Contradictions within the Gospels?

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Unfortunately we have no access to whether that is true or not, all we know is that four anonymous men sat down to write the Gospels and that is all I can discuss about. If you want we can get into the question of whether God also inserted the forged elements to the Gospels e.g. the endings of Mark after 16:8, the Johannine Comma, the story of Jesus and the adulteress and the Pastoral Epistles, did God inspire those forgers also to insert lies into his Book and if he didn't then why did he not perform the miracle of preserving the pristine condition of his Book after going to the bother of inspiring it in the first place? It kind of defeats the purpose of having a divinely inspired book when it becomes quickly contaminated with deceit.

As you mentioned the quote from 2 Timothy, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”, this brings up an interesting question. As 2 Timothy itself is widely believed to be a forgery in the name of Paul then just how reliable can that claim for divine inspiration be? If the author lied in one part of his epistle can he be trusted when making such a significant claim in another part of the epistle? Indeed could making that claim actually be bordering on blasphemous as if 2 Timothy was written by someone other than Paul yet that person claimed to be Paul to mislead its readers then to say God inspired it is to say that God inspired a lie to fool his flock. Why would your God want to lie to you?

So maybe God did inspire the authors, but that is a claim based fully on faith as there is absolutely no more internal evidence in the Gospels to suggest they are divinely inspired than there is in any book.

maybe the answer you are seeking is hidden from you.

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

maybe the answer you are seeking is hidden from you.

Perhaps. Or maybe this is just a convenient answer to explain away every problem that believers face. Its amazing how its always on the awkward issues that God seems to hide his reasoning or that he "acts in mysterious ways".

philologos

Pompey Magnus - The very idea of a contradiction is when one passage says the polar opposite to another. It is not a contradiction when one passage contains less detail about one event than the other.

contradiction - opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

If the ideas do not conflict, or in this case if the passages do not, it is not a contradiction.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Pompey Magnus - The very idea of a contradiction is when one passage says the polar opposite to another.

Is it a contradiction when Mark clearly and unequivocally stated that after fleeing from the tomb the women said nothing to anyone compared to when Matthew, knowing that Mark had ended his Gospel in a way which posed obvious problems, decided to claim that women ran straight away to tell the disciples? How is saying nothing to anyone in one instance and running directly to tell as many people as possible in another instance NOT two passages saying polar opposites to one another?

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Perhaps. Or maybe this is just a convenient answer to explain away every problem that believers face. Its amazing how its always on the awkward issues that God seems to hide his reasoning or that he "acts in mysterious ways".

suit yourself, it's not me you have to convince.

There is much more to be found by exploring the Bible but if your sole intention is to fault find and nit-pick...

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

There is much more to be found by exploring the Bible but if your sole intention is to fault find and nit-pick...

Well if someone is going to claim that a book was inspired by the all mighty creator of everything that is, has been and ever will be then I don't think its being unreasonable for me to check to see if this book fits in with all the rest of his work and ya know what, I just don't think it does.

If there is a God I am a massive fan of his work, Milky Way...amazing, the Grand Canyon...stunning, the Double Helix...genius, but the Bible must have been a minor side project of his because obviously he didn't proof read it before release and he wasn't committed to his work enough to reject significant alterations and improvements to his work from later editors. If he had a bit more interest in his Bible he would have said to the forger who made up the story of Jesus and the Adulteress: "You know what, I'm God almighty. If I wanted a story about Jesus forgiving an adulteress I would have actually put that in the first edition myself, thanks very much."

JimiTime

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Is it a contradiction when Mark clearly and unequivocally stated that after fleeing from the tomb the women said nothing to anyone compared to when Matthew, knowing that Mark had ended his Gospel in a way which posed obvious problems, decided to claim that women ran straight away to tell the disciples?

All you display is a bias leaning towards trying to discredit scripture. You make assumptions in favour of your bias. You assume with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, that Matthew hacked together a story to get around 'problems' in Mark.

Now, even if from 16.9 onwards is not authentic (a fair position to hold), there are still other positions to consider, like the common held view is that due to the abrupt nature of the ending, that the end of the manuscript was lost. If this is the case, then you don't have a contradiction, as you don't have the ending. IF the Mark we have, up to 16:8, is Mark in full, then in isolation, it 'could' be interpreted that there is a conflict. Though, logically thought through, this would seem highly unlikely. For your position (its a contradiction), you would need to look at Marks words as an absolute, i.e. They never told anyone, ever. The fact that Mark is telling the story would contradict this position though, as they obviously told someone at some stage. So a more logical view would be to see this statement as a temporary fear induced, 'told no-one'. Maybe it referred to their journey to Peter etc.

