Contradictions within the Gospels?

JimiTime

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Might I suggest that you may need to read more history books and actually research the early years of Christianity within the context of the Roman Empire if you feel I am saying anything that is not widely accepted. If you can provide me with some historical research on any of these things which contradicts what I have said I would genuinely be delighted to know about it.

I don't think you get my objection.

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think you get my objection.

I have said before that there is no 100% certainty in history, there is only degrees of probability.

Do I think Mohammed definitely didn't ascend to Heaven on a horse? No, I can't say that for definite.

Do I think the most likely scenario is that he did ascend to Heaven on a horse? No, I think there is more likely explanations.

Do I think Appolonius of Tyana definitely didn't predict the exact death of Emperor Domitian? No, I can't say that for definite.

Do I think the most likely scenario is that he did predict the death? No, I think there are more likely explanations.

Do I think Jesus definitely didn't come back from the dead? No, I can't say that for definite.

Do I think the most likely scenario is that he did come back from the dead? No, I think there are more likely explanations.

Am I picking on Christianity unfairly? Certainly not. I am being fully consistent on my attitude towards historical implausibilities in all matters, not just when it comes to Christians. I may be wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion that you would agree with me on most of my conclusions when it comes to historically implausible scenarios except when it comes to Christianity.

That is up to you but I reject the claim that I am picking on Christians unfairly, I do not move the goalposts to make it harder for Christians to prove their extraordinary claims than I do for any other subject.

JimiTime

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Am I picking on Christianity unfairly? Certainly not.

I really don't care about 'fairness', or something being 'picked on'.

That is up to you but I reject the claim that I am picking on Christians unfairly

Thats fine, but certainly not what I've accused you of.

, I do not move the goalposts to make it harder for Christians to prove their extraordinary claims than I do for any other subject.

I never said you did. You have a worldview that states that anything beyond the materialist view is implausible. Many times has it been debated here about the resurrection for example. Materialists will believe anything BUT the concept of the resurrection. Mass hallucination etc are more plausible etc. How often we see academics of whatever field, enter into matters of spirituality etc and explain them away with articulate language and intellectualism. Simply put though, if one enters into these realms with a materialists view, there is likely going to be a materialists outcome. You are in a position to present theories and knowledge, but not to make conclusive statements incorporating your worldview mixed with facts, non-facts, disputed facts, deductions etc. The way you do this, is what I take exception to.

You are not merely indulging in historical analysis, but rather historical analysis through the lens of materialism.

philologos

Pompey Magnus - the thread then surely isn't about contradictions, but about your unwillingness to consider anything that goes beyond material?

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Pompey Magnus - the thread then surely isn't about contradictions, but about your unwillingness to consider anything that goes beyond material?

Indeed, back on topic please!

Soul Winner

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I didn't say that, I said they believed what they claimed was true which is very different. Just because someone is willing to die for something does not mean what they believe is true. For example I don't believe that as the members of the Heaven's Gate Cult decided to commit suicide once the comet Hale Bopp came closest to the Earth in 1997 that this in any way supports their claim that there was a UFO following the comet which collected the souls of these people. I'm sure you don't believe their willingness to die for this belief in any way makes their belief more plausible, so at least I am being consistent here.

Their willingness to die for this belief does not make what they believed in true, granted. But the disciples didn't just believe that Jesus rose from the dead, in fact most of them didn't believe in it when it was reported to them at first. They had to see Jesus for themselves in order to believe it. They then went onto preach this to everyone to such a degree that they pissed off the powers that be to such an extent that they were tortured and put to death in order to shut them up. If it was all a lie that they knew was a lie then they would not have chosen to suffer such horrific deaths. The Heaven's Gate cult genuinely believed what they were taught but they did not claim to be eye witnesses of it. There is a big difference between the two. A difference which has been pointed out over and over to atheists who seem to just lack the mental faculty to differentiate between the them. Pity.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The problem is that these were nobodies. There are no non-biased sources for their deaths, even the canonical texts of the Christian religion did not feel that these guys deaths were in any way noteworthy. As you know the fifth book in the New Testament canon is called The Acts of the Apostles. It is a book devoted to portraying the lives of the Apostles after the death of Jesus. It only mentions the deaths of one of the twelve and that is Judas. If it didn't regard the details of their deaths as being in any way worthy of being recorded for posterity then I would have to wonder why.

Actually the books of Acts also records the death of James the brother of John, who was put to death by the sword under Herod. Acts 12:2 And Stephen for that matter. But be that as it may, the book of Acts is not supposed to chronicle every single act of the apostles. It even starts out saying as much. It’s a continuation of the ministry of Jesus which Luke undertook when he started his Gospel. Luke didn't title it Acts of the Apostles, that title was given it a much later time because they didn't know what else to call it. The fact that they are nobodies (as you call them) would hardly inspire anyone to make up a lie about the nature of their deaths would it?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well if they weren't executed in the first place then there would be nobody who would put two and two together to think of recording this detail. If Peter died of a heart attack in his sleep as an old man in Jerusalem there would be no opponents who would have thought "We better make a record of this in case somebody in 100 years decides to claim that Peter actually was crucified upside down in Rome."

