Contradictions on the Crucifixion

monosharp · 08-06-2009 02:50AM #1

John 19:17 - Jesus carried his own cross
Matthew 27:32 - Simon carried it

Matthew 27:44 - Both criminals insulted Jesus
Luke 23:29-40 - One insulted him, the other defended him

After Crucifixion

Matthew 28:1 - Two women saw one angel on the tomb.
Luke 24:1 - Many women saw two men standing beside them.
John 20:12 - One woman saw two angels sitting where Jesus' body had being
Mark 16:1 - Three women saw one man sitting on the right side of the tomb.

Fanny Cradock · 08-06-2009 07:04AM

Sorry, do you have a question?

monosharp · 08-06-2009 07:32AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, do you have a question?

Sorry yes Why the contradiction ?

Zombrex · 08-06-2009 09:26AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, do you have a question?

Surely you were so dumb founded by this that you instantly abandoned your religion and converted to atheism. :pac:

PDN · 08-06-2009 09:42AM

A contradiction is where two accounts are mutually exclusive - in other words, they cannot both be true at the same time.

What we have in the accounts of the passion of Christ are eyewitness reports that note different details. This is why police look for more than one witness to an event, or why historians like to use more than one source - it's not that one might be lying, but rather because a plurality of witnesses give an overall fuller picture. If all four Gospels recorded exactly the same incidents in precisely the same words then there would be much point in having four of them, would there? Their value lies in the fact that one Evangelist mentions something that another might not.

By putting the different accounts alongside each other, and with a little knowledge of the culture of the time, we get a good idea of what went down during the crucifixion. It was the custom for a condemned prisoner to carry the horizontal beam of his cross (not the whole cross) to the site of the crucifixion. However, it frequently happened that a prisoner, weakened from loss of blood by his beating, would be physically unable to complete the journey. Then the accompanying guards could press-gang a bystander and force him to help the prisoner carry the cross. This would seem to be what happened with Jesus and Simon of Cyrene.

While Jesus was on the Cross the criminals beside Him joined in the crowd's mockery of the crucified would-be-Messiah. However, several hours of being nailed to a piece of wood obviously tends to focus one's mind on one's own mortality - so one of the thieves, upon reflection, thought it would be a better idea to throw his lot in with the Galilean prophet who had already raised a few people from the dead.

After the resurrection there were a few angels hanging around. Presumably angels are capable of both sitting and standing. As various witnesses ran to the tomb, arriving at different moments, some saw one of the angels and some of them saw two.

I would be more suspicious if all the accounts used exactly the same language and included all details precisely the same - that would indicate that they simply copied from each other. As it is, they indicate that the various authors had access to some sources in common and also found some sources of their own. Certainly I see no contradiction whatsoever in any of the details you have referred to. None of those details are mutually exclusive.

kelly1 · 08-06-2009 09:59AM

Sounds good to me PDN!

kelly1 · 08-06-2009 10:03AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Surely you were so dumb founded by this that you instantly abandoned your religion and converted to atheism. :pac:

Yes, I instantly abandoned belief in God and turned to Richard Dawkins as my new saviour while at the same time feeling terribly empty and irrelevant.

Then PDN came along and brought me back to life!

:

Genghiz Cohen · 08-06-2009 10:49AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Then PDN came along and brought me back to life! :

PDN, the saviour of souls, the Way, the Light, the Truth.
Fear his Hammer of Wrath.

Agree with PDN, some small discrepancy's are no reason to throw out the entire event.

DTrotter · 08-06-2009 02:43PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, I instantly abandoned belief in God and turned to Richard Dawkins as my new saviour while at the same time feeling terribly empty and irrelevant.

Then PDN came along and brought me back to life! :

I was the same then I was convinced that Dawkins didn't exist and The God Delusion was wrote by people who didn't experience the events first hand and I'm in bliss because I'm going to heaven and the people around the world who die every day are going to hell because of their fals god worship, or in the case of babies the false gods their parents worship.

Pompey Magnus · 08-06-2009 06:14PM

PDN wrote: »

After the resurrection there were a few angels hanging around. Presumably angels are capable of both sitting and standing. As various witnesses ran to the tomb, arriving at different moments, some saw one of the angels and some of them saw two.

