rizdek

The events on 9/11 2001 occurred over several states, hundreds of miles apart and involved worldwide planning. That is completely different than an event like what the various biblical accounts claimed happened on "resurrection" day. Many of the "odd" events recorded by the various scriptures were supposed to have occurred at one location (at the tomb) where supposedly one, two or a handful of women came and went, walked around a tomb, felt an earthquake, saw some angels and guards (all at the tomb). The nature of the accounts indicates that the NT writers did not have a factual event on which to base their accounts and made stuff up.

thentian

What's more; if they were addressing different audiences, as sschlichter has asserted elsewhere, they had every reason to write down all the details of what happened that day, and no good reason to be silent about anything. Since ssclichter has mentioned 9/11, let's consider the following scenario: Let's suppose that a century or so from now, a manuscript should be discovered that purported to be a firsthand account of events that had happened in New York City on September 11, 2001, but that this document made no mention at all of the hijacked airlines that crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and caused their collapse. If he were living then and had a familiarity with early 21st century history of New York, would ssclichter believe that this document was what it purported to be? I'm guessing not, yet he has no problems accepting that neither Mark, Luke, nor John mentions the earthquake that shook Jerusalem and woke up the dead from their graves. No, it is not that they are "complementing" each other. It is that someone is making up stories.

angelo

This ignores the fact that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.
So it's a completely different story. A Yeshu yes, but not the Yeshua.

sschlichter

how can you mention every detail when covering a 3 year period. You cannot. As was discussed, get 4 books on WW2 and make a note on the details that appear in one but not the others.

sschlichter

it is not one of the accounts that is inspired and does not have to be accurate to be an historical account. of course there could have been another Jesus doing miracles, thwarting stoning attempts, leading Isreal astray,and crucified at Passover.

this nonapologetic source certainly has no reason to make up fake stories about Jesus like you allege accounts for all his followers accounts.

I have noticed a trend in your arguments. all accounts of followers cannot be trusted and all other accounts must be about someone else because they do not agree with the followers.

thentian

Please try to retain some perspective, ssclichter. We are not talking about something that took place over four continents and five years here. The main focus of the gospels is the crucifixion and resurrection; Three days in one medium city. And we are not talking about details either. Earthquakes and dead people rising from their graves are front page news anywhere.

aa5874

Again the term, "It was taught", as stated in the Talmud around the 3rd century, cannot be deemed to be an historical account of Jesus of the NT.

Many things were "taught" by the 3rd century. Marcion TAUGHT Jesus Christ came directly from HEAVEN, and that he had no earthly parents. Marcion TAUGHT Jesus was an apparition but could be seen and many believed Marcion.

It is TAUGHT that Jesus is the offspring of the Holy Ghost, but you know that what is being TAUGHT is not history.

ChristMyth

If you look at the above and compare it to the biblical accounts of the Resurrection, it should be clear why this example doesn't work. Take the first two:

1. There were 19 hijackers
2. There was a "20th hijacker" snagged.

Neither one of these is contradictory to the other because, when read in order, a reader can quickly see that there were 19 hijackers which carried out the attack, with a last hijacker that was caught before it he could accomplish his mission. You do not have to add anything to the information given to make it make sense. How about the gospels?

1. Matthew: One angel meets the women
2. Mark: A young man meets the women
3. Luke: Two men dressed in clothes that gleamed like lightening met the women
4 John: Two angels in white met only one woman (Mary M)

Now when a reader reads the above, it is clear that not everything is clear. Was it one young man, one angel, two men, or two angels that met the women (or woman)? In order to make this make sense, you have to start finding ways to make the information fit (i.e. "if there were two angels, the there surely was one angel present,""the two 'men' were actually the two angels," etc.). You cannot read each one and come away with a picture of what happened as you can with the 9/11 information.

In order for the example to work, a reader would have to find articles that read something like this:

1. There were 19 hijackers of Middle Eastern origin that led the attack
2. There were 19 hijackers of South American origin that led the attack
3. There were 20 hijackers dressed in Arab garb that led the attack
4. There were 20 hijackers dressed in American clothing that led the attack

So, in the example, which was it? Were there 19 hijackers or 20? Were they dressed in Middle Eastern style clothing or American? If a reader found four different articles from published newspapers that read like the above, should they have any confidence in any of the newspapers? Should they try to reconcile all of them into a plausible narrative in order to claim that all the newspapers were correct (because surely if there were 20 hijackers, there were 19, right?)?

rizdek

I guess this is why lawyers have jobs and why laws are written the way they are. Perhaps aplogists that claim no contradiction are viewing the varying accounts as a defending attorney who is trying to get the jury to find their client (bible) not guilty of erroneous statements (contradictions). The attorney must present (make up) a scenario where it is conceivable that there are no contradictions. That is how people can commit crimes and be faced with overwhelming evidence against them and still not be found guilty, i.e. through technicalities and clever arguments. And if a jury (read apologist audience) can be "convinced" by the defending attorney that there is a way to see that despite appearances, there is reasonable doubt that the person is guilty (read the texts are contradictory) then the attorney declares and the jury agrees that there are no contradictions.

But I have always felt that, while I would want the best lawyer on my side if I was ever convicted of something, that there is something a bit disengenuous about the way they get decisions to come out in the best interest of their client. It's not like lawyers actually believe what they are arguing, it is their job to find the most effective way to do it.

sschlichter

The point: It was not taught by the Jews that Jesus never existed. This would have been a little more convenient for those that suggest Christ in history is a fabrication of Christians. When the Jews refuted the claims of Christs followers, teaching that Jesus never existed would have been a little more convenient than teaching that he was not God, his miracles were sorcery instead.

Marching out things claims that people make have no bearing on the claims that are true.

~steve