The more common sense approach would be this. They recorded their deaths in this way because that's the way it happened. In any case, the fact that you fight to admit this just shows that you do agree that if they did suffer such horrific deaths then that would strongly suggest that they were actually telling the truth. If you didn't think so then you wouldn't go to such lengths to defend your weak position in relation to the accounts of their deaths.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Nonsense to compare the two.

Julius Caesar: the greatest general of the late Republic, Pontifex Maximus, conqueror of Gaul, a five time consul of Rome, dictator.

Simon Peter: an illiterate Jewish peasant.

Source of the death of Caesar: Seutonius and Plutarch, two very learned men of Senatorial rank who had access to the great imperial archives to research the massive amounts of contemporary accounts detailing the assassination of Caesar.

Source of the death of Simon Peter: the Acts of Peter (author unknown), a book which contains stories of talking dogs and resurrected herrings.

Yeah, the two examples really are comparable.

The reason I pointed you to Seutonius and Plutarch was not to put either of them down, but rather to show you that they did not record anything about Julius Caesar until a hundred years after his death, which in the criteria you gave concerning the accounts of Church leaders had too much time elapsed to take the account seriously. If you're gonna apply that criteria to a particular set of historical records then you must apply it to all. But when I pointed that fact out to you, you then came back with the comment that Seutonius and Plutarch are somehow more reliable than others due to their status in society. Talk about changing the goals posts.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

It seems that Hippolytus did not make this claim, its found in Pseudo-Hippolytus' account of the lives of the twelve. I am open to correction on this but it seems it was someone who pretended to be Hippolytus who made this claim.

So somebody pretended to be Hippolytus and recorded Peter’s death? Its amazing to see that when an uncomfortable fact appears that will refute your BS you will inevitably retreat to the age old shaky ground that it wasn’t really that person who wrote it, that it was somebody pretending to be the person who wrote the uncomfortable truth.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

As for Eusebius, he wrote about Peter's death circa 324 so that is too late to lend much credence to. The Acts of Peter were long written by this stage so Eusebius and Pseudo Hippolytus do not make for multiple attestations, they are later sources who were repeating a single earlier source.

What makes you so convinced that Eusebius’ sole source for the death of Peter was this apocryphal epistle? Hippolytus also records Peter’s death, and that was before the Acts of Peter was written. That’s why you are trying to claim that that account must have been a forgery by somebody pretending to be Hippolytus?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

See my point above on no contemporary, even Luke, being bothered enough to record the deaths of the twelve. Why would they if there was nothing unusual about their deaths?

Luke was Paul’s assistant. How could he possibly record the deaths of the other apostles? But just imagine he did for a second. The first thing you’d say would be that he couldn’t have recorded their deaths because he was with Paul.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

You seem to have the assumption that from the start Christianity was some massive shockwave that tore through the Roman Empire and that the highest of provincial officials were at loose ends trying to stem the flow of this new superpower religion which was growing at an enormous rate.

That’s just you reading things into my post that are already floating around in you simple little imagination but bare no relevance to reality whatsoever.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Sorry to dispose of this bad Hollywood fiction but for a long period your religion was a teeny tiny blip, a nothingness, not worthy of a second thought to the powers that be.

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why you think people would go to the bother of making up stories about their deaths. I mean, if you want to win converts to your religion, the last thing you want to do is frighten potential converts off with stories of your leader’s martyrdoms, wouldn’t you agree?

PDN

Back on topic again.

Maybe we need to explain what a 'contradiction' actually means. A contradiction would be where the Bible says two things that are totally irreconcilable with each other - ie that no plausible explanation exists that might reconcile the two statements.

A contradiction is not where plausible explanations do exist to reconcile two statements, but some one says, "Well, based on my prior assumptions as a materialistic atheist who denies all possibilities of miracles, I choose to reject those plausible explanations."

So, for example, let's take the OP's reference to the Passover. One very plausible explanation, offered by the Oxford scholar RT France, is that Jesus shared a 'Passover meal' with His disciples a day early because He knew He would be otherwise engaged the next day.

"The simplest solution, and the one assumed in this commentary, is that Jesus, knowing that he would be dead before the regular time for the meal, deliberately held it in secret one day early. . . .Of course it was strictly incorrect to hold a "Passover" at any time other than the evening of Nisan 14/15 [that is, at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th], but Jesus was not one to be bound by formal regulations in an emergency situation! . . . .It was therefore a Passover meal in intention, but without a lamb" (RT France

This would actually be very consistent with the way we see Jesus reinterpreting and reapplying the Jewish law elsewhere in the Gospels (eg His insistence that it was OK to heal on the Sabbath, or for his disciples to eat without observing ritual cleansing). Certainly it is a plausible explanation - therefore it would be grossly inaccurate to call this a 'contradiction'.