Whatever way its spun though, the arguement for contradiction is weak in the extreme.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well if someone is going to claim that a book was inspired by the all mighty creator of everything that is, has been and ever will be then I don't think its being unreasonable for me to check to see if this book fits in with all the rest of his work and ya know what, I just don't think it does.

If there is a God I am a massive fan of his work, Milky Way...amazing, the Grand Canyon...stunning, the Double Helix...genius, but the Bible must have been a minor side project of his because obviously he didn't proof read it before release and he wasn't committed to his work enough to reject significant alterations and improvements to his work from later editors. If he had a bit more interest in his Bible he would have said to the forger who made up the story of Jesus and the Adulteress: "You know what, I'm God almighty. If I wanted a story about Jesus forgiving an adulteress I would have actually put that in the first edition myself, thanks very much."

I think the problem is you can't get God to fit with what you want Him to be, match your logic and allow you the lifestyle you want and are looking for excuses.

Read the Bible properly and you will see thatit contains things than no human author could have conceived.

What Jew was going to write "Love your enemies" and think he could get away with it? If you told a Jew in AD 30 that they had to love the Romans, turn the other cheek and forgive them you'ld have been killed.
Try telling a Jew today to love the Arabs as themselves and you'll be killed.

If you have no interest in Christianity other than to knock it and God why are you in this forum?

Fanny Cradock

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Is it a contradiction when Mark clearly and unequivocally stated that after fleeing from the tomb the women said nothing to anyone

They obviously said something to somebody at some stage or you wouldn't be reading about it.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

There is much more to be found by exploring the Bible but if your sole intention is to fault find and nit-pick...

This is a tragic but true observation. It would call one to reflect on this passage:

John 5:39-40 wrote:

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

One could easily regard this as referring to the current situation if one considers that instead of thinking in them you have eternal life one could have instead of thinking in them you find contradiction.

The sad thing is that people could read the Scriptures and seek the truth of the Gospel, but they refuse to.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They obviously said something to somebody at some stage or you wouldn't be reading about it.

Plagiariser!

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Plagiariser!

?

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

All you display is a bias leaning towards trying to discredit scripture. You make assumptions in favour of your bias. You assume with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, that Matthew hacked together a story to get around 'problems' in Mark.

Sorry but there is in fact evidence evidence that Matthew and Luke altered Mark to get around problems. Another example is the question of Jesus losing his temper. This occurs in a few passages in Mark, every single time these passages were copied by Matthew and Luke they both independently dropped the word anger. The emotion did not fit with their agenda, for example Luke portrayed a Jesus who was imperturbable, when he came across a passage in which Jesus showed such a base emotion as anger this posed a problem and therefore he simply changed the passage to suit himself. Now this isn't a direct example of a contradiction (although one can ask if a character can be both emotional, reactive, charismatic and authoritative as Jesus is in Mark whilst at the same time being unflappable and nonchalant as he is in Luke?), this is simply an example of how Matthew and Luke did indeed notice problems in Mark's account and how they got around it.

Now, even if from 16.9 onwards is not authentic (a fair position to hold), there are still other positions to consider, like the common held view is that due to the abrupt nature of the ending, that the end of the manuscript was lost. If this is the case, then you don't have a contradiction, as you don't have the ending.

The problem is with the suggestion that the ending is lost that it would have had to have been lost almost immediately as the evidence weighs heavily against it being in existence within 10 or so years of Mark being written, neither Matthew or Luke share any textual similarities in their stories post resurrection, unlike their accounts prior to the resurrection, such a break between Luke and Matthew indicates that at this stage they were no longer employing Mark as their versions of Mark ended at the same point as the Mark existing today. They also share no textual similarities with the supposed "fake" endings to Mark and so its a safe bet that these too were not authentic.

For your position (its a contradiction), you would need to look at Marks words as an absolute, i.e. They never told anyone, ever. The fact that Mark is telling the story would contradict this position though, as they obviously told someone at some stage.

The words are absolutes. Mark does not say "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid...for half an hour, then they calmed down and told everyone everything that had happened". Marks ending is absolute and the problem of how Mark found out can't be gotten around by assuming he meant something different to what he said. To work around the problem of how Mark's ending does not make sense unless you reword it to say something that the text itself does not say then you have to first be working off the conclusion that the Gospel is inerrant and then working backwards from this conclusion to make the evidence fit, I instead am looking at the evidence first and then drawing my conclusion based on it.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They obviously said something to somebody at some stage or you wouldn't be reading about it.