So how do you think the event went? According to Matthew:

1: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the grave
2: There was an earthquake
3: An angel descends from Heaven, rolls away stone and sits on it
4: The Angel tells the women to look inside the grave
5: The Angel tells the women to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee
6: The women tell the disciples to go to Galilee, they do this and Jesus appears to them there

According to Mark:

1: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go the grave
2: They tomb is open when they arrive
3: They go in and see a young man already in the tomb who tells them that Jesus is risen and they are to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee
4: The women said nothing to anyone because they were afraid

According to Luke:

1: Mary Magdalene. Joanna, Mary mother of James and other women went to the tomb
2: The tomb is already opened when they arrived
3: The go into the tomb unencouraged and are puzzled
4: Two men enter the tomb, stand beside them and tell them Jesus is raised.
5: Two disciples are walking to Emmaus near Jerusalem at dusk and meet Jesus, they then run back to Jerusalem that night to tell them.

John:

1: Mary Magdalene went to the tomb
2: She sees that the stone has been moved from the entrance
3: She runs back the disciples and tells them that Jesus has been taken and she doesn't know where he has been put.
4: The disciples stay in Jerusalem and Jesus appears to ten of them that night.

So:

(A) was the tomb already open when they arrived or did they witness it being opened? It can't be both, these details are mutually exclusive.

(B) Were they told to go into the tomb or did they go in by themselves?

(C) Were they told Jesus was raised on three seperate occasions, once by an angel outside the tomb, then again moments later by a young man already inside the tomb, then again for a third time a few seconds later by two men who entered into the tomb. Was Mary Magdalene gone at this stage because she claimed not to know where Jesus was even though the women had been told.

(D) Did the women actually tell the disciples to go to Galilee? If so did the disciples reject this and instead remained in Jerusalem? If the two disciples met Jesus outside Emmaus that evening then was the young man in the tomb lying when he said Jesus was already on his way to Galilee? Why were the disciples told to go to Galilee to see Jesus when he actually appeared to them that night in Jerusalem?

(E) When did the eleven disciples go to Galilee to meet Jesus? Why did some of them doubt it was really Jesus if he had already appeared to them in Jerusalem?

DTrotter · 08-06-2009 06:17PM

Charco wrote: »

So how do you think the event went? According to Matthew:

1: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the grave
2: There was an earthquake
3: An angel descends from Heaven, rolls away stone and sits on it
4: The Angel tells the women to look inside the grave
5: The Angel tells the women to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee
6: The women tell the disciples to go to Galilee, they do this and Jesus appears to them there

According to Mark:

1: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go the grave
2: They tomb is open when they arrive
3: They go in and see a young man already in the tomb who tells them that Jesus is risen and they are to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee
4: The women said nothing to anyone because they were afraid

According to Luke:

1: Mary Magdalene. Joanna, Mary mother of James and other women went to the tomb
2: The tomb is already opened when they arrived
3: The go into the tomb unencouraged and are puzzled
4: Two men enter the tomb, stand beside them and tell them Jesus is raised.
5: Two disciples are walking to Emmaus near Jerusalem at dusk and meet Jesus, they then run back to Jerusalem that night to tell them.

John:

1: Mary Magdalene went to the tomb
2: She sees that the stone has been moved from the entrance
3: She runs back the disciples and tells them that Jesus has been taken and she doesn't know where he has been put.
4: The disciples stay in Jerusalem and Jesus appears to ten of them that night.

So:

(A) was the tomb already open when they arrived or did they witness it being opened? It can't be both, these details are mutually exclusive.

(B) Were they told to go into the tomb or did they go in by themselves?

(C) Were they told Jesus was raised on three seperate occasions, once by an angel outside the tomb, then again moments later by a young man already inside the tomb, then again for a third time a few seconds later by two men who entered into the tomb. Was Mary Magdalene gone at this stage because she claimed not to know where Jesus was even though the women had been told.

(D) Did the women actually tell the disciples to go to Galilee? If so did the disciples reject this and instead remained in Jerusalem? If the two disciples met Jesus outside Emmaus that evening then was the young man in the tomb lying when he said Jesus was already on his way to Galilee? Why were the disciples told to go to Galilee to see Jesus when he actually appeared to them that night in Jerusalem?

(E) When did the eleven disciples go to Galilee to meet Jesus? Why did some of them doubt it was really Jesus if he had already appeared to them in Jerusalem?

Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.

PDN · 08-06-2009 06:37PM

Charco wrote: »

was the tomb already open when they arrived or did they witness it being opened? It can't be both, these details are mutually exclusive.

They would be mutually exclusive if anyone said they witnessed the tomb being opened. However, that little detail has come from your own head. Matthew's account makes perfect sense if the tomb was opened while they were on the way to it.