Pompey Magnus

Well perhaps we need to just make things perfectly clear for what constitutes a contradiction.

Person A makes the statement: Chelsea won the 2009/10 English Premier League.

Person B makes the statement: Manchester United won the 2009/10 English Premier League.

Now to an outsider who has no association with Persons A and B this is a contradiction, but along comes Person C with an interest in ensuring that both A and B are seen to be completely accurate and so he sits down and tries to think up an explanation.

After some work he decides on this: "As I believe A and B are inerrant they could not have been referring to the same things. Person A must have been referring to the the 1st Team Premier League and Person B must have been referring to the Reserve Team Premier League, they didn't explicitly specify that both claims were for the 1st Team and as an explanation exists therefore there is no contradiction and my belief in inerrancy is vindicated."

So far so good, but lets now go back to Persons A and B. What if both, when writing their statement, actually fully intended them to refer to the First Teams but Person B just got it wrong. They are no longer around to question, but Person C has come up with a possible explanation, even though his explanation is wrong.

So if intended meanings behind statements are inconsistent but an incorrect explanation is provided does this mean that Person C can claim there is no contradiction, simply because an explanation can be thought up given enough time? If this is the case then that is all well and good but it renders the claim pretty much meaningless.

Or does it mean that the burden is on the skeptic who suggests that the claims by Persons A and B are contradictory so that it is up to him to prove the impossible as A and B are no longer around to ask, if this is the case then fair enough again, but it renders the claim of no-contradictions pretty much meaningless again as by this criteria it would not be possible to claim any contradiction for any set of statements once someone provides an alternative, irregardless of whether the authors truely intended to say different things.

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well perhaps we need to just make things perfectly clear for what constitutes a contradiction.

Person A makes the statement: Chelsea won the 2009/10 English Premier League.

Person B makes the statement: Manchester United won the 2009/10 English Premier League.

Now to an outsider who has no association with Persons A and B this is a contradiction, but along comes Person C with an interest in ensuring that both A and B are seen to be completely accurate and so he sits down and tries to think up an explanation.

After some work he decides on this: "As I believe A and B are inerrant they could not have been referring to the same things. Person A must have been referring to the the 1st Team Premier League and Person B must have been referring to the Reserve Team Premier League, they didn't explicitly specify that both claims were for the 1st Team and as an explanation exists therefore there is no contradiction and my belief in inerrancy is vindicated."

So far so good, but lets now go back to Persons A and B. What if both, when writing their statement, actually fully intended them to refer to the First Teams but Person B just got it wrong. They are no longer around to question, but Person C has come up with a possible explanation, even though his explanation is wrong.

So if intended meanings behind statements are inconsistent but an incorrect explanation is provided does this mean that Person C can claim there is no contradiction, simply because an explanation can be thought up given enough time? If this is the case then that is all well and good but it renders the claim pretty much meaningless.

Or does it mean that the burden is on the skeptic who suggests that the claims by Persons A and B are contradictory so that it is up to him to prove the impossible as A and B are no longer around to ask, if this is the case then fair enough again, but it renders the claim of no-contradictions pretty much meaningless again as by this criteria it would not be possible to claim any contradiction for any set of statements once someone provides an alternative, irregardless of whether the authors truely intended to say different things.

Your analogy is a load of crock, primarily because you are using something we already know to be a contradiction.

But what has been offered on this thread is nothing like that.

All we have heard is that Jesus and His disiples celebrated a meal (which appears to have been a Passover meal) on Thursday night. But that the Jewish hierarchy observed Passover on Friday night.

That might indeed promote initeresting discussion as to why Jesus and His disciples did such a thing, but to try to promote it as a 'contradiction' is plainly laughable.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Why are the works of these two highly respected scholars are not worthy of your time and effort? I am at a loss to understand.

I don't have your agenda.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness to Rodney Stark, form what I have seen of him he does seem to be reasonable. Indeed, I seem to recall that he described himself as a sympathetic non-believing friend of Christianity. Or am I thinking of someone else

Stark's ok but I find him more populist than scholar. he has some good points when they are not taken out of context.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well perhaps we need to just make things perfectly clear for what constitutes a contradiction.

Person A makes the statement: Chelsea won the 2009/10 English Premier League.

Person B makes the statement: Manchester United won the 2009/10 English Premier League.

Now to an outsider who has no association with Persons A and B this is a contradiction, but along comes Person C with an interest in ensuring that both A and B are seen to be completely accurate and so he sits down and tries to think up an explanation.

After some work he decides on this: "As I believe A and B are inerrant they could not have been referring to the same things. Person A must have been referring to the the 1st Team Premier League and Person B must have been referring to the Reserve Team Premier League, they didn't explicitly specify that both claims were for the 1st Team and as an explanation exists therefore there is no contradiction and my belief in inerrancy is vindicated."

So far so good, but lets now go back to Persons A and B. What if both, when writing their statement, actually fully intended them to refer to the First Teams but Person B just got it wrong. They are no longer around to question, but Person C has come up with a possible explanation, even though his explanation is wrong.

