Reasons why religion fails to impress

philologos · 27-11-2010 06:18PM

It's totally relevant. In one Jesus is accused of destroying the Temple, and in the other Jesus says that others will destroy the Temple and He would raise it up. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 66AD after a Zealot revolt this prophesy came true. Jesus also said that observance would no longer take place in Jerusalem in John chapter 4 but everywhere. This leads to the teaching that our bodies themselves are temples to God as the Spirit would dwell within us.

Genghiz Cohen · 27-11-2010 07:32PM

PDN wrote: »

No, Jesus did not say He would tear any temple down in three days. And the verse from John doesn't say He did. He said to others, if you tear this temple down I will build it in three days. Do try to concentrate.

(But thanks for demonstrating Jakkass' point so wonderfully!)

Wait, in the quote from Mark in Robins post it actually says "I will".

What?

Zombrex · 28-11-2010 05:29AM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's totally relevant. In one Jesus is accused of destroying the Temple, and in the other Jesus says that others will destroy the Temple and He would raise it up. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 66AD after a Zealot revolt this prophesy came true. Jesus also said that observance would no longer take place in Jerusalem in John chapter 