Diogenes the Cynic

They're really not consistent at all but more significantly, none of the authors are witnesses and they are not independent accounts. Mark's was written first. The other Gospels (Matthew and Luke directly, John indirectly) modelled their own resurrection stories on Mark but since his story ened with the women running away from the empty tomb, they were all forced to invent their own (wildly different) scenarios for everything that happened after that.

jeremyp

We see this argument quite a lot, but it doesn't help the inerrantists. It gives a possible reason as to why the contradictions are in the Bible but it doesn't make them go away.

In fact, it seems quite bizarre to me that Biblical inerrantists would choose to use the fallibility of human witnesses and writers to try to sweep some of the problems of the Bible under the carpet.

Avatar

Sort of wipes out the idea of "inerrancy" then, doesn't it?
Does it mean anything to point out that the gospels were not written by the apostles themselves but decades after the events they describe? Or do you believe that the Gospel of Judas was written by Judas?

Roland

Actually, that is incorrect. In John's version, she is still using the same "they stole the master's body" story when she meets Jesus himself in the tomb (when she mistakes him for the gardener and he has to reveal his true identity to her). There is no room in John's version of the events for an angel informing her of that fact.

Wayne Delia

No it wouldn't. My argument against God's existence is based on three Bible verses, and an assumption that the Bible is inerrant when discussing aspects of God's character. (If it isn't inerrant in that context, then there are huge problems which would result.) Naturalism and the purpose of the universe have nothing to do with my argument. Maybe you shouldn't have snipped it, as you seem to have brushed it under the carpet.

That's a very interesting, and highly evasive, counter-argument which seems to be universally applicable. Atheist/skeptic presents a logical argument refuting God, and the Christian apologist wanna-be replies, "Well, logically, we shouldn't be here, therefore we can't discuss it." There's a huge lump under that carpet there.

We're here to discuss the argument you left unaddressed. Here it is again, since you completely snipped it out:

Go ahead, have at it!

WMD

Wayne Delia

Indeed. Dang, ya beat me to it.

WMD

Wayne Delia

No, I meant what I said. My preferences have nothing to do with whether my arguments are supported. In fact, I supported my arguments with the following justification, which you again snipped out:
You didn't address any of that, even when you had an opportunity to do so. You should have. Here's why:

Then you should have no trouble whatsoever squaring the accounts in the books of Luke and John regarding when Jesus appeared to Thomas. In Luke, Jesus appears to the surviving eleven disciples - those who managed not to commit suicide - all at once, and in John, Thomas is not present when Jesus appears to the other ten disciples, and in fact has to wait an entire week before he sees Jesus.

I'd be interested in your answer to that problem. Try not to snip it in order to avoid it.

No, it's not kind of like that. For example, there are parts of the accounts which have Jesus appearing to His disciples in different geographic locations, at specific times when the disciples would have to have mounted horses and ridden like the wind to get to the next appearance location for no apparent reason.

So, to continue your metaphor, it's kind of like when four different people claim to witness an accident or a crime, and three of the four give completely different locations for the incident, and two completely different base colors of the automobiles in question.

These and other inconsistencies have inspired http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php, which is essentially a request to give a unified timeline of events mentioned in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, John 21, Acts 1, and 1 Corinthians 15. "As far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, they're pretty consistent" won't cut it.

That's a clear red flag which warns "Here comes a handwaving and smokescreening fallacy." The context is quite clear: it's the timeline of events involving Mary Magdalene's approach to Jesus's tomb on Easter Sunday.

The author of Luke is one to say that, in Luke 24:1-8. There, the author explains that the two women went to the tomb to anoint the body with spices. It was this time that they discovered Jesus's body was missing. They were not charging up there with the disciples after they had previously determined that Jesus was missing. If that was the case, then Luke 24:1-8 would be all screwed up.

I do, though, and the author of Luke disagrees with your conjecture in the references I gave.

You are discovering that the atheists know your Bible better than you do, and aren't afraid to call your bluff. It would be wise not to attempt to bluff.

Anyway, you were complaining about something involving context. What was that problem?

WMD

Jack the Bodiless

How can someone posting on the Internet use the excuse that they don't have the relevant verses handy?

Just how many online Bibles are there?

Joan of Bark

My proof that the Judeo/Christian god does not exist? When I ask God if he exists, I get no reply.
Sorry I'm off topic again, but I don't seem to be getting a reply from the believers, so ...

Wayne Delia

That wouldn't be proof, that would be evidence. Also, it's a logical fallacy of "denying the antecedent." That's in the form of the following syllogism:

1) If p, then q
2) Not p
C) Therefore, not q

Plug in "God responds to me" for p, and "God exists" for q. Then you have

1) "If God responds to me, then God exists"
2) "God does not respond to me"
C) "Therefore, God does not exist"

The first premise is reasonable, but you'll need to get another premise like "God will always respond whenever I talk to Him." That's where Christians trip up often. A popular bumper-sticker cliche answer from apologists to the question of why God seems completely absent is "Sometimes the answer is No." They equivocate complete silence into a definitive "No" answer from God, which itself is a logical fallacy.

The second premise is also reasonable. There's no communication from God whatsoever that can be distinguished from wishful thinking or manipulation of others ("God told me that (whatever)" is accepted as automatically true).

I hear ya on that. There was another thread - "Evidence - What will it take?" where, about once every three months, theists ask what evidence would be necessary to convert us to their faith, then they proceed to list the reasons why we won't be getting that evidence. Not a very satisfying discussion.

WMD