Wayne Delia

Obviously, the common apologetic is that one genealogy is of Joseph, and the other is of Mary. However, it doesn't matter. One genealogy goes through Coniah (Jeconiah), who was explicitly excommunicated from the royal lineage of David (including all of Jeconiah's descendants - search on "Write this man childless" to find the reference). The other genealogy goes through Nathan instead of his brother, King Solomon, so that genealogy isn't the royal lineage of King David. An Old Testament prophecy required that the messiah be seated in the royal line of King David.

WMD

Wayne Delia

That's among my favorites, and the contradiction deserves more discussion.

The contradiction is sometimes incorrectly thought of as Jesus cursing the fig tree for not bearing fruit when it was not the fig-bearing season.

However, a more powerful contradiction is the description of when the disciples realized the fig tree died as a result of Jesus's curse. One Gospel says the disciples noticed it immediately; another Gospel claims that Jesus and the disciples continued on to Jerusalem, stayed overnight, and on their return trip were surprised to see that the tree had withered.

WMD

John Kesler

The "Great Commission" is Matthew 28:18-20. Also, Christian apologist Glenn M. Miller presents his argument against a discrepancy here and is answered by Nancy Todd here.

Wayne Delia

Yet your take on these verses suffers from the same problems as the verses themselves: you dismiss the set of people who have no opinion about Jesus at all. That's where the contradiction applies. According to the first reference (Matthew 12:30a), the indifferent person is against Jesus, by virtue of the fact that he is not for Jesus. But by the second reference (Mark 9:40), the indifferent person is simultaneously for Jesus, since an indifferent person qualifies as someone who is not against Jesus.

Indifferent people might include those who are apathetic ("I don't care either way") about the Christian religion, or those who are unable to comprehend the message about Christianity, or for the most part, those who have never heard anything at all about Christianity. Such people actually exist. I suppose it could be said that there do exist people who are simultaneously for Jesus and against Jesus, but those people would be showing symptoms of schizophrenia.

WMD

Wayne Delia

You are absolutely correct; that's my mistake. I seem to remember my Revised Standard Edition (or another version) having a section sub-title referring to the "two-by-two" marching orders section as the Great Commission, but I can't even find that book right now.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Technically, that's correct. However, it begs the question of why various authors of the Gospels accidentally or intentionally left out significant details of an event which, to believers, is central to eternal salvation. If I was a believer, or an ancient author intent on getting people to believe the story, and the omitted details (i.e., additional witnesses) would materially strengthen the story, then I'd be a poor journalist indeed if I omitted or overlooked those details. A similar incident is found elsewhere in Matthew, in the "resurrection of the saints" episode, when all manner of zombie Old Testament heroes left their graves and walked and talked among the living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus's crucifixion. That event, to my way of thinking, would deserve an entire book for itself in the New Testament - it's prima facie evidence of the validity of the claims, and would certainly be noticed by other independent disinterested observers. Yet the author of Matthew thought to give it only one sentence in passing, while the authors of the other three Gospels overlooked it completely. Either it didn't happen, in that the author of Matthew took the opportunity of bullshitting us, or else it is a symptom of extremely negligent writing on the part of the author of Matthew, combined with total incompetence on the part of the authors of the other three Gospels.

WMD

Johnny Skeptic

In Bible John's new thread on inerrancy at the GRD Forum, Joan of Bark made an excellent post. She said:

Indeed. I would like for some Christians to answer that question.

Timetospend

Sure, if you want a Christian opinion. Pretty simple. God choose to do it both ways with Christians. The Holy Spirit speaks directly to the Christian; Scriptures provide a source somewhat less subjective so that the Christian will have a harder time rationalizing what God is telling them.

One passage indicating the benefit of Scripture is:
2 Tim 3:12-17
12 Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
NRSV

In my opinion and experience, a direct transmission to the brain is less objective than the written word for weighing personal motives.

Thanks,

Johnny Skeptic

Well, direct transmission to the brain just so happened to be God's frequent way of inspring the Bible if he did in fact inspire the Bible. Surely no human witnessed the following claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus never sinned.

4 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

The entire book of Revelation might have been transmitted to the writer's brain.

It is your position that the Bible is inerrant, and that God inspired the originals? If so, upon what evidence do you base your claims? If you wish, we can discuss those issues in a thread at the GRD Forum that is titled "Are there any inerrantists at this forum," or in the thread that is titled "God is corrupt."

Is it your position that God does not withhold any evidence that would cause some people to accept him if they were aware of it?

In my opinion, the most objective evidence by far is firsthand, tangible evidence. There is no proof that at least one being exists who is able to speak a new galaxy into existence. If at least one being exists who can do that, and that being is the God of the Bible, he could easily demostrate that, which would surely cause some atheists and evolutionists to reevaluate their positions. That would not prove who he was, but it would create a more likely possibility than we have at this time.

It is questionable whether or not a God exists, and, assuming that a God exists, it is questionable who he specifically is. Even if a being inspired the writing of the Bible, there is not any credible evidence that he has good character. If you wish to discuss that issue, I invite you to participate in the thread at the GRD Forum that is titled "God is corrupt."

I invite you to participate in a thread at the GRD Forum that I started today that is titled "If God inspired the Bible, why did you do it?"

jeremyp

Except that it actually isn't a contradiction at all. The description in Acts is part of a speech by Peter. You can dispose of the contradiction by assuming that Peter was either lying or didn't know what he was talking about and Acts just records it faithfully.