rhutchin

When apologists speak of "apparent contradictions" it can mean that they think the person alleging contradiction hasn't really investigated the issue (other than reading a couple verses) or that the person alleging contradiction is assuming things that the Bible does not tell us. Contradictions are clearest only in the fog of ignorance.

No, it fails because the analogy of journalists, all of whom viewed an event, does not fit the true situation.

A little contrived. If you conclude that John's account of some event is inconsistent with Mark's account, it may only reflect poor scholarship on your part. No one makes the counterargument "That is how God wanted them to report the event." Stop creating strawmen just so you can generate a false logical error.

That it is not credible is an opinion that you make have but it adds nothing to the issues at hand.

Deus Ex

And I am sure that Peter denied Christ 6 times, Quirinius must have been Governor of Syria twice, and there must have been 2 censuses.

A fundamentalist will always spin up a tortured explanation for obvious contradictions in the Bible. Liberal Christians have no problem acknowledging that the books of the Bible were written by fallible human beings. The problem comes when fundamentalists have an emotional need for an absolute authority that they can be subservient to. Since Protestants reject the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church they needed to create a Paper Pope out of the Bible.

rhutchin

John does refer to a Passover feast that would be held on Friday. Jesus and the disciples participated in a meal on Thursday night that the synoptics called a "passover meal." John agrees that they had a meal on Thursday night. So we have an agreed common starting point for both accounts.

Agreed. John is typifying Jesus as the passover lamb. Following the crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews would have participated in a passover meal.

I don't think your account is entirely correct. The Feast of Unleavened Bread, also known as the Passover, began Thursday night. The pascal lamb was slain between the two evenings (after Thursday evening and before Friday evening) and usually about 4:00 pm or so on Friday, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the first day of Passover. John refers to a Passover Feast that would take place Friday night, but that does not tell us anything about when Passover began (which we know was Thursday at 6:00 pm because that is the way the Jews kept time).

Disagree. Matthew records.

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. (Matt 26:17-20)

The first day of unleavened bread would begin at 6:00 Thursday. It is still light out and the disciples want to know what to do. Everything has been prearranged. The room is ready. Jesus says to the owner of the house, (via the disciples), "I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples." Later that evening, as it gets dark, Jesus and the disciples meet for the meal. While Jesus calls the meal the "passover," the passover lamb would not be slain until later on Friday before 6:00 pm and therefore, between the evenings.

There is no basis to conclude that the "ritual" killing of the passover lamb occurred on Thursday afternoon. We really don't know what is going on because a lot of details are left out. We do know that Jesus and the disciples met for a meal on Thursday night and that Jesus referred to this meal as the passover. It is clear that the meal occurs on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the first day of Passover) on Thursday evening. This meal is clearly not that formal, official Passover Feast that would occur later on Friday night.

OK. The synoptics make no attempt to identify Jesus as the passover lamb.

John certainly places emphasis on things that the synoptics do not. However, Johns reference to the Feast of the Passover which would occur on Friday night and failure to identify the meal on Thursday night as a "passover" meal means nothing. According to the synoptics, Jesus and the disciples observed the passover on Thursday night. The synoptics do not explain why they call this a "passover meal" so people have speculated that on those occasions where the first day of Unleavened Bread was before the sabbath, then the passover meal could be observed on Thursday night as well as Friday night.

If we look at that which the synoptics and Jesus agree, we really don't have room to wander. John and the synoptics agree on all the events after the meal on Thursday night. They even agree that there was a meal on Thursday night. There is no disagreement on the timeframe from Thursday night to Friday afternoon and the events that take place.

Your only quibble seems to be about Jesus referring to the Thursday meal as a passover meal.

What exactly are the contradictions? You point our differences in the two accounts but what where does one contradict the other? Can you list the "contradictions" that you see and be as explicit as possible?

rhutchin

Does anyone here actually read the Bible?

Deus Ex

i have read it cover to cover. Problem is: You are trying to turn the bible into something that it is not. It is a compilation of human writings collected for a theological purpose. It is not a magic rulebook from God. :constern01:

bacht

Rhutchin, there are people here who have read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Syriac.... There are people here who have studied the apocrypha/pseudepigrapha, the manuscript families, the commentaries, the academic literature. There are people here who have studied Josephus, the patristic literature, the apologists, the church historians.

Have you read anything other than the KJV?

aa5874

If the gospel of John is examined then John 3.16 is absolute stupidity or foolishness.

Look at John 1 This makes no sense at all. The Word of God was dead for three days while God was alive, which was the Word, that was with God, that is God.

Well, God was not dead, he was still alive. The Word was alive and dead at the same time.

Absolute stupidity or foolishness to the Greeks.

rhutchin

The word was made flesh and we see this in the birth of Jesus. God took the form of a human being, made of flesh, and lived among human beings. When that body of flesh died on the cross, God then departed from the body. The word was always alive and never died. The death of the fleshly body did not result in the death of God just as the death of our fleshly bodies will not result in the death of our souls.

rhutchin

We need to get them to comment in these threads. Their knowledge would be helpful.

Is there anything else worth reading?

rhutchin

You are welcome to your opinion as I am. However, in dealing with the Bible, how about if we deal with what it actually says and what you actually can read it to say, no more, no less.