rizdek

I get the feeling apologists are wearying of our comebacks. Not that they admit defeat, it's probably more like, 'what's the point?' That is how I would feel. If I truly believed that jesus was a human sacrifice as part of the will and plan of a god, I would not let a little thing like some varying and incomplete accounts get in my way. And I certainly wouldn't waste time arguing with a bunch of sinning atheists. Once a person accepts the biggest absurdity (god) everything else is "small potatoes" so to speak.

sschlichter

If you had a contradiction that did not first require that I put atheist goggles on to see, it would be a more compelling argument. (ie. a passage contradicts as long as you interpret it the way that is contradictory to the others).

However, your statement stands as pretty accurate. Once I beleived that the Scriptures were inspired, the nature of that inspiration is of little consequence. God did not dictate but chose to reveal himself through the personalities, talents, and situations of fallible men and the Bible is the only example of what that looks like so I have no reason to expect something different.

~Steve

jab

So: do you understand that therefore the Bible is fallible, like the men who wrote it? Or do you understand that like the God who is revealing Himself in it, it is infallible?

thentian

I really don't see how you can say that about atheist goggles. For example in the case of Judas' death, it requires no kind of special goggles to notice that the two stories are very different. It is you apologetists who have to come up with a fanciful way to combine the two versions. It is only through apologetists goggles that the result does not look ridiculous and contrived. "He hanged himself, but the branch was rotten so he fell to the ground and burst open"?!? Similarly with the spices that the women brought to the grave; Can you really not see how contrived it is to say that they realized they didn't have enough, so they had to buy some more? I think you must be wearing some very special goggles indeed, if so! Am I wearing special goggles if I assume that when Mark writes "...they told nobody." it means that they told nobody? You however add the parenthetical clause "... of the people they met in the street, but they ran and told Peter." I think you must be wearing some very special goggles if you can't see that you just turned Mark into a liar!

Please remove those goggles!

aChristian

What is so obvious to me is that the people alive at the time had both parts of the story and saw no contradiction. If the accounts were written by liars, they would have cleaned up any contradictions or no one would buy the story. However, if, as the historic record states, the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the early church knew this and knew enough of the background details to see no contradiction, just as we see no contradiction in the different 911 newspaper reports, then the accounts would be left just as they are.

aChristian

Matthew was considered the first written historically. It wasn't until the last couple of hundred years that people started putting Mark first. The people who started doing this are also the same with the wacko redactor and late date theories as well so I don't have much confidence in their opinions. Also the reasons they give for their order are pretty weak in my opinion. However the fact that the people nearer to the time of the writing remembered Matthew as writing first is a pretty good indicator. The earlier dates by conservative scholars also seem to have better reasons behind them. Luke seems to have written Acts before Paul died (?64AD?) and Luke was written before that. Luke mentions other accounts by which he may be referring to Matthew and Mark among others. Also, there appears to be an early fragment of Mark (O'Callaghan's fragment) that dates it at 50AD.

angelo

The clues seem to sugest otherwise.
Mark is silent on the events of the war that broke out in 70 ce.
While in Mathew the destruction of the temple is stated as a prophecy [24:3]. a clue that it was writen after 70 ce. After the destruction of the temple.

gregor

The only reason I monitor and occasionally post to threads such as this is when Xians post false and absurd statements. aChristian's posts here are paradigms of misleading and uneducated apologetics, and I would hope that lurkers aren't deceived by his essentially content-free positions.


Prime examples from his last two posts

1. "people alive at the time had both parts of the story and saw no contradiction. . ." Demonstrating a gross question begging. aChristian has demonstrated an ignorance or intentional ignoring of scholarship of dates of authorship, authors, & etc.


2."accounts were written by liars" - fallacy of the excluded middle. The best explanation is voiced by Crossan and others, to wit 'No one until the 1700s even thought to assert that the Bible was the inerrant word of god that had no contradictions.'


3. "as the historic record states, the authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the early church knew this and knew enough of the background details to see no contradiction" - question begging, wilfull ignorance of scholarship.


4. "Matthew was considered the first written historically" Ibid.


5. "earlier dates by conservative scholars" - appeal to anonymous authority


6. "I don't have much confidence in their opinions" appeal to personal (in)credulity

7. "Luke seems to have written Acts before Paul died (?64AD?)" - anyone actually interested in arguing the bases for date determinations ought to set out their facts and conclusions. aChristian, please rebut the thesis of L/A's reliance on Josephus. You can find the thesis here in the II library.

Doug Shaver

Are you now attempting to claim that only atheists can see any contradictions in the gospels?

If not, then what is your point about "atheist goggles"?

aChristian

Those clues are weak. Mark's mentions the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:2 as a prophecy, just as Matthew does. It is no indication that it was written after 70 AD. It is a prophecy. The reasons I already gave indicate it was written before 64 AD and I would think it was written much closer to 50 AD or earlier.