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up? Its a problem thats also found in Luke's story of the Garden of Gethsemane. How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Soul Winner

Here's what Mark's account says:

"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." Mark 16:8

Mark's account doesn't say that the never told anyone ever after. The reason Mark gives for them not saying anything to any man was because they were afraid. But would they have been afraid to tell the disciples? No.

Mark 9 to 19 is simply not supported by the oldest manuscripts but that doesn't mean that the original hadn't got those verse in it, although I doubt it had myself. Anyway, be that as it may. Let's say that the original hadn't got it in there then it was obviously added by someone else at a later time. So if this was the case then how can you say that it was a fraud perpetrated by the original writer? If the original ends at verse 8 then from verse 9 to 19 had nothing to with it. But even if that is the case, that doesn't mean that from verse 9 to 19 is not necessarily a false account. That could still be factual even though it wasn't intended to be there by Mark. Maybe someone reading it later on added the extra information because they viewed it as an incomplete record and just wanted to finished it off. But whatever might have happened we will never know but you cannot accuse the inspired writer of fraud when it had nothing to do with him in the first place. And you can't accuse the one who added it on as adding falsities to the account unless you can show that what he added didn't actually happen.

JimiTime

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up? Its a problem thats also found in Luke's story of the Garden of Gethsemane. How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Bloody hell, this is tedious. You've made your assumptions, and decided what your conclusions are, so i wont ask you to dig yourself a deeper spiritual hole.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

?

I just made that point, but in my usual rambling style:) I don't actually believe you were plagiarising, I was just extremely annoyed and frustrated that you got 2 thank you's and I only got 1!!:mad:*



*May not actually represent how I was feeling:)

philologos

Indeed, one has to ask how does one know that the disciples were the only ones present?

Jimi - I thanked ye both

Soul Winner

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

...I instead am looking at the evidence first and then drawing my conclusion based on it.

No your not. You assume its all a fake from the get go and try to support your position but citing stuff that can be easily explained. The fact that you don't like the explanations shows your unwillingness to believe the story.

Soul Winner

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up? Its a problem thats also found in Luke's story of the Garden of Gethsemane. How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Jesus was seen by them for up to 40 days after the resurrection. He spoke with them often and they could have asked Him what He prayed in the garden. Ever think of that? No of course not, because you've already concluded that the resurrection didn't happen and therefore Jesus couldn't have had any kind of dialog with them after His death. You're bias is laid bare for all to see.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

I just made that point, but in my usual rambling style:) I don't actually believe you were plagiarising, I was just extremely annoyed and frustrated that you got 2 thank you's and I only got 1!!:mad:*



*May not actually represent how I was feeling:)

:pac: In your face. Actually, I didn't read your post so we can share the thanks.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

:pac: In your face. Actually, I didn't read your post so we can share the thanks.

A likely story, I know you hang on my every word!:)

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Mark's account doesn't say that the never told anyone ever after. The reason Mark gives for them not saying anything to any man was because they were afraid. But would they have been afraid to tell the disciples? No.

It says they said nothing to any man, not any man apart from the disciples. You are re-writing Mark to suggest otherwise.

Maybe someone reading it later on added the extra information because they viewed it as an incomplete record and just wanted to finished it off. But whatever might have happened we will never know but you cannot accuse the inspired writer of fraud when it had nothing to do with him in the first place.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean here as I never suggested the forged endings were perpetrated by the author of Mark.

And you can't accuse the one who added it on as adding falsities to the account unless you can show that what he added didn't actually happen.

Completely ridiculous thinking. I will show you why by doing exactly the same as what the person who added the ending to Mark did. Here is my ending to Mark:

"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid...On their way home from the tomb a time machine appeared before their very eyes and out jumped a man by the name of Albert Einstein sitting on the back of a velociraptor, and this man explained to them the wonders of the Universe and they all lived happily after."

So by your reasoning the burden of proof is now on you to disprove that this ridiculous scenario actually happened and until you can do so we have to accept it as being true simply because someone wrote it down? Sorry but you are very, very wrong.

If that is your attitude I would love to know how you can defend not following the teachings of the Gnostic Gospels, heck someone wrote them down and they have never been proved beyond doubt not to be holding true teachings so why not?

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

Jimi - I thanked ye both

Choose a side damn-it!!

