what happened.
Discrepancy. Indeed contradiction. It is clear that Joseph was still living in Bethlehem (for between 1 and 2 years, looking at the clue in (Mat 2.7 and 2.18) so if Luke was true the magi would have looked for them in vain in Bethlehem. But that's not the point. It is that they flee from Bethlehem to Egypt. Then when Herod is dead they intend to return to Bethlehem (.21 and 22). Clearly. Because otherwise they'd go home to Nazareth and there would be no need to warn them to avoid Judea and go to Galilee instead, would there?
Quote:
Again, your interpretation doesn't "prove" anything. If you mis-read what happened regarding Jesus' birth, then it's very possible that you also misinterpret what happened with the resurrection, too.
If you haven't actually read and understood what your own Bible says about the Nativity, it's possible you might be wrong about the rresurrection, too.
Quote:
Hope you have massive amounts of evidence that solid-body appearances were "invented", just like you require from us.
I think so.
(The following quotes me) Then while in Matthew, the disciples troop off to Galilee to meet Jesus who gives them their evangelical message, Luke and John had Jesus already appear to them Sunday evening and could tell them whatever he needed to. Indeed, in Luke he spends about a month lecturing them on scripture and doctrine.
We know that in the synoptics Jesus and the disciples go to what appears to be Bethsaida, feeds 5000 men (to say 'nothing of the women and children', glosses Matthew), is declared the Messiah by Peter and we can toss in the bin Matthew alone having Peter denounced as the servant of the Devil and the future Pope. even if the history of the Vatican supports that bit of scripture). Then he takes three disciples up on the mountain where they witness a stunning transfiguration with OT saints and voice from heaven and Peter suggesting they'd make a fortune in ticket -sales. Then the return to Capernaum with Jesus walking on water.
But right where that transfiguration should be in John, there is only 'Jesus escaping into the hills because the people wanted to make him a king by force'. This is chronologically the same time, and the transfiguration isn't there and (on a previous thread) nobody's attempt to account for this worked. I won't go into my pet theory (I need money, first) but I suggest that the two events ARE the same, but disguised in different ways.
But what is a good contradiction is that they can no way be treated as reliable eyewitness.
I'll save some other good ones like the 'rejection in Nazareth being turned into a declaration of messiahship and an an attempted assassination - none of which Mark or Matthew have ever heard of, Nor John of course, though like Luke, he seems to have heard the 'no prophet in his own country' passage.
But let the apologists for Jesus do their best, including Bapfun, if he comes out of hiding and shows that he some guts. Or I'll show them to you .
(1) I haven't forgotten Guterwitz' argument that one was 'correcting' the others, but that just too much the jedi -wave excuse. Luke knowing John wouldn't have brought his gospel into line with Thomas being away and the spear - wound? The better explanation is that Luke never saw John.
Quote:
The one thing I've noticed about atheists and other bible scoffers is that when they read the bible, they don't seem to "put it ALL together". They take bits and pieces and weigh them against other bits and pieces and say, "AHA! The bits and pieces contradict!" Meanwhile, both bits and pieces are part of the same story...just with more detail. Or, both bits and pieces apply to two different situations. Yet, you refuse to see it that way.
Witnesses don't see a traffic accident happen from the same point of view. If you already know this (and I'm sure you do), why can't you see the different Gospel writers in the same way?
One thing I've noticed is that The Bible believers don't look or listen, they just recite the stock apologetics.
I look at EVERYTHING in the gospels and compare it section by section, letting the contradictions leap out.
That I have reported and explained, and all you did was play the 'slips of memory' card. And that without even addressing the evidence. You tried a bit with the nativity, but really, you weren't looking at what the Bible actually says, you were relying on what you thought it said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