Were they told to go into the tomb or did they go in by themselves?

They went into the tomb by themselves, but an angel told them to look and see where Jesus had laid. Matthew doesn't say that the angel told them to enter the tomb - it was possible to see the spot from outside the tomb as John's Gospel makes clear. It would be reasonable to suppose that, upon finding the tomb empty, that they wandered in and out several times. That's what most of us do when something is missing.

I've got to go to a prayer meeting now, so I'll leave it there. It seems like you are causing yourself problems by making unwarranted assumptions that aren't in the text - which is rather tiresome.

Pompey Magnus · 09-06-2009 12:16AM

PDN wrote: »

They would be mutually exclusive if anyone said they witnessed the tomb being opened. However, that little detail has come from your own head. Matthew's account makes perfect sense if the tomb was opened while they were on the way to it.

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

Matthew does not claim that the angel arrives prior to the women coming to the tomb and makes no indication that there was any long time gap between him opening the tomb and then speaking to the women.

Also where did this story about the tomb being opened come from? You claim the women weren't there to witness it and Matthew claims the guards did what they were instructed and that they claimed it was the disciples who stole the body. So who do you think was the source for the event that Matthew describes if not the women?

They went into the tomb by themselves, but an angel told them to look and see where Jesus had laid. Matthew doesn't say that the angel told them to enter the tomb - it was possible to see the spot from outside the tomb as John's Gospel makes clear. It would be reasonable to suppose that, upon finding the tomb empty, that they wandered in and out several times. That's what most of us do when something is missing.

OK, so can you just give a clear account of what you think happened? Is it that:

The women arrive at the tomb and they find it open with an angel sitting on the stone who at this stage presumably says nothing (Matthew), they walk past this angel, enter the tomb and find no body and are confused (Luke), Mary Magdalene runs away, perhaps prior to entering the tomb (John), the remaining women notice a young man in the corner who tells them Jesus is risen and to tell the disciples that Jesus is on his way to Galilee (Mark), the women stand around still confused about not finding Jesus and now two men enter the tomb and tell them that Jesus has been risen from the dead (Luke), they exit the tomb and the angel outside tells them for the third time that Jesus has been raised and he will meet the disciples in Galilee and then instructs them to look at where his body was even though they had just been inside the tomb and already knew this and and recieved this very instruction at least once already(Matthew).

JimiTime · 09-06-2009 01:20AM

Charco wrote: »

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

Matthew does not claim that the angel arrives prior to the women coming to the tomb and makes no indication that there was any long time gap between him opening the tomb and then speaking to the women.

Your initial objection was bogus. It was pointed out. Now you're clambouring for something to cling to. Hardly seems like an honest position tbh. It seems like you are searching for something that can be interpreted as a possible fault. There's no substance to your objection here.

Also where did this story about the tomb being opened come from? You claim the women weren't there to witness it and Matthew claims the guards did what they were instructed and that they claimed it was the disciples who stole the body. So who do you think was the source for the event that Matthew describes if not the women?

The risen Christ himself, The angels, you can take your pick really.

Fanny Cradock · 09-06-2009 06:36AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Surely you were so dumb founded by this that you instantly abandoned your religion and converted to atheism. :pac:

That's exactly what happened

Now where can I find some babies?

Pompey Magnus · 09-06-2009 09:15AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Your initial objection was bogus. It was pointed out.

No nothing was pointed out, there was a less plauable reading of the passage provided whilst I'm standing by the most logical reading of the passage in which the women were already at the tomb when all this occured.

If Matthew had mentioned the earthquake with the angels arrival first and after this said that the women went to the tomb then fair enough, PDN's explanation would be the most plausible, but Matthew sequences the events by first saying the women went to the tomb and then he mentions the earthquake and angel. He does not make any mention of the women arriving after any of these things had happened so I think it is far from a bogus to claim that going by only Matthew's Gospel the women did actually witness these things.

The risen Christ himself, The angels, you can take your pick really.

Right, so you really think it is likely that the risen Jesus gave a step by step commentary about what happened outside the tomb, do you think he had nothing better to talk about?

You claim that I am the one searching for possible faults, instead I suggest it is you who is desperately putting forward implausible scenarios which are provided in no Gospel in order to cover over apparent contradictions in the Gospels because you believe them to be inerrant, again a detail which none of the Gospels actually claims for themselves.

PDN · 09-06-2009 10:35AM

Charco wrote: »

No nothing was pointed out, there was a less plauable reading of the passage provided whilst I'm standing by the most logical reading of the passage in which the women were already at the tomb when all this occured.

