J-D

Of course statements which contradict each other can't all be true. That's what 'contradict' means. However, you have failed to explain which contradictory statements you're talking about.

If you're talking about theological statements then they're all false, because there is no God.

IamJoseph

The false claims of the NT & Quran extends well beyond theology, impacting history, maths, science and geography.

J-D

Much the same is true of the Hebrew Bible.

IamJoseph

Disagree. The Hebrew bible does not say Jews or anyone else are born of the devil [Gospels] or apes [Quran]. These are seen in the accuser's deeds instead. Nor have those accusers given humanity a single new law which the world's intitutions accepts - these are derived only from the Hebrew bible, including that all humanity is equally blessed before any religions emerged [Genesis], and commands equal justice for all - regardless of their beliefs. The reverse is seen in the Gosples and Quran.

sschlichter

You know full well that Jesus is condemning based on deeds and attitiudes. If he was condemning based on ethnicity, he would be condemning himself as well because he was Jewish.

show_no_mercy

Why does Jesus never condemn the Sadducees? He seems to save all of his ire for the Pharisees. But the Pharisees didn't believe in a literal "eye for an eye" while the Sadducees did.

sschlichter

he does and in this context he is not specifically condemning either, if i recall.

bacht

I thought the arguments with the Sadducees were about resurrection, which they rejected? The Pharisees were actually closer to Christian beliefs and social circles, as show_no_mercy implies.

sschlichter

One specific argument was pertaining to resurrection. Jesus condemned Pharisees, religious leaders, experts in the law, Sadduccess, teachers of the law, Sanhedrin, and Herodians. the sadducees are a subset of some of these groups.

Doug Shaver

I would not presuppose them to be accurate, as apologists presuppose the gospels to be accurate. The point of my editor analogy was to show that four reports "of similar scope," allegedly of the same event, would not be judged entirely accurate by an impartial reader if those reports were as discrepant as the gospel accounts of the post-resurrection events. The nature of the event, and whether or not it had implications for any religious dogma, would be entirely irrelevant to the question of accuracy. Such a number of apparent discrepancies would lead any reasonable person to infer inaccuracy.

Maybe. Or maybe some of those "technical errors" are really factual errors. The assumption that no factual errors are possible forces one conclusion. Rejection of that assumption makes the other conclusion highly probable. And there is no basis whatsoever for that assumption other than religious dogma.