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

t happen and therefore Jesus couldn't have had any kind of dialog with them after His death. You're bias is laid bare for all to see.

To be honest its not like I ever exactly hid the fact that I don't believe the resurrection, so it wouldn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes to uncover that little detail.

Anyway I am working from a historical point of view and a historian can never accept a miracle as being a historical fact, he can believe it as a matter of faith by all means but he can't assert it as being a historical fact which should be accepted as such, so if you want Christianity to remain in the comfortable domain of dusty theology then fair enough, you can all sit around and debate how many angels fit on the head of a pin, but if you want your religion to sit among the big boys of academia and the leaders of human thought then you will have to play by the established rules, not your own.

Fanny Cradock

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up?

Yes, that is a possibility. IF you want to believe it's all a bunch of lies then bully for you. But now you are shifting goalposts. You made an accusation in the form of a question and you have - to my mind - received a reasonable response.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Unless the disciples fell asleep within the time it took Jesus to utter the words “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”, I imagine that Luke is recounting only a small portion of the evening. Assuming you take verse 44 to be original - and I would be stunned if you did given your colours - Luke tells us that Jesus went on praying earnestly after he uttered these words.

philologos

Pompey Magnus - It's not an issue that you don't believe in the Resurrection. The issue is that you are claiming contradictions on the basis of your non-belief rather than actually looking at the situation impartially.

This isn't an intellectual issue, it is that you have already decided, and you refuse to even consider the idea that Christianity is true.

Fanny Cradock

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

a historian can never accept a miracle as being a historical fact

I'm curious if there is some agreement a historian must sign off that prevents them from accepting a miracle as a "historical fact" (whatever "historical fact" means)? Presumably the agreement must also encompass metaphysical beliefs, specifically the a priori assumption that miracles aren't allowed.

As for the rest of your post, it's nothing more than naked intellectual snobbery.

Soul Winner

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

It says they said nothing to any man, not any man apart from the disciples. You are re-writing Mark to suggest otherwise.

Then how did Mark himself find out?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Completely ridiculous thinking. I will show you why by doing exactly the same as what the person who added the ending to Mark did. Here is my ending to Mark:

"Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid...On their way home from the tomb a time machine appeared before their very eyes and out jumped a man by the name of Albert Einstein sitting on the back of a velociraptor, and this man explained to them the wonders of the Universe and they all lived happily after."

So by your reasoning the burden of proof is now on you to disprove that this ridiculous scenario actually happened and until you can do so we have to accept it as being true simply because someone wrote it down? Sorry but you are very, very wrong.

If that is your attitude I would love to know how you can defend not following the teachings of the Gnostic Gospels, heck someone wrote them down and they have never been proved beyond doubt not to be holding true teachings so why not?

Not at all. The ending in Mark that we read in our Bibles today is simply not supported by the oldest manuscripts which suggest that it more than likely wasn't part of Mark's account. But maybe Mark's account doesn't end at verse 8 either, maybe there was more. In any case, our faith is not based on whether Mark 16:9-16 is true or not, our faith is based on what all the accounts agree on, and that is that He rose.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious if there is some agreement a historian must sign off that prevents them from accepting a miracle as a "historical fact" (whatever "historical fact" means)? Presumably the agreement must also encompass metaphysical beliefs, specifically the a priori assumption that miracles aren't allowed.

Historians work on reconstructing what probably happened, its not an exact science as no detail from history is 100% certain so historians make do by reconstructing the past by using the best methods at their disposal. A miracle, by its very definition, is an event which is completely improbable. Therefore a historian worth his salt won't go around saying 2,000 years ago Jesus and Peter probably went walking on water, or that the pagan Appolonius of Tyana probably had extra sensory perception to predict the exact time of the murder of the Emperor Domitian, or that the Jewish Honi the Circle Drawer was probably able to bring rain when he wanted.

Maybe these things did happen, we can't go back in time to see for certain, but from a historian's point of view he can't say that actually yeah, they are probably true. When putting a miracle against any other explanation, eg the witnesses were mistaken, they lied or that the entire story was invented later, a historian has to decide which is more likely:

(A) one of every other possible explanations or
(B) the least likely explanation given the boundaries set by the discipline which is historical research.

I don't think I am being in any way unfair in suggesting that a lot more people tells lies than can walk on water or exactly predict the murders of an emperor.

As for the rest of your post, it's nothing more than naked intellectual snobbery

Yeah you are probably spot on with this, I was a bit rash with the rest of that post I must confess.