No, your subjective idea of what is plausible and logical is way off beam, most probably caused by your eagerness to find contradictions where none exist.

If Matthew had mentioned the earthquake with the angels arrival first and after this said that the women went to the tomb then fair enough, PDN's explanation would be the most plausible, but Matthew sequences the events by first saying the women went to the tomb and then he mentions the earthquake and angel.

No, Matthew lists the events in their chronological order.
a) The women set out for the tomb. While it would be nice if they teleported there a la Star Trek's 'Beam me up, Scotty!' it is more likely, in the real world, that it took them time to walk to the tomb.
b) While they are on their way the tomb is opened and the stone rolled away. (Matthew wouldn't have mentioned this first since, chronologically, it occurred after the women set out for the tomb).
c) The women then arrive at the tomb (could be an hour later or could be 10 seconds later) to be greeted by the angel.

As for the order in which who was told what, and how many times, the accounts are entirely consistent with people receiving the news of something seemingy impossible and absolutely life-changing. People would need telling the news several times and would oscillate between joy and disbelief. They would be pinching themselves and asking one another if this was really true. If the angels were still hanging around they would go back to them again and again to confirm that the bleeding lump of shredded meat they had placed in the tomb really was alive!

Your problem is you seem to want the Gospels to give you a choreographed account with detailed stage directions of every time somebody stepped in or out of the tomb, with every little detail explained to your liking, and with people receiving the most amazing news with the calmness with which one normally hears the weather forecast. The Gospel accounts are consistent with real people experiencing something amazing in the real world. You appear to be demanding that it should be presented as a carefully choreographed report with everything neat and pat - in other words, you want it to sound like something fabricated.

JimiTime · 09-06-2009 12:27PM

Charco wrote: »

No nothing was pointed out, there was a less plauable reading of the passage provided whilst I'm standing by the most logical reading of the passage in which the women were already at the tomb when all this occured.

Well, it seems to me like you are just searching for something you can call a flaw.

Right, so you really think it is likely that the risen Jesus gave a step by step commentary about what happened outside the tomb, do you think he had nothing better to talk about?

My flippant remark, was to point out that there is a multitude of very plausible explainations. PDN's is probably the best. As for Jesus telling them. Its certainly plausible. You don't think in the excitement of it all, these simple questions may have been asked? Again, its not that I'm saying it happened, but it is certainly plausible. Your line though about 'did he have nothing better to talk about', once again tells me that there is a certain dishonesty in your search. Of course there are better things to be talked about, but so what.

You claim that I am the one searching for possible faults, instead I suggest it is you who is desperately putting forward implausible scenarios which are provided in no Gospel in order to cover over apparent contradictions in the Gospels because you believe them to be inerrant, again a detail which none of the Gospels actually claims for themselves.

Simply put, you're suggestion is wrong.

Pompey Magnus · 09-06-2009 04:58PM

PDN wrote:

No, Matthew lists the events in their chronological order.
a) The women set out for the tomb. While it would be nice if they teleported there a la Star Trek's 'Beam me up, Scotty!' it is more likely, in the real world, that it took them time to walk to the tomb.
b) While they are on their way the tomb is opened and the stone rolled away. (Matthew wouldn't have mentioned this first since, chronologically, it occurred after the women set out for the tomb).

Ok, a minor point but how does Matthew know that the women had already set out for the tomb when the events happened? How does he know that it didn't happen prior to them leaving?

PDN wrote:

The Gospel accounts are consistent with real people experiencing something amazing in the real world. You appear to be demanding that it should be presented as a carefully choreographed report with everything neat and pat - in other words, you want it to sound like something fabricated.

Eh, quite the contrary. I suggest that when real people witness something amazing and then later recount the incident then errors are to be expected. Furthermore these stories would be passed orally among a chain of people until it gets to the Gospel authors, which I suggest is yet another source of error, as is the time delay between the events occuring and the writing of the Gospels. I would not expect the Gospels to provide four accounts which completely fit with one another, I would expect errors.

However you take the extraordinary stance that in this one occassion none of the women made any mistakes despite the amazing event they claim to have witnessed, none of the unknown retellers of the story made any embellishments or errors themselves when passing on the story, and none of the Gospel authors decided to pad the story with their own fictional events or alterations.