So if intended meanings behind statements are inconsistent but an incorrect explanation is provided does this mean that Person C can claim there is no contradiction, simply because an explanation can be thought up given enough time? If this is the case then that is all well and good but it renders the claim pretty much meaningless.

Or does it mean that the burden is on the skeptic who suggests that the claims by Persons A and B are contradictory so that it is up to him to prove the impossible as A and B are no longer around to ask, if this is the case then fair enough again, but it renders the claim of no-contradictions pretty much meaningless again as by this criteria it would not be possible to claim any contradiction for any set of statements once someone provides an alternative, irregardless of whether the authors truely intended to say different things.

I think you are working on the premise that the Bible was written with no "outside" assistance and is purely the work of human minds and hands.

Also the above example is one of your own construction so it would be expected to fit with your proposition. I don't see any contradictions of this nature in the Bible.

Anyway, what ever "contradiction" you find, you will not be satisfied by any answer given because you are like the Pharisees in Matthew 19. An explanation was provided but still they did not understand. Why? Because the explanations are there for those who can receive it. If you don't have the Holy Spirit and your mind isnarrowed and closed. Faith is a requirement to understanding the Bible and this has been proven over and over again on this forum with discussions with atheists and non-believers.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness to Rodney Stark, form what I have seen of him he does seem to be reasonable. Indeed, I seem to recall that he described himself as a sympathetic non-believing friend of Christianity. Or am I thinking of someone else

You may be thinking of Diarmaid MacCulloch, the author of A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. In the TV series based on the book broadcast about a year ago, he discussed how he was a descendant of a long line of Anglican clergy but now was not a believer - he described himself as a "candid friend of Christianity". See my post on the thread discussing the TV series.

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

You may be thinking of Diarmaid MacCulloch, the author of A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. In the TV series based on the book broadcast about a year ago, he discussed how he was a descendant of a long line of Anglican clergy but now was not a believer - he described himself as a "candid friend of Christianity". See my post on the thread discussing the TV series.

Stark's personal religious position as per his wikipedia entry:

Personal religious faith

In their 1987 book A Theory of Religion, Stark and Bainbridge describe themselves as "personally incapable of religions faith".[4] While reluctant to discuss his own religious views, he stated in a 2004 interview at the time that he was not a man of faith, but also not an atheist:

Interviewer: You once wrote that you’re “not religious as that term is conventionally understood.”
" Rodney Stark: That’s true, though I’ve never been an atheist. Atheism is an active faith; it says, “I believe there is no God.” But I don’t know what I believe. I was brought up a Lutheran in Jamestown, North Dakota. I have trouble with faith. I’m not proud of this. I don’t think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it’s over. I would welcome that." [5]

In a 2007 interview, after accepting an appointment at Baylor University, Stark indicated that his self-understanding had changed and that he could now be described as an "independent Christian." In this interview Stark recollects that he has "always been a “cultural” Christian" understood by him as having "been strongly committed to Western Civilization." Of his previous positions he wrote: "I was never an atheist, but I probably could have been best described as an agnostic. (wikipedia)

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Your analogy is a load of crock, primarily because you are using something we already know to be a contradiction.

Actually it is something that appears to be a contradiction. Without being able to question the authors further we cannot know for absolute certain if one intended to refer to the Reserve teams or not.

So too with the Gospels, we have one side which claims that Jesus ate a Passover meal, now we know that there were Jews who rejected the Temple Cult and ate a Passover on a different day than designated by the Temple Priests but these Jews did not therefore travel to Jerusalem for the celebration and did not recognise the Temple in Jerusalem as being any way significant to their faith. We know Jesus and his followers did travel to Jerusalem, that Jesus did attend the Temple and that after his death his followers did continue worshipping in the Temple and so to suggest that they observed a different Passover timetable to the rest of the Temple observant Jews will need some explaining as all the evidence points to them being fully committed Temple Jews.

Then we have the Gospel of John, a Gospel with a clear agenda to portray Jesus as the sacrificed lamb of God and the only Gospel to make such a claim. It is "coincidentally" also the only Gospel to explicitly say that Jesus was sacrificed at the same time as the lambs were being sacrificed at the Temple, again "coincidentally" it is the only Gospel not to identify the last supper as a Passover meal and also has a further "coincidence" as being the only Gospel to point out the Jewish Priests were unwilling to defile themselves by entering Pilate's residence.

All we have heard is that Jesus and His disiples celebrated a meal (which appears to have been a Passover meal) on Thursday night. But that the Jewish hierarchy observed Passover on Friday night.

Correction 1: In not one single Gospel does the meal "appear" to be a Passover meal. In 3 Gospels it is absolutely explicitly said to be a Passover meal and in the other there is no suggestion whatsoever that it was a Passover meal. In none does it "appear" to be a Passover meal.

Correction 2: "The Jewish hierarchy and all Temple observant Jews observed Passover on Friday night."

