Chili

But Paul was a Democrat who can speak to them all and simultaneously mean something to all, and not just front pew believers. In fact, more than anything he is prodding the doubters and the back and will touch them sober or drunk.

Duvduv

As far as I can tell there does not seem to be any indication that the most glaring contradictions bothered anyone, either among the heirarchy, apologists or the official clergy (not to mention the illiterate masses).I would wonder what would have happened had a central church hierarchy been approached about such contradictions......whether in fact the texts came from different sources or were composed by the central imperial scriptorium.

Chili

From what I read here at this DB, and how I see 'so called' Christianity as the anti-christ' the above has to be true.

However, I see a purpose in all the NT books, of which most of them are to show how and why believers go wrong with good intentions, which is especially true since the gates to perdition are so very wide . . . and hence we have 20.000 denominations to show for again.

Then consider that the Torah of tradition is maintained to deliver against the written one, that must be the negative stand in life itself as a debate towards this end. . . . and nobody will do that better than they.
Exactly, and this 'doling out' keeps the argument going like a 'flock in motion' from where 'nay-sayers' must dare to get lost.

. . . untill the yeast factory started printing the verse that ended the argument and believers started 'religion shopping' to find agreement, and from there 'earned righteousness' became the ticked to heaven after you die.

Chili

Try to sell anyone today that Matthew and Mark is written to show how to go to hell in a hurry while Luke and John is the unfailing way to heaven and see how many takers you will find. And don't ever think that the Church does not know this because they tucked the nitty gritty details in there themselves.

Duvduv

Chili, please feel free to address the specific cases I mentioned in my first posting instead of generalities and abstractions.........

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles is NOT largely about any fight between Judaizers and Hellenizers.

In Acts 15, Saul/Paul and his group were commissioned or authorised in writing by the Jerusalem Church. Saul/Paul and his group did deliver the letters of authority from the Jerusalem Church according to Acts.

Your statement is not logical. It must be that people of antiquity would have known of the contradictions.

Origen claimed that even Christians were aware of the discrepancies in the genealogies of Jesus and that their correctness were being argued.

Origen's "Against Celsus"

Chili

I have it all over in here, and have maintained that for as long as I am here.

First of all, Christ never died to rise again, but Jesus died to set Christ free in the mind of Joseph the man, now with the Jew crucified. So we end up with 'the man' that Pilate was looking at, to be sure.

But the rapture parable does the same, wherein the ego goes 'poof' and that which remains is in heaven [to be]. Notice that there were always two men or two women either on the roof or in the kitchen, or even 2 men smoking a sigar. The point is that there never was a man and a woman, or a woman and her child, for example.

With the historical Jesus removed, the Gospels are there to explain the renewal event that takes place inside the mind of one man and his name was Joseph, who so becomes man and no longer human.

Then let me add here that the purpose of religion is only to initiate and catapult this event, and so is not a social club inside religion to make it attractive, but functions are only there to built a tradition that together make a package that point at the glories and pitfalls that the believer may encounter along his journey of life.

Just recently I added Francis Bacon who held the believe that humans can not, and never liberate themselves on their own and need a communal effort to get this done, and so is why religion is needed and Nazareth belongs as a name for that effort inside the mind of Joseph, who was a Jew by tradition in Luke but not in Matthew, who send Jesus to hell 'because' Nazareth was only partial to him, and that was made obvious with the missing manger in Matthew but not in Luke.

Then Mark and John show that there was no baby but the infancy is real in the new reign of God. Where in its turn the Herodain massacre was in Matthew but not in Luke to foreshadow the major first pitfal that the Jews know very well and is what the Exodus was all about.

Notice also Son of Man opposite Son of God, and I have been through that here before.

In the story, his shepherds were his insights converted into disciples or discplines to go in the other direction and let the new light that he saw by way of illumination guide him its origin and there expose his innermost self.

It is also known as 'yellow ripeness' as the final stage of maturing in man, and yes, that begins with meno-pause from the Greek word MENO that means 'I remain' as in eternal to be, and that would be the nation Israel for the Jew.

So the worst thing you can do is make Israel a physical piece of land and Nazareth a city to confirm the bible and so try to validate the historical Jesus.

So leave the paradoxes there for us to ponder as the answer to it is already inside us waiting for us to awaken so that we might see.

Chili

Oh, did you mean the OP? I did not read it yet but will tomorrow and see.

TedM

It's a very good question. Consistency would definitely be an important issue when trying to introduce a canon. My guess is that those who put it together were not all deceitful lying bastards, but enough of them genuinely believed in the authenticity of the documents to make such collusion or deceit a risky venture. This is IMO a simple, common sense explanation. What it implies though is that the closer in time you come to the forumation of the canon there was a less and less likelihood of tampering with the texts, and that AFTER the canon was formulated any tampering was probably non-existent.

Given the amount of scrutiny of the various texts, I think contradictions were known. Given the significance of the texts, contradictions would have been a concern. I seem to recall that church fathers wrote extensively about the most common 'contradictions' -- the genealogies come to mind.. perhaps someone else can enlighten.

The more evidence of concern about contradictions, the more likely my answer is the correct one--it was 'too late' to get away with making changes. This poses problems for the conspiracy-lovers out there who say Constantine or Eusebius, etc.. did whatever they damn well pleased.

Duvduv

I am no expert in Christian theology, but I suppose the claim would have been that the commission to Paul was a special one, skipping the first Great Commission that required preaching first to the Jews before the gentiles, whereas Paul was commissioned ostensibly to go straight to the gentiles. I don't know if this solves this contradiction, but it might.
But then the issue of legitimate apostles existing before Paul and his special revelation would probably be explained as meaning that a JEW could be in Christ as an "apostle" but Paul's revelation meant that even a GENTILE could legitimately be "in Christ" and an apostle.