aChristian

I looked at it enough to satisfy myself. I have looked at others besides this as well. Why re-invent the wheel. You say it can't be done, but from my inspection it has been. Find the error if it exists.

Because someone who was there and is a credible witness says so - just like I believe George Washington existed because some else says so. You believe they weren't because of some wild theory dreamed up in the 19th century with no credible witnesses that ascribe to that theory (or even dream up its possibility) from the time in question. Only 'Johnny come lately's from 1800 years after the witnesses who would ridicule their theory are dead.

I think sschlicter did a good job of answering any of the critiques and I answered one or two. However sschlicter was doing such a good job that I really didn't need to do much. I could just sit back and watch the fun.

As I said, no need to re-invent the wheel. It looks to me like it has been done many times besides those that I listed. As I also mentioned I have seen it in several books as well. No one here could find a contradiction and they are looking hard.

thentian

You do know that many gospel verses were left out in the latest version of NIV (and several other new translations) because they don't exist in the oldest known manuscripts, right? So it is certain that these verses were later interpolations. One gets the clear impression that many of the early copiers had few qualms about making "corrections" here and there...

Er... when you say they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do you mean that they were the original disciples who followed Jesus around?

rizdek

Not really, the boss may have just forgot to tell the person the whole story. The doctor might just have a really weird sense of humor. The boy didn't lie, he just got sidetracked. He told what happened afterwards. The girl felt that was all she needed to say because she didn't feel it was his business that she went to a movie with another guy, because in her opinion, they weren't that close in their relationship.

But, do the statements contradict reality/what happened? The answer seems to be, technically no, because there is way to explain what happened to match the statements.

Toto

Not true - there are lots of textual variants, some of them highly significant.

Again, not true. The first person to identify the authors of these gospels was Irenaeus, writing around 180 CE.

What are the names of these people?

angelo

There are some indications that suggest that what are considered today as the canonical gospels started to circulate in the middle of the second century.
As late as 150c.e, Justine first referred to the memoirs of the apostles as sacred scripture.
That's around 120 years after the so called Christ's life came to an end.
It must be remembered that each of the gospels were written for a specific group of xtians that were scattered all over the Roman Empire due to the war of rebelian by the Jews around 65-75 c.e.

gregor

You have yet to reference a lug nut, let alone a wheel. Your cut and paste references to general Xian cites is not the challenge.

It's not that difficult to understand, but I'll try and spell out the challenge:

1. Write a single narrative. A "narrative" is a story with words and punctuation. A "single" narrative means one account of the story.

2. In your narrative include ALL details from the death to resurrection from the bible, leaving no detail out.

3. In your narrative explain completely the number of trips, the visitors, the conversations, and outcomes - leaving no detail out. You can try and fill in a gap in the record with a potential explanation, but you cannot leave out any written detail.

4. Try and make a consistent narrative.

Your links don't meet these elements.

aChristian

The second website particularly meets the challenge (although the others should satisfy anyone as well). I didn't write it, but it satisfies the challenge except for the fact that I didn't write it myself. The site shows it can be done and I have no desire to waste my time doing it again. As far as the number of trips, you can count them from the narrative given yourself.

thentian

What Gregor said!

Those links may be useful to someone trying to meet the Easter Challenge, but they are equally useful in pinpointing where the contradictions are, IMO.

I don't see dr lazer blasts attempt as anything more than a rough draft for a narrative. It doesn't even quote what people said at the various places and times. So it would be cool if someone could make a genuine attempt at meeting Barker's Easter Challenge.

Cheers!

aChristian

The newer translations, except for the NKJV, leave out versus because the rely on two older manuscripts that I think were considered junk. They are valuable because of their early dates, but they disagree with 99.95% of the other manuscripts and they disagree with each other. The only reason they were preserved so long is probably because no one considered them worth using and thus no one wore them out. The reason the great agreement in the majority text is that it represents the original.
These are not interpolations and corrections, but normal copying mistakes. Having said this, even Alexandrinus and Sinaticus are in agreement for the vast majority of the text.


And yes, I mean the disciples who followed Jesus around. Mark may have been the kid that fled naked from the garden, I don't know for sure, but he was at least one of the early disciples who most likely saw Jesus personally. Luke of course joined Paul later on and talked to the early disciples who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension (maybe he also saw Jesus, but we don't know).

aChristian

You are leaving out Papias who knew John, Clement who likely knew some of the disciples and quotes extensively from them, Polycarp who was John's disciple, Irenaeus, etc.