CX

Guilty as charged. My faith in the Catholic Encyclopedia (such as it is) is restored. My apologies for the redundancy.

Net Rover

Atticus_Finch,

Imaginative minds motivated by maintaining the status quo can always reconcile "apparent contradictions." What seems like a "reasonable explanation" to that person is often ridiculous to someone outside the fold.

But here's a larger question, and it's been bandied about on this board before: Would you not expect an omniscient, omnipotent god to supply a revelation so clear that it would not have "apparent contradictions?" Or alternative intrepretations? The very existence of the body of apologetic books argues against the trustworthiness of the Bible.

And don't try to suggest that apologetics are necessary because "Satan has blinded us." Or our "sinful nature" prevents us from readily seeing the truth. Just more circular reasoning...

BTW, I am a former fundamentalist and seminary graduate (DTS) who took many classes under the well-known apologist, Norman Geisler. I'll wager I've forgotten more apologetics than most xians remember...

Net Rover

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, Atticus, I'll try this charade once again just to expose your particular brand of weasel apologetics .

What bible are we going to use?

Since neither of us are Greek scholars (pardon my assumption) shall we say that the translators of the King James and American Standard are better at it than are we (especially since the NIV is clearly fraudulent, IMO)?

Good.

Let's take a simple story like what happens at the tomb and see if there are any contradictions in the story told by just two of the anonymous authors, Mark and Matthew, yes?

Understood? Just to start with, let's concentrate on just two of the authors and grant that the first person to have told the story closest to the alleged events is obviously the most reliable.

Any "default" in a contradiction should naturally go to the author who is closest to the event.

Mark, currently considered by most biblical scholars to be the earliest dated and therefore, arguably, most accurate (leaving out the Gospel of Peter as non-canonical), states that when Mary Magdelane, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to anoint the body (a practice no Jews would have done after burial, but let's set that aside), the stone was already moved from the sepulchre.

Indeed, the author goes so far as to quote one of the women regarding such an obvious conundrum for them.

Mark 16:3 (KJV): And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

American Standard: And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?

And when they looked they saw that the stone was already rolled away.

Mark 16:4 (KJV): And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

American Standard: and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.

Take careful note of the fact that the stone's status is past tense in both of these translations; i.e., that the stone has already been rolled back. They don't look up and see the stone rolling away, they see that it is rolled back, a fait accompli.

Also note, of course, that there is no mention of an earthquake, but we'll address this in a moment.

Matthew, however, claims just Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" have gone to see the sepulchre; not to anoint the three-days dead body of Jesus, getting that part correct, by the way, but just to see it for some unknown reason (mourners, perhaps).

Matthew contradicts Mark's story by stating that the stone was not already rolled away. That in fact, an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door.

Matthew 28:2 (KJV): And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

American Standard: And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.

Note, too, that it is quite clear that the earthquake is a result of the descension of the angel and that the angel is evidently visible to the women and the "keepers," whoever they may be (becoming as dead men, so it's not a reference to the Marys).

So, right here, we have a contradiction between the stories.

In Mark, the stone is already rolled away before the Marys (and Salome) arrive.

Further, there is no angel who visibly descends from heaven (an obvious superstition we also won't go into regarding heaven being in the clouds), and rolls the stone away in front of the Marys (nor is there an earthquake that heralds an angel's arrival).

Mark states the Marys see that the stone is already rolled back. Matthew states the Marys see an angel of the Lord rolling it back.

Now, because I'm fully aware of apologetic weasel attempts along the lines of "filling in the gaps" between the two accounts (i.e., that the Marys ask, "Who will roll the stone away," in Mark and in Matthew the answer is, "an angel of the Lord"), let me stop such nonsense right now by reminding Atticus that we are discussing the contradictions between Mark and Matthew, not what one fills in from the other and that the earliest account is the more accurate one.

Where there is any contradiction, we must default to Mark for clarification, not Matthew.

Beside, of course, that Mark states quite clearly that the Marys see that the stone is rolled back and not that they see the stone rolling back, Mark also tells us that the tomb was not empty; rather there was a "man" sitting inside.

Mark 16:5 (KJV): And entering in to the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

American Standard: And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

Again, no mention whatsoever of an angel of the Lord rolling the stone away and then sitting on it. This is important, because again, we must default to the first author to determine what is and is not factual.

In Mark, the stone is already rolled away and inside the tomb is a man (not an angel, just a man), so Mark contradicts Matthew's claim that the Marys see an angel rolling the stone away.

