Nom

Premise of debate:
From Gastrich's latest reponse:
I think we're done here, right? The question isn't whether the resurrection is true or not -- that's a whole other debate -- but whether the accounts are in harmony and without contradition. Gastrich has just admitted that, while he doesn't believe it, it is possible that the accounts are flawed.

Yup, we're done

Koyaanisqatsi

It's the typical apologetic flipflop. All scripture is the holy word of god when it means your salvation, but when it comes to questions about discrepencies and contradictions, well, hey, then it's all just fallible humans, with faulty memories, or just a bunch of guys haning around the fire telling stories, so it's only natural that a few details here and there would be confused or changed or embellished.

I mean, come on! It's not like this testimony would represent the single most important communication ever engaged in throughout all of time or anything!

Right?

These authors, apparently, are just god inspired enough to get some of the things kind of down just about right, give or take. Accept when it comes to the really important things....well, no, wait, not really those either....um, all we know is that everything Jesus said he actually said and that's the shit god was most interested in and, frankly, he hadn't had his coffee that day when he inspired Matthew, so Matt just made up a few things here and there and then Luke? Well, Luke was a drinker and by that time his eyesight was poor and he couldn't really hear god all that well...Look, all we're saying is that it probably happened sort of the way some of the guys tell it and god doesn't seem to really care one way or the other, so we just let all that pass....Body of Christ? No? Really, take a few. They're delicious.

It's painfully simple. Either these documents are historically and theologically accurate representations of the inerrant word of the One True God or they are nothing more than a collection of cult mythologies; the hopes and dreams of fallible men and therefore no more significant than my collection of Hunter S. Thompsons.

Preferring Thompson, as I do, that would be an understatement.

Kosh

Indeed, it seems that he now wants to argue something other than the topic at hand....

Translation: Evidence and facts can be ignored you don't like what they say!

And when all else fails, abandon argument and appeal to Argumentum ad Numerum

that would be the tomb which was unkown until Constantines mother (IIRC) demanded they locate it in the 4th century? The truth is that if there was a tomb where this occurred, you don't not know where it was actually located.

rlogan

well, I understand why Jason "passed" on the first round.

It isn't possible to harmonize all of the accounts, so the better strategy is to put the onus on the person claiming inconsistency. Then you can mount a "defense" without actually having a thing to defend.

You don't prove consistency and harmony without presenting positive evidence. We are not starting with a premise of consistency and placing the burden on falsification.

This was a real gem:

"Appearances are only problems for those that rely on them."


I would really like to see that idea developed more fully.

judge

Hi amlodhi and thanks again for your reply. I saw this attempted harmonisation discussed at length once before and from what I remember the points you raised were not discussed.
I did start to try to explain them but ...realized I was probably going to sound even worse than your grandchildren

Additionally I have again today begun to consider the impact of these works all being translated from aramaic may have had on punctuation and word choice.

As I understand it the original aramaic versions of the gospels wldhvbnwrttnlkths (would have been written like this). Indications of punctuation ,whether a word was plural or singular , whether dg meant dog dig or "dag" , were officially decided later on.
There are examples of probable mistranslations such as the phrase "do not give what is holy to dogs".This reading does not quite sit right even in aramaic and more probably originally said .."do not hang earings on dogs".

Both of these phrases would have looked exactly the same whntwswrttnlkths (when it was written like this).

I don't think anyone has explored the possibilites WRT difficult phrases and paasages of the punctuation being wrong, the vowels being wrong etc......

Hope I'm making a semblance of sense..it's late here and I have to get up tomorrow so i will have to sign off

So my mind is boggling as I consider the implications of this for the entire NT.

Kosh

Which aramaic version of the Gospels are you referring to? Do you have reference for this.

Let me ask you this. If you believe the Gospels were written in aramaic, then why, where Mathew copies from Mark, does he improve on Marks grammar....in Greek?

Amlodhi

Hi judge,

Being familiar with the biblical Hebrew of the OT, what you are saying about erroneous divisions and possible misreadings of consecutive consonants not only makes sense, but is a constant issue.

I would think, however, that there would be some serious obstacles to demonstrating that this problem is the root cause of the gospel inconsistencies.

Assuming that it could be demonstrated that the gospel accounts were originally written in Aramaic, it still seems rather unlikely that a number of independent corrections would symmetrically change the sense of the text in precisely the manner necessary for harmonization.

Please do not feel that there is any hurry or even obligation to reply. However, if you should manage to surmount all the obstacles and develop a credible harmonious gospel account from the Aramaic, I will be very interested to see it.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Ted Hoffman

It cant be demonstrated.

judge

Western protestant christians textual critics and at times infidels stand together arm in arm apalled and outraged that Aramaic speaking christians have the outright gall to suggest that they possess the original version of the NT in aramaic. :boohoo:

http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

Quote:

Let me ask you this. If you believe the Gospels were written in aramaic, then why, where Mathew copies from Mark, does he improve on Marks grammar....in Greek?

Maybe the translator of Matthew's Greek grammar was better than the translator of Mark.

judge

What can be demonstrated? That the NT was penned in greek?
Can you demonstrate this.
I am aware that protestant Christians believe it as an article of faith, but why do infidels believe it?