I am taking the position that I would expect errors to be present given the circumstances, you take the position that an absolutely inerrant recollection of events is to be expected not just in the immediate aftermath but even more implausibly 30-65 years afterwards. You hold a much higher regard for eye witness testimony than any criminal lawyer would today, you are suggesting it is reasonable to assume it to be completely reliable whilst most experts today acknowledge it to be among the most fragile and even unreliable evidence.

To take a more modern example, if I gathered four eye witnesses to the JFK assassination in a room today and asked them to write down a detailed explanation of what they remembered happened in Dallas 36 years ago (about the same gap between Jesus' death and the writing of Mark), would you expect that they would provided me with four stories which, although not identical, could all be reconciled with one another? I doubt it, as one third of the ear witnesses after the event swore to have heard shots come from the grassy knoll on Dealy Plaza whilst most of the rest swore they heard them come from the book depository (five others swore that they heard shots come from two seperate directions).

Now imagine I gathered four people who these eye witnesses had told their story to 36 years ago and asked these people to now to give me a detailed account of the events as retold to them by the eye witnesses. I would fully expect there to be mistakes and inconsistencies between these four accounts, would you not?

JimiTime · 09-06-2009 05:30PM

Charco wrote: »

Eh, quite the contrary. I suggest that when real people witness something amazing and then later recount the incident then errors are to be expected. Furthermore these stories would be passed orally among a chain of people until it gets to the Gospel authors, which I suggest is yet another source of error, as is the time delay between the events occuring and the writing of the Gospels. I would not expect the Gospels to provide four accounts which completely fit with one another, I would expect errors.

However you take the extraordinary stance that in this one occassion none of the women made any mistakes despite the amazing event they claim to have witnessed, none of the unknown retellers of the story made any embellishments or errors themselves when passing on the story, and none of the Gospel authors decided to pad the story with their own fictional events or alterations.

I am taking the position that I would expect errors to be present given the circumstances, you take the position that an absolutely inerrant recollection of events is to be expected not just in the immediate aftermath but even more implausibly 30-65 years afterwards. You hold a much higher regard for eye witness testimony than any criminal lawyer would today, you are suggesting it is reasonable to assume it to be completely reliable whilst most experts today acknowledge it to be among the most fragile and even unreliable evidence.

To take a more modern example, if I gathered four eye witnesses to the JFK assassination in a room today and asked them to write down a detailed explanation of what they remembered happened in Dallas 36 years ago (about the same gap between Jesus' death and the writing of Mark), would you expect that they would provided me with four stories which, although not identical, could all be reconciled with one another? I doubt it, as one third of the ear witnesses after the event swore to have heard shots come from the grassy knoll on Dealy Plaza whilst most of the rest swore they heard them come from the book depository (five others swore that they heard shots come from two seperate directions).

Now imagine I gathered four people who these eye witnesses had told their story to 36 years ago and asked these people to now to give me a detailed account of the events as retold to them by the eye witnesses. I would fully expect there to be mistakes and inconsistencies between these four accounts, would you not?

Lets get some perspective on your comparrison.

Jesus: You've seen him perform miricles. He's raised from the dead. He sends the holy spirit upon you, and the resurrection has changed everything in your life. You actually think and preach it everyday since it occurred.

JFK: He was a guy that was president. He was shot. He died. You were shaken and emotional about the whole thing. However, after a period of time you get over it, though you still remember details of 'that day'.

Its a difference of immense proportion. If the resurrection happened, you cannot draw ordinary world comparrisons.

Pompey Magnus · 09-06-2009 05:44PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a difference of immense proportion. If the resurrection happened, you cannot draw ordinary world comparrisons.

I'm sorry however you cannot draw anything but ordinary world comparisons. The eye witnesses were fallible human beings based entirely in the ordinary world, their memories would be no better than the memories of eye witnesses to the murder of JFK. You cannot just make up some completely unfounded assumption that because they were witnesses to a resurrection of a itinerant rabbi rather than the murder of the most powerful man on earth that suddenly their testimony becomes more reliable.

Are you suggesting that the more incredible the event witnessed, the less likely it is for mistakes to arise in the retelling of the event? I would completely expect the opposite to be the case if anything.

JimiTime · 09-06-2009 05:57PM

Charco wrote: »

I'm sorry however you cannot draw anything but ordinary world comparisons.

Because thats all you've got I accept. However, nothing compares to the Resurrection event and the life changing power the risen Christ gave, so really, there is nothing to compare.

The eye witnesses were fallible human beings based entirely in the ordinary world, their memories would be no better than the memories of eye witnesses to the murder of JFK.

