Amaleq13

If, like the Gospel passages, these sentences are offered as a description of the same event, then they do contradict and at least one has made a false claim.

Your analogy is simply not analogous no matter how much you protest. It is manufactured specifically to give you the answer you want but it fails to match the Gospels. You fail with the Lincoln analogy as well but it is at least somewhat analogous since it involves the cause of death of an individual.

As descriptions of Lincoln's cause of death, they are contradictory.

As descriptions of the location of Lincoln's death, they are contradictory.

As descriptions of Lincoln's death, they are both the work of imbeciles who have no business trying to tell a story accurately.

Nice work! :thumbs:

That's how you wrote them. Unfortunately, how you wrote is not analogous to how the Gospel authors wrote. They are both clearly describing how Judas died but only one can be an accurate description because they contradict. One either dies from hanging or one dies from bursting apart.

Does he fly? Does he glow like a lamp? Doesn't sound at all like the explicitly identified angel.

thentian

I have never seen one so I have no idea what one looks like, but I presume the Holy Spirit (who inspred these writers, right?) would know the difference. All of these writers also knew the word for angel (ἄγγελοι (angeloi)) and used it elsewhere. See for example Mark 1:13 and Luke 2:15. So why would they not use the correct word for angel if that is what they meant? Mark in particular does not give the slightest hint that he is talking about an angel when he writes about a young man in a white robe. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the other writers "enhanced" the story a little...

They were not afraid to tell exactly the same things elsewhere, even using the exact same words. Compare for example Matt 6:24 with Luke 16:13 or Matt 7:7-8 with Luke 11: 9-10. Riiiight, no reason to mention the exact same things!

aChristian

We will just have to disagree agreeably. sschlicter's analogy appears perfectly relevant to me. Four accounts of an historical event that disagree until you fill in unnammed details.

As I said a long time ago(maybe before you joined?) it has been done many times and I see no reason to do it again. I referenced three sites that do it. (One even does it in a single column, although I think it is easy enough to see when given a parallel column format.) I also have a book or two that has done it.

Your characterization does not appear valid to me. We have four historical accounts (yes from eyewitnesses (Matt. & John and maybe Mark) or taken from eyewitnesses (Luke and maybe Mark)). They don't have to be identical to all be reliable accounts. One can leave out lots of details and they are still reliable accounts. The people back at the time took them as such and I see no reason to disagree with that now.

aChristian

You are ignorant about angels.

aChristian

I would have to disagree. There is no significant difference. The analogy holds. A small part of your problem is your lack of knowledge about angels.

thedistillers

There are those who claim the Gospels have no contradictions, or difficulties, and that it is a clear proof the Bible is the Word of God.

And there are those who claim the Gospels do have errors, but it doesn't affect the reliability of the Gospels because errors are to be expected.

So if the Gospels have no error, then it is reliable because it is the Word of God. If the Gospels do have errors, it is still considered reliable because it should be expected considering it comes from different authors.

Christians sure love to have it both ways. Errors or no errror, it is reliable no matter what.

Then you have to wonder what would it take to show the Gospels are NOT reliable, if pointing out errors is not enough.

ChristMyth

I have found this conversation has become rather pointless. No matter how many times we show both aChristian and sschlichter that their examples do not hold water, no matter how many times we show that the gospel accounts do not agree and are full of errors, they will still insist that we have done nothing to prove them wrong.

I wish the best to anybody else who decides to join the conversation if it carries on, and I hope Amaleq13 has enough aspirin next to his/her computer if s/he continues this futile attempt. As for me, I feel that I'm not even beating a dead horse anymore, just the spot where the carcass used to lay.

Christmyth

angelo

Angels are the size of a virus, or smaller. You have heard it said; how many angels fit on a pinhead?

angelo

Have you ever seen an angel? What evidence do you provide of what they may look like? Human like with wings perhaps? :Cheeky:

xaxxat

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

We call that "making shit up"...