So if you wish to argue that Jesus and his followers were not Temple observant Jews yet we know they paradoxically placed a very high importance on the Temple then you can fire ahead and best of luck trying to explain that.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Correction 1: In not one single Gospel does the meal "appear" to be a Passover meal. In 3 Gospels it is absolutely explicitly said to be a Passover meal and in the other there is no suggestion whatsoever that it was a Passover meal. In none does it "appear" to be a Passover meal.

Correction 2: "The Jewish hierarchy and all Temple observant Jews observed Passover on Friday night."

So if you wish to argue that Jesus and his followers were not Temple observant Jews yet we know they paradoxically placed a very high importance on the Temple then you can fire ahead and best of luck trying to explain that.

Christianity has its roots in Judeaism.
It pays to try to understand it a little.
It also pays to know a little more about Jesus.

Your argument is based on the Judean Passover.

Jesus came from Galilee.
Jesus and the disciples ate the Galiliean Passover.

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

Jesus came from Galilee.
Jesus and the disciples ate the Galiliean Passover.

The idea of a Galilean passover celebrated on a different day to that in Jerusalem is entirely speculative with not a shred of evidence in support of it. There was no such thing as a "Jerusalem Passover" and a "Galilean Passover".

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The idea of a Galilean passover celebrated on a different day to that in Jerusalem is entirely speculative with not a shred of evidence in support of it. There was no such thing as a "Jerusalem Passover" and a "Galilean Passover".

I'd like to see you prove that.

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

I'd like to see you prove that.

You'd like to see me prove false a speculative suggestion based not on written evidence from historical Jewish sources but rather on the thinking of one German Christian living in the 1940s?

Well apart from the complete lack of any single shred of evidence which suggests that this is actually true then I don't know what else you want. This guy just made the idea up in his own head, why on Earth should it be up to me to disprove it? You were the one who brought it up, you go and prove it is true if you want it accepted as proof that no contradiction exists.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

You'd like to see me prove false a speculative suggestion based not on written evidence from historical Jewish sources but rather on the thinking of one German Christian living in the 1940s?

Who are you talking about?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well apart from the complete lack of any single shred of evidence which suggests that this is actually true then I don't know what else you want. This guy just made the idea up in his own head, why on Earth should it be up to me to disprove it? You were the one who brought it up, you go and prove it is true if you want it accepted as proof that no contradiction exists.

38,700. Take your pick http://www.google.ie/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Galilean+Passover#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Galilean+Passover&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Galilean+Passover&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e8f59a40fbc345a3

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The idea of a Galilean passover celebrated on a different day to that in Jerusalem is entirely speculative with not a shred of evidence in support of it. There was no such thing as a "Jerusalem Passover" and a "Galilean Passover".

It should be noted that the scholar in recent times who was most prominent in pointing out the existence of a Galilean Passover was Professor Julian Morgernstern. As one of the most prominent Jewish rabbis and scholars of his day, he certainly did not conform to Pompous Magnus' strawman of someone trying to harmonise the Gospels because of a misguided belief in the inerrancy of the New Testament.

Also,in the Mishnah, Tractate Pesachim chapter 4 Mishnah 5:

וחכמים אומרים ביהודה היו עושין מלאכה בערבי פסחים עד חצות ובגליל לא היו עושין כל עיקר הלילה בית שמאי אוסרין ובית הלל מתירין עד הנץ החמה

"The sages say in Judah they use to do work on the eve of Passover until noon (work would be permitted until noon on the fourteeth of Nisan), but in Galilee (among Galileans) they would not work at all (on the fourteeth of Nisan). On the evening (after sundown on the thirteenth), the school of Shammai forbade (work), but the school of Hillel permitted it until sunrise."

This is significant. According to the Mishnah (which dates from the First and Second Century AD) Galileans calculated the Passover as commencing at darkness. Therefore their day of preparation would have been on the Thursday - and they would have started their Passover celebrations with a meal after nightfall on that day. This is consistent with what we are told in the Synoptic Gospels.

Judeans, however, calculated the Passover as commencing later, and their day of preparation would have been on the Friday, which is consistent with what we read in John's Gospel.

Pompey Magnus wrote:

not a shred of evidence in support of it

So the Mishnah, and the studies of the President of the Hebrew Union College, don't count as shreds of evidence then?

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

Who are you talking about?

Josef Pickl in "Messiaskönig Jesus in der auffassung seiner zeitgenossen" (1942)

38,700. Take your pick http://www.google.ie/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Galilean+Passover#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Galilean+Passover&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Galilean+Passover&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e8f59a40fbc345a3

38,700 Christians repeating Mr Pickl's claim does not equal 38,701 sources. Still just one source I'm afraid. Show me a historical source please, and when I say historical I am thinking a little further back than Nazi Germany.

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

You'd like to see me prove false a speculative suggestion based not on written evidence from historical Jewish sources but rather on the thinking of one German Christian living in the 1940s?