True to a point. However, if the resurrection occured, then they had Holy Spirit, so that ups the stakes a bit. Also, the JFK assasination would have been, as i said prviously, a traumatic event. The resurrection was more than that. It was life changing. It wasn't just, 'you wanna see what I saw today.' It was a 'life-changing' revelation. You have seen a man 'raised from the dead'. You have realised that he was 'Gods Son'. You have realised that he is 'The promised Messiah'. You then devote your time to telling others, keeping such memories fresh. There really is no comparrison.

You cannot just make up some completely unfounded assumption that because they were witnesses to a resurrection of a itinerant rabbi rather than the murder of the most powerful man on earth that suddenly their testimony becomes more reliable.

You just make it sound so insignificant. You have to trully understand what would have happened to the person witnessing it, to actually see the signifigance

Are you suggesting that the more incredible the event witnessed, the less likely it is for mistakes to arise in the retelling of the event?

No. I'm saying it was so much more than just 'witnessing an event'. Life as you know it, was just about to change so dramatically.

Pompey Magnus · 10-06-2009 09:18AM

JimiTime wrote: »

True to a point. However, if the resurrection occured, then they had Holy Spirit, so that ups the stakes a bit.

How so? Does the Holy Spirit improve memories?

Another possible contradiction in the crucifixion accounts that I could bring up is the question of when the actual event took place.

According to Mark: On the day of preperation for the Passover Jesus gives instructions to his disciples to make arrangements for the Passover meal. That night (the next day in Judaism, which was that of Passover) Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal, after the meal Jesus went out to pray, he was arrested, the next morning Jesus was sent to Pilate for his trial and at the nineth hour on the day of Passover he died.

According to John: Jesus and his disciples eat a meal (there is no mention of it being the Passover meal), after the meal Jesus went out to pray, he was arrested, the next morning he was sent to Pilate, however here the Jewish leaders refuse to enter Pilate's residence because they don't want to become ritually defiled prior to eating the Passover meal that evening.

Eat the meal that evening? Why would they eat the Passover meal that evening if the Passover meal was eaten the night before? We then find out in John 19:14 why, because here the events are taking place on the day of preperation for the Passover. Jesus is then crucified some time after noon that day.

But how could it be the day of preperation for the Passover? According to Mark Jesus lived through that day, celebrated Passover and was crucified the next morning. How do you reconcile Mark's claim that Jesus died on the nineth hour of the day of Passover with John's claim that Jesus died sometime after noon on the day of preperation for Passover?

PDN · 10-06-2009 10:24AM

Charco wrote: »

How so? Does the Holy Spirit improve memories?

Funny you should ask that ...
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

But how could it be the day of preperation for the Passover? According to Mark Jesus lived through that day, celebrated Passover and was crucified the next morning. How do you reconcile Mark's claim that Jesus died on the nineth hour of the day of Passover with John's claim that Jesus died sometime after noon on the day of preperation for Passover?

There are two reasonable explanations for this. You can take your pick.

a) The Jews used the term 'Passover' to refer to the whole feast that occurred at that time, including such events as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So the Synoptics (or more probably John) were referring to another ceremonial meal during the whole Passover period. We do a similar thing ourselves to this day. My nephew recently visited us and said, "Do you remember that dinner we had at Christmas?" Now, actually his last visit to us was on the 27th of December, not Christmas Day, so he was not actually referring to the Christmas dinner of 25th December. Like most of us, he refers to anything between Christmas Eve and New Years Eve as 'Christmas' - which is a perfectly reasonable use of language. BTW, my Polish friends eat 'Christmas Dinner' on Christmas Eve - but that does not mean they are contradicting me about Christmas Day occurring on the 25th of December.

b) Religions often disagree over the dating and timing of religious festivals. For example, last year I celebrated Easter twice - once in Ireland and then a week later in Russia where they follow the Orthodox calendar. According to leading Jewish scholar Julian Morgenstern, the Jews had a similar problem with the Passover. Galileans used a sunrise-to-sunrise calendar whereas the Sadducees used a sunset-to-sunset calendar. So it would make perfect sense for Jesus and His Galilean disciples to have celebrated Passover the night before, but for the authorities in the Temple to still be preparing for their Passover meal.

So which is more likely? A or B? To be honest I don't know and, when it comes to discussing so-called contradictions, it doesn't actually matter. You see your very use of the term 'possible contradiction' is an oxymoron.

