Bubba

I'm in the process of begining an open debate with an extreme biblical literalist and need a little bit of help.

1. What is your favourite example of the most obvious problem with the New Testament? From my point of view it would have to be easter and the conflicting accounts. I've also throught about bringing up the two seperate accounts of Jesus geneology, but there is significant fundy wiggle room here.

2. What is the best popular level book that discusses how the old testament is linked to previous mythology? I've read 101 Myths of the bible and not a whole lot else.

3. Have any ot the rest of you had really good luck pinning literalists down in a debate using any particular arguement? I plan on showing open and direct contradictions in the bible and seeing what his response is.

Bubba

Kosh

Have you read the stuff in the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.shtml" target="_blank">library</a>?

Bubba

Yes, the library is hugely helpful. I'm more asking "where do I start?"

Bubba

Radorth

Good choice for a debate. Somebody like Layman or Bede might burst your bubble. Actually Doherty kind of burst it already. He says the passion stories are too similar to be believed. Where you been man? I'd stay away from the crucifixion story altogether. Your "contradiction" theories are old news, and pretty worthless now that we know they were "slavishy copied" from each other.

Radorth

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

I have not seen Layman and Bede burst anybody's bubble so I would not worry about that, especially when it comes to contradictions in the Bible.

Old news? Wrong! contradiction are still there and noone has offered any reasonable explanation.

Easter! Does that sound like the crucifixion to you. He is talking about Sunday morning, ie the resurrection. I have already challenged many Christians to combine John's account and Matthew's account into one story. The rules are as follows:

a) you can add anyhting that you want
b) you cannot remove anything
c) the story must make sense and not only to theists
d) the story cannot contradict itself.

Radorth, go ahead burst my bubble.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Steven Carr

John puts the crucifixion beginning at the 6th hour.

Mark puts it at the 3rd.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses (in their book Studies in the Scriptures that I saw) were embarrassed by that one!

Steven Carr

I'm curious to know if you think the authors of Matthew and Luke did or did not use Mark and or 'Q' as a source or sources (or mark using Matthew or whichever combination your prefer).


Do you think the Synoptic Gospels are totally independent of each other? A plain 'yes' or 'no' would save your time when posting your answer :-)

offa

offa; There was an intercalation on the date of the Crucifixion. "The cock crew twice". The author's of John and Mark were using different intercalations. Doherty is incorrect ... way of base because he thinks Mark was written first. The Christians were a secret society and did not burst forth until Constantine. Judea was an important money source for Rome besides being a strategic location. The crucifixion may not have been reported by Pilate because he was bribed and the Romans did not have access to the gospels which were all written before A.D. 50.
We change our clocks twice a year and we can write that the sun stopped for an hour or that we had an extra hour of darkness.

Gregg

Radorth, why are you so desperate that you're willing to distort Doherty's arguments, indeed to make up silly arguments out of whole cloth and attribute them to Doherty? You sound rather like those creationists who make up ridiculous strawman versions of evolution to attack.

Although I've read Doherty's entire thesis, I cannot seem to find this section where he claims that Matthew, Luke, and John "slavishly copied" every single element of their respective gospels from Mark. Even if he did use this term somewhere, you are taking it out of context and twisting it to make it sound ridiculous. Clearly, it's much easier for you to do that than to actually deal with Doherty's arguments in any depth.

Gregg

not a theist

1.) Mark 1:2 which clearly ascribes a saying to Isaiah that is actually a blend of Isaiah, Malachi, and the LXX version of Exodus.