You want to argue that Rabbi Julian Morgernstern, President of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, was really a German Christian?

Oh yes please! I'm just dying to hear your argument on this!

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

"The sages say in Judah they use to do work on the eve of Passover until noon (work would be permitted until noon on the fourteeth of Nisan), but in Galilee (among Galileans) they would not work at all (on the fourteeth of Nisan). "

This is significant. According to the Mishnah (which dates from the First and Second Century AD) Galileans calculated the Passover as commencing at darkness. Therefore their day of preparation would have been on the Thursday - and they would have started their Passover celebrations with a meal after nightfall on that day. This is consistent with what we are told in the Synoptic Gospels.

Judeans, however, calculated the Passover as commencing later, and their day of preparation would have been on the Friday, which is consistent with what we read in John's Gospel.

You are making this Mishnah say what you want it to say. All it says is that on the Day of Preparation Judeans stopped work at noon whereas Galileans did no work on that day. It says nothing about their being any difference in when they considered the Passover to start.

What I find most interesting is that I have just come across an explanation by H. W. Hoehner which is exactly opposite of yours, that as Galileans followed a sunrise to sunrise timing for Passover and uses this argument to assert their is no contradictions. I have got to compliment you guys, you sure have all your bases covered when exactly opposite claims can be used to "prove" there is no contradiction.

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

You are making this Mishnah say what you want it to say. All it says is that on the Day of Preparation Judeans stopped work at noon whereas Galileans did no work on that day. It says nothing about their being any difference in when they considered the Passover to start. .

So, try using your brain. If the Galileans could do no work on the Judean Day of Preparation, then they had to have their Day of Preparation on the Thursday instead of the Friday. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out, does it?

What I find most interesting is that I have just come across an explanation by H. W. Hoehner which is exactly opposite of yours, that as Galileans followed a sunrise to sunrise timing for Passover and uses this argument to assert their is no contradictions. I have got to compliment you guys, you sure have all your bases covered when exactly opposite claims can be used to "prove" there is no contradiction

Well I disagree with Hoehner, but if you want to listen to him then that adds another plausible explanation, dooesn't it. So that makes it even less of a contradiction.

Fanny Cradock

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

What I find most interesting is that I have just come across an explanation by H. W. Hoehner which is exactly opposite of yours, that as Galileans followed a sunrise to sunrise timing for Passover and uses this argument to assert their is no contradictions. I have got to compliment you guys, you sure have all your bases covered when exactly opposite claims can be used to "prove" there is no contradiction.

Then there is another possible explanation for you. But, no, to you there exists no other possible explanation other than contradiction.

philologos

Pompey Magnus - I gotta give it to you! If something doesn't look like a contradiction, use an external belief (that nothing exists apart from what is material) to make it one.

Soul Winner

Apparent differences in the Gospel accounts.

A diamond is not a diamond unless it has all the facets that make a it a diamond. Hardness, weight, transparency are just a few of them, there are others. Defining the Messiah is very similar. The four accounts of the life, ministry and death of Jesus paint four pictures of the Messiah as He was prophesied about in the Old Testament. On the entrance to the Old Testament Tabernacle you had different colored veils stretching from top to bottom. Purple, Red, White and Blue. Purple being the color of royalty. Red the color of the blood of the sacrifice. White the color of perfection and blue the color of eternity.

Now notice how each of the gospel writers go about portraying Jesus.

Matthew starts out recording the genealogy of Jesus, tracing His lineage back through King David who was of the line of Judah, the line which God promise the scepter and right to rule would never depart from. - Purple

Then we have Mark, who, more than any other gospel records the sufferings of Jesus in His passion. Red

Luke portrays Jesus as the perfect servant. - White

And John starts out by showing the eternal nature of Jesus as the Logos who was always facing the God from the beginning. Blue

These are not contradictions. They are all simply describing the various facets of the nature of the Messiah. Do you think they all colluded together in order to mix this truth into their accounts on purpose? Do you think that they were that clever? I find it hard to believe that these relatively simple men (well Mark and John anyway) could have contrived to produce such a vivid picture by purposely focusing on one particular facet of the nature of Christ beforehand. How could they have contrived together to paint an overall picture of Christ throughout all their gospels in this way? I doubt they were sufficiently familiar with the teaching of the Tabernacle to be able to purposefully do so. They don't even mention the Tabernacle in any of their accounts.

Festus

Atheism etymological analysis

greek "theos" = God

greek "a" = without

therefore

greek 'atheos' = without God.

Implies - God exists

Bonus points: Spot the contradiction

corollory

God is the author of the Bible.

who is the author of atheism?

If God authored the Bible then he who is without God authored atheism.

conclusion. Atheism is contradiction

+

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

So, try using your brain. If the Galileans could do no work on the Judean Day of Preparation, then they had to have their Day of Preparation on the Thursday instead of the Friday. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out, does it?