To prove a contradiction you must show that two statements are mutuallly exclusive and that there is no possible explanation that harmonises or reconciles the two statements.
We have had numerous threads in this forum where the debate boils down to the following formula:

Text 1 can be interpreted in one of three ways.
Text 2 can be interpreted in one of two ways.
One of the possible interpretations of Text 1 would contradict one of the possible interpretations of Text 2.

Then the Christians naturally argue that the correct interpretations are those that don't contradict each other while the atheists argue that the correct interpretations are those that do contradict each other. (Yawn!)

This places the atheists in the position of being rigidly dogmatic (because they must insist that their interpretation is right) while the Christians remain more agnostic (because we don't have to insist that any one interpretation is right - all we have to do is to allow that a plausible alternative exists).

However, this whole pantomime ignores the basic fact that a 'contradiction' means that no plausible or possible harmonisation exists. To say, "Charco's favoured interpretation of a text in Matthew contradicts Charco's favoured interpretation of a text in John" does not demonstrate that there is a contradiction in the Bible. It simply demonstrates that Charco is determined to interpret things in a way that fits with his own ideology and prejudices.

So, once again, no contradictions in the crucifixion accounts. This thread is an epic fail.

Pompey Magnus · 10-06-2009 12:05PM

According to leading Jewish scholar Julian Morgenstern, the Jews had a similar problem with the Passover. Galileans used a sunrise-to-sunrise calendar whereas the Sadducees used a sunset-to-sunset calendar. So it would make perfect sense for Jesus and His Galilean disciples to have celebrated Passover the night before, but for the authorities in the Temple to still be preparing for their Passover meal.

I have heard this claim before about the differences in identifying when the day starts and I would like to know what evidence it is actually based on. You say it comes from a leading Jewish scholar, Julian Morgenstern, a scholar I must admit I have never heard of before however google only returns about 4,000 results for his name and wikipedia has no article about him so I am not too sure why you describe him as a "leading" Jewish scholar (but then you might have good reasons).

I think it would be helpful to just give a historical recap of what exactly was involved in the Passover celebration. On the afternoon before the passover meal was eaten Jews would bring a lamb to the Temple or purchase one there and the lamb was sacrificed by the priests. The rest of the day was spent preparing the meal, so this was the day of preperation for the Passover, at nightfall then the Passover meal would be eaten.

You seem to be claiming that there were two days of preperation, a Galilean one first and a Judean one the following day. However Jerusalem was a Judean city and the Temple was under the control of the Sadduccees, they were the priests who sacrificed the lambs. How did Jesus and his disciples get a lamb sacrificed in the Temple and eat it on the day before the Temple priests actually went about carrying out the sacrifices?

Most critical scholars recognise that the likelihood is that John probably changed a historical datum, the day of Jesus' execution, in order to make a theological claim - that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world (John being the only Gospel author who makes this description). John is also the only Gospel author who explicitly claims Jesus was executed on the afternoon of the day of Preperation for the Passover, precisely when the lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.

If you are being as "agnostic" on this quesion as you claim then I'm sure you will be happy to correct your earlier statement that there were two reasonable explanations and add this as a third possible explanation as it is entirely plausible and is completely consistent with the evidence.

This places the atheists in the position of being rigidly dogmatic

If it is rigidly dogmatic for me to take one person's explicit claim that an event happened on the day of Passover and another person's explicit claim that the same event happened the day before Passover as being mutually exclusive unless it is proven to me that there were various times for celebrating the meal the I guess you can call me rigidly dogmatic.

thebouldwhacker · 10-06-2009 05:59PM

Ya'd think this story is pretty importaint and they'd at least get the stories down so they're some what the same!!

I like the metaphor used that just like when police are getting the stories of many witnesses stories do not always match up, this is true and when it happens people get arrested cos they're usually making it up!!!:pac:

PDN · 11-06-2009 08:10AM

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Ya'd think this story is pretty importaint and they'd at least get the stories down so they're some what the same!!

I like the metaphor used that just like when police are getting the stories of many witnesses stories do not always match up, this is true and when it happens people get arrested cos they're usually making it up!!!:pac:

No, I'm talking about something much more simple like a traffic accident. One witness might say that they heard one of the cars sound its horn before the collision, whereas another witness may not have remembered that but might remember that the red car jumped a red light. A third witness may have noted that one of the cars was a Hyundai etc. If all witnesses mentioned exactly all the same details then that would indicate collusion rather than truthfulness.

