lpetrich

So Ben Witherington is defending chronological carelessness as something to be proud of. If objecting to carelessness makes me a pedant, then so be it.

I'd like to challenge such apologists to try a time-machine thought experiment. That is, to go in a time machine with some video recording equipment and try to meet Jesus Christ in the flesh. What would they have seen? And what would their equipment have recorded?

I wish to make this challenge because they sometimes seem weaselly about what they think had actually happened. But anyone else may join in.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ehrman starts his next group of contradictions on page 33 saying regarding the Infancy Narratives:

This is inventoried at ErrancyWiki:

Matthew 2:1



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Ehrman gives his second set of claimed contradictions in the Christian Bible on page 34 regarding when Jesus was supposedly born saying that "there are enormous problems with the birth narratives when viewed from a historical perspective. There are historical implausibilities and discrepancies that can scarcely be reconciled."

Ehrman's key related points:

1) "Matthew" says Jesus was born before Herod the Great died. "Luke" says Jesus was born duirng the census of Quirinius.

2) "Matthew" says Jesus' home was Bethlehem. "Luke" says Jesus' home was Nazareth.

3) "Matthew" says Jesus went to Egypt after he was born. "Luke" says Jesus went to Nazareth after he was born.

4) The explanation for contradiction here is that each Gospel is primarily interested in presenting the prophecy fulfillment of Jesus being born in Bethlehem but develop their own solutions as to how Jesus gets there.

I've inventoried all this at ErrancyWiki:

When was Jesus born?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Ehrman gives his third set of claimed contradictions in the Christian Bible starting on page 35 regarding Jesus' supposed genealogy saying that "Probably the two authors inherited, or possibly they made up, different genealogies."

Ehrman's key related points:

1) "Matthew" says Uzziah's father was Joram. The Jewish Bible says Joram was Uzziah's great-great-grandfather.

2) "Matthew" says Jesus' grand-father was Jacob. "Luke" says Jesus' grand-father was Heli.

3) "Matthew" says there are 14 generations from Babylon to Jesus but there are only 13.

4) "Matthew" says there are 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. "Luke" says there are 57 generations from Abraham to Jesus.

5) The explanation for contradiction here is that "Matthew" is primarily interested in showing Jesus descended from Abraham, to give a Jewish emphasis while "Luke" is primarily interested in showing Jesus descended from Adam, to give a Gentile emphasis

I've inventoried all this at ErrancyWiki:

What was Jesus' Genealogy?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Susan2

And? It's all fake Joseph. There was no Abraham either, nor an Adam, nor an Eve, no Solomon, no David................it was a testerone pissing match, they have them to this day. No big deal., except when someone gets hurt? :huh:

JoeWallack

JW:
I've inventoried the following claimed discrepancies by Ehrman during the trial before Pilate at ErrancyWiki:

1) Where was Pilate during the trial?

Mark 15 = Same place

verses:

John 18 = Different places


2) What did Jesus say to Pilate?

Mark 15:2 = Two words

verses:

John 18 and 19 = Entire speeches


3) When was Jesus scourged?

Mark 15:15 = After the trial

verses:

John 19.1 = During the trial


4) Did Pilate Declare That Jesus Was Innocent?

Mark 15:15 = No

verses:

John 18.38, 19.6 and 19.12 = Yes

Enjoy!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

avi

Thank you Joe.
I have two related questions:
(perhaps, already asked and answered on some other thread--if so, I apologize for the repetition.)

1. Why would a Roman governor (speaking Latin, presumably) stoop to interview an itinerant, Aramaic speaking preacher, accused of a capital crime? Is it understood that this undistinguished, relatively youthful, Jewish traitor spoke Latin? Alternatively, since this is Greek literature, are the readers to imagine that both Jesus, and Pilate, spoke Greek? Was it customary for Roman Governors of a province of the Roman Empire to bring a translator to a meeting between the Governor and a prisoner awaiting crucifiction?

2. Who recorded this supposed conversation between Jesus and Pilate? How did such a person have access to the inner sanctum of a Roman Governor's palace? Or, are we to believe that the Roman Governor instead, departed from his lovely home to visit the squalid jail housing the treasonous prisoner, prior to the latter's execution? What motive could the Governor have had for making such a gesture? Is there any evidence of any other Roman Governor in Palestine, or anywhere else, visiting prisoners condemned to death for treason?

Perhaps attention to detail was unimportant in writing Greek mythology? Since the authors of the Gospels were Greek, perhaps they simply assumed that everyone else knew Greek too....? Maybe two millenia ago, everyone did know Greek! Was the educational system in the Roman colonies so much more sophisticated than our own educational system, where most of the USA population is illiterate in even one language, let alone two.

regards,
avi

Fenris_Wulf

Is it just me or does this sound very much like a Mystery religion? The masses who know just the outer mysteries (simplified version) and initiates who are privy to deeper understanding. :huh:

Llyricist

Scientology is a Mystery religion?

JoeWallack

JW:
Assuming there was a Jesus he probably would have only been fluent in Aramaic. Pilate probably would have only been fluent in Latin and Greek. I think it would have been standard procedure for a translator to be present in these circumstances. "Mark" exorcised translators because it detracts from the narrative flow. In this situ, when there is precise dialogue, it is usually the author that is really speaking and not the character. Compare to a real historian, Josephus, who doesn't pretend to give specific actual conversations.

JW:
This is not as much as a problem as the above. Pilate would have had an entourage and at times an audience and long before the Internet gossip was the primary hobby.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page