It might not take a rocket scientist but at the same time it must take a special kind of theologian as this claim does not seem to widely accepted even among your own side, for instance R.T France (a scholar you brought up for your side yesterday, now its his turn to be called for the prosecution) dismisses the claims of Morgenstern by pointing out that a standardised timing of sunset to sunset had been introduced between Judeans and Galileans long before the first century. Had the crucifixion occurred a few hundred years BC then this argument might have stood up but its not very credible in 30AD.

Just to be clear, is the point you are trying to make that you regard the act of having the Passover lamb sacrificed and doing the other preparations for the Passover as having been considered "work", and therefore Galileans would have to have their Preparations done the day before whilst Judeans had only until to noon to get their Preparation ready?

Anyway as I said you are making it say something that the text itself does not say. It simply deals with attitudes to work on the Day of Preparation. There is nothing in it suggesting different timings for Passover. Its wording also simply says "in Judah" and "in Galilee" (the "among Galileans" was added by the author of this post that I am guessing you took the quotation from), during the Passover Jesus was "in Judah".

Well I disagree with Hoehner, but if you want to listen to him then that adds another plausible explanation, dooesn't it. So that makes it even less of a contradiction.

There is no such thing as degrees of a contradiction, two statements either do or do not contract one another, there is no such thing as another explanation making the statements "less of a contradiction".

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

It might not take a rocket scientist but at the same time it must take a special kind of theologian as this claim does not seem to widely accepted even among your own side, for instance R.T France (a scholar you brought up for your side yesterday, now its his turn to be called for the prosecution) dismisses the claims of Morgenstern by pointing out that a standardised timing of sunset to sunset had been introduced between Judeans and Galileans long before the first century. Had the crucifixion occurred a few hundred years BC then this argument might have stood up but its not very credible in 30AD.

What do you mean by "my own side"? By using that phrase you have inadvertantly betrayed your own agenda. In exploring what happened in the past, whether we are talking about the Bible or about any other text or event, the aim should be to find what really happened - not to score points against 'the other side'.

So, I am in a position where I can see a number of plausible explanations as to why the Synpotics wrote what they did and why John wrote what he did. These options include:
a) Jesus celebrated a Passover meal a day early with His disciples because He knew He would be otherwise engaged in saving the world the next day.
b) Jesus and His disciples observed the Passover a day earlier than the Judeans because the Galileans calculated days differently.
c) The meal that Jesus ate with His disciples was not the actual Passover meal, but rather the first meal of the festival of Unleavened Bread.
d) Either John or the Synoptics got it wrong.

So, I am quite happy to discuss the ins and outs of these various positions. Dick France holds one view about how days were reckoned, but the Mishnah holds a different view. Neither of these are conclusive, but they are what makes theology interesting.

But, and this is where you dig yourself into a hole. Your anti-Christian agenda in this forum compels you to pursue one option only - option d. So, while your agenda means you have a 'side' - I don't. So it is incorrect to say that Dick France is 'on my side' or on some other side.

There is no such thing as degrees of a contradiction, two statements either do or do not contract one another, there is no such thing as another explanation making the statements "less of a contradiction".

That would be true in the normal world that most of us inhabit and the normal use of language. A contradiction is where no plausible explanation exists other than that two statements are mutually contradictory.

However, once you chose to involve yourself in this thread we jumped the shark and entered the weird world of Atheism and Agnosticism where, a la Alice in Wonderland, language is redefined to mean whatever you guys want them to mean. So now a 'contradiction' loses its objective meaning, and is redefined to mean, "Two statements which, while plausible explanations exists as to how they can both be true, are deemed to be a contradiction because an atheist, following a polemical agenda, arbitrarily deems a contradiction to be more likely."

So, I was accomodating my language to Atheism's own mushy subjective definition of a 'contradiction' - and in that case the more options you have the less likely it is that any one of them is true.

So, I can see four plausible explanations for the way the Synoptics and John speak differently of the Passover. One of them would involve a contradiction, three of them don't. Therefore, without holding any one of these options dogmatically, I can say that I don't think a contradiction exists. You, however, in order to argue that a contradiction exists, have to dogmatically assert one option, and one only. And I don't think a single person reading this thread will genuinely believe that you reached that point through any motive other than ideology.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

These options include:
a) Jesus celebrated a Passover meal a day early with His disciples because He knew He would be otherwise engaged in saving the world the next day.

Not just one problem but two with this one:

(1) It was said to be on the day the lambs for the passover meal were killed. Not "It was the day before the lambs for the passover were to be killed but Jesus made an exception for his particular lamb because he would be otherwise engaged in saving the world the next day."

(2) It was the disciples who came to Jesus to ask where they would prepare the Passover. Did they know that Jesus would be "otherwise engaged in saving the world the next day" and therefore suggested having the Passover earlier than usual? Or maybe they just collectively forgot what day it was?

b) Jesus and His disciples observed the Passover a day earlier than the Judeans because the Galileans calculated days differently.

They didn't. I repeat that the Mishnah does not say this and you are making a massively unjustified extrapolation to the text to suggest otherwise.