Further, it is this man who tells the Marys (and Salome) what's what:

Mark 16:6 (KJV): And he (note: "he") saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they lay him.

AS: And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him!

Now, we also won't get into the fact that "Jesus of Nazareth" is profoundly different than "Jesus, the Nazarene" (due to the controversy over what that means regarding the Nazarene cult that existed in that day).

In Mark, the alleged "first author," we have:[*] a man[*] inside the already opened tomb[*] saying, "Behold the place where they laid him.

What do we have in Matthew?

Matthew 28:5-6 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified, He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

AS: And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified, He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

In Matthew, we have:[*] an angel on top of the rock it rolled away and not inside the tomb[*] who confirms Jesus' prophecy ("even as he said")[*] who says roughly the same thing the man in Mark said, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay"

Matthew has an angel declare Jesus "Lord" from outside the tomb; Mark has a man confirm Jesus from the earthly realm (either as a Nazarene cult member or someone from Nazareth) from inside the tomb; both say pretty much the same thing about inviting the Marys to see where he lay.

It is obvious to most scholars (Crossan leaps to mind as well as Mack) as well as myself that Matthew has simply rewritten Mark's earlier story in order to make it more "deified," but since we're comparing two stories, one to the other, let's keep to the idea of contradictions.

Let's stop right here so that we can focus our debate and address these contradictions before moving on to others, yes?

So far, it can't be true that both versions happened simultaneously since they are not reconcilable (the rock already rolled back as opposed to an angel rolling it back), as well as redundant (the man in the tomb saying much the same thing that the angel says regarding the invitation to see where Jesus lay, presumably as an insurance of witnessing that the body is gone).

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Sojourner553

Gee maybe you can answer my challenges I place on the post:
Womens Rights vs. the Bible . I couldn't get any theist to reply to it there......


(It's the second post under:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000074&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000074&p=2</a>

You wouldn't want to be accused of picking and choosing just those verses you like would you? Tackle some of the harder ones for us.


Sojourner

CX

I am not a Greek scholar either. Nor do I have any special allegiance to the NIV, but I do know something of Koine Greek and I am of the opinion that the NIV is one of the most reliable English translations (though of course it is far from perfect). Given that on what basis do you conclude that the NIV is "clearly fraudulent" and what precisely do you mean by that?

Atticus_Finch

The converse is equally true. Imaginative minds set on disbelief will find contradictions everywhere they look and be unwilling to hear any reasonable explanation.

I can not say why God choose not to make his existence painfully obvious to every person on earth. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he does exist and is revealed in the bible. But that is the subject of another thread. I suggest that although that is a favorite question of the skeptic it is really an attempt to avoid the point. One must deal with the evidence at hand and not wish for more.

Regards,

Finch

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

There is no contradiction which is required by the two passages. In five minutes I can, without reference to any other source, find a reasonable response to your "apparent" contradiction. Your error arises out of assuming, without necessity, that Matthew 28:2-5 falls in chronological order between the women's arrival at the tomb and the angels words to the women. You assert, but Matthew did not say, that the women saw the stone rolled back. Where does it say in Matthew that the women SAW the stone rolled back? It doesn't. Likewise, does it SAY in Matthew that the angel was on the stone when it spoke to the women? No it does not. Therefore, a reasonable reading of the passages allows for the contradiction to be removed. Mark says the stone was rolled back prior to the women's arrival. Matthew may have inserted into the narrative how the stone was moved prior to the women's arrival.

I do not suppose you will find this explanation acceptable but it is reasonable. Finally, I do not find name calling ("Weasel apologetics") necessary or helpful.

Regards,

Finch

Net Rover

Agreed, but remember from whence I come. I was prone to belief, not "set on disbelief." I spent many years pasionately defending what I gradually came to believe was indefensible. Nor is it true that even now I am "unwilling to hear any reasonable explanation."

Edited to add:
Cross posted. So you did reply. But your answer involves "reading into" the text inferences that support your conclusion. And why isn't a chronologicaly reading the most likely way it was meant to be read? Because it doesn't support your conclusion, right?

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Net Rover ]</p>

hezekiah jones

hahaha

Likewise, where does it SAY the angel got off the stone?

Atticus_Finch

Sarcasm is not an answer (and often masks the inability to answer). Where does it say that the women saw the stone moved as you so clearly asserted in your original post?

Regards,

Finch