PDN · 11-06-2009 08:54AM

Charco wrote: »

I have heard this claim before about the differences in identifying when the day starts and I would like to know what evidence it is actually based on. You say it comes from a leading Jewish scholar, Julian Morgenstern, a scholar I must admit I have never heard of before however google only returns about 4,000 results for his name and wikipedia has no article about him so I am not too sure why you describe him as a "leading" Jewish scholar (but then you might have good reasons).

I am genuinely shocked that someone would seriously use the number of google results and the lack of a wikipedia article to challenge a scholar's academic prowess and reputation. I view this as some kind of anti-intellectual Rubicon that we have passed on the downward path into Philistine ignorance.

However, for the benefit of anyone who might still read books (those strange collections of sheets of paper glued into leather bindings that people used to gain knowledge before google became god) here is why I referred to Julian Morgenstern as a leading Jewish scholar.

He was a rabbi who, after ordination, carried on graduate work in Semitic languages at the Universities of Berlin and Heidelberg (from where he received his PhD). He became Professor of Bible and Semitic Languages at Hebrew Union College, in Cincinnati - the oldest Reformed Jewish seminary in the US and the leading Reformed seminary in the world. He later served as President of the Seminary for 25 years and was recognised as the leading scholar in Reformed Judaism. In fact, at Hebrew Union College, the chair (professorship) in Biblical Studies is now named after Morgenstern. He also served as president of both the American Oriental Society and the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis. He was also a Trustee of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Secretary of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, a member of the Publications Committee of the Jewish Publication Society, and an Honorary Fellow of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

He authored over 20 books and numerous journal articles on Judaism, Semitic languages and Biblical literature. He majored particularly on the issue of Jewish religious calendars and wrote The Chanukkah Festival and the Calendar of Ancient Israel, Supplementary Studies in the Calendars of Ancient Israel, and The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees: Its Origin and Its Character.

Sorry if that sounds less impressive than a lot of google entries or your own article in wikipedia.

kellychops · 11-06-2009 09:04AM

yes the bible has some contradictions but it is not as if the quotes that you mention are miles apart from each other. I think perhaps asking a priest may ease your mind instead of going on boards.ie to solve your questions on christianity. Let's look at it from a human perspective if you saw an angel and just say for instance your grandma's tomb empty and open I think the pure shock of it would result in your story differing from everyone else. let's not forget it was the disciples of Jesus, pure men, who wrote these gospels, about jesus. They didn't all sit around in a circle comparing notes.I think the best thing is to go back in time and assess the crucificition of christ with a notepad

Pompey Magnus · 11-06-2009 10:08AM

PDN wrote: »

I am genuinely shocked that someone would seriously use the number of google results and the lack of a wikipedia article to challenge a scholar's academic prowess and reputation. I view this as some kind of anti-intellectual Rubicon that we have passed on the downward path into Philistine ignorance.

I simply asked why you described him as a "leading" scholar as, apparently unlike yourself, my personal literary collection does not include any works by this scholar so an online search was my best available resource and that which I found did not meet my expectation for a supposedly leading scholar in a field, as leading scholars tend to be frequently cited by other scholars.

At any rate now perhaps you would address my more important concern of what exactly he based his claim on that not all Jews in the 1st Century AD abided by the instructions in Genesis that a day starts at nightfall?

PDN · 11-06-2009 12:21PM

Charco wrote: »

I simply asked why you described him as a "leading" scholar as, apparently unlike yourself, my personal literary collection does not include any works by this scholar so an online search was my best available resource and that which I found did not meet my expectation for a supposedly leading scholar in a field, as leading scholars tend to be frequently cited by other scholars.

Unfortunately the place to look for citations by other scholars is in scholarly literature - however, google is perfectly adequate if you are searching for pictures of Paris Hilton in a bikini. If you want to seek academic references in an online format then I would advise a subscription to Questia rather than google or wikipedia.

At any rate now perhaps you would address my more important concern of what exactly he based his claim on that not all Jews in the 1st Century AD abided by the instructions in Genesis that a day starts at nightfall?

a) Certain Old Testament verses point to a sunrise-to-sunrise reckoning of days (Leviticus 7:15; 22:29-30; Exodus 12).

b) Intertestamental literature, Josephus and Philo all point to the Jews adopting Egyptian and Greek methods of calculating time, such as dividing the day into three-hour periods, or watches. According to Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2:145) and Josephus (Antiquities 14:65), these innovations affected the Jewish cultic practices - such as the timing of the Passover.

c) Most significantly of all, Matthew's Gospel itself reckons days on a daybreak to daybreak basis. Matthew 28:1 reads, "Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave."

Contradictions on the Crucifixion

Comments