I will repeat my question that I asked in my last post that would be most helpful if you would address:

"Just to be clear, is the point you are trying to make that you regard the act of having the Passover lamb sacrificed and doing the other preparations for the Passover as having been considered "work", and therefore Galileans would have to have their Preparations done the day before whilst Judeans had only until to noon to get their Preparation ready?"

c) The meal that Jesus ate with His disciples was not the actual Passover meal, but rather the first meal of the festival of Unleavened Bread.

The meal is specifically called "the Passover meal" in three Gospels.

Now I am no expert in Koine Greek and I am fully open to correction on this but I believe that it only has the definite article, so if a meal is described as "the Passover meal" it actually means the Passover meal as the listener/reader would understand it and would not be used to refer to any meal over the Passover festival. But as I say this is just based on my small knowledge of Ancient Greek so I am not attributing massive importance behind this point as I may well be wrong.

philologos

Festus - Although I see the logic in your point. Most atheists do not call themselves atheos. Rather they would say that they are atheists. Theism being the conviction that a personal God exists. Therefore atheism would be the lack of a conviction that a personal God exists rather than without God.

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Not just one problem but two with this one:

(1) It was said to be on the day the lambs for the passover meal were killed. Not "It was the day before the lambs for the passover were to be killed but Jesus made an exception for his particular lamb because he would be otherwise engaged in saving the world the next day."

If RT France is correct, then it was standard practice for the Jews to calculate a day as running from sunset to sunset. So, the day on which Jesus ate the meal with the disciples (being after sunset) was the same day as the one when the lambs would be sacrificed (what we would think of, with our strange habit of measuring a day as beginning at midnight, as the next afternoon.

In that case the Last Supper on Thursday night, by Jewish reckoning, occurred on the same day that the lambs were slaughtered, with the Passover meal itself taking place after sunset on Friday night.

(2) It was the disciples who came to Jesus to ask where they would prepare the Passover. Did they know that Jesus would be "otherwise engaged in saving the world the next day" and therefore suggested having the Passover earlier than usual? Or maybe they just collectively forgot what day it was?

Yes, of course the disciples knew what Jesus would be doing on Friday. Matthew 26:2 records that Jesus had told them that on the Wednesday.

If you read Luke 22:7-9 you will see that the reason why the disciples came to ask where they would prepare the Passover was because Jesus had already told Peter and John to make the preparations. See what happened there? You were so busy trying to find a contradiction between the Gospels that you missed out on where we get a fuller picture by comparing them!

They didn't. I repeat that the Mishnah does not say this and you are making a massively unjustified extrapolation to the text to suggest otherwise.

Unfortunately your repetition of your opinion does not make it any more valid than it was the first time.

"Just to be clear, is the point you are trying to make that you regard the act of having the Passover lamb sacrificed and doing the other preparations for the Passover as having been considered "work", and therefore Galileans would have to have their Preparations done the day before whilst Judeans had only until to noon to get their Preparation ready?

I'm not arguing it dogmatically because, unlike you, I am not ideologically committed to any particular option in this debate.

But, if Professor Morgernstern was correct, and the Galileans calculated the commencement of the Passover Day differently from Judeans, then, yes, that would probably have affected the time slots in which they could carry out preparations without breaching the command that forbade them to work.

Morgernstern as a (Reformed) Jew was immune to the belief among many Christians that Judaism has one rigid set of rituals with no regional variations.

The meal is specifically called "the Passover meal" in three Gospels.

Now I am no expert in Koine Greek and I am fully open to correction on this but I believe that it only has the definite article, so if a meal is described as "the Passover meal" it actually means the Passover meal as the listener/reader would understand it and would not be used to refer to any meal over the Passover festival. But as I say this is just based on my small knowledge of Ancient Greek so I am not attributing massive importance behind this point as I may well be wrong.

I think you are wrong. At no point is it called 'the Passover meal' - it is simply called 'The Passover' (ta pascha). This word was often used to apply to the entire Passover festival with its range of meals.

In a similar way, my wife's relatives will say they are coming to my house "for Christmas". We understand this to mean that her parents and her sister's family will arrive early on Christmas Eve, we all eat the traditional vegetable soup on the evening of the 24th, and that they will be with us all Christmas Day andon St Stephens Day also. However, for her brother's family - coming to us "for Christmas" means they arrive late afternoon on the 25th (having had lunch with his wife's parents). Nobody sees any contradiction in using 'Christmas' as a generic term for different ddays during the whole holiday season.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Festus - Although I see the logic in your point. Most atheists do not call themselves atheos. Rather they would say that they are atheists. Theism being the conviction that a personal God exists. Therefore atheism would be the lack of a conviction that a personal God exists rather than without God.

It is because of the logic that most atheists use a redefinition that suits themselves to avoid the inherent contradiction.
The argument is not what they call themselves but their origins. That they call themselves something that denies their origins is the first law of atheism.
Or in other words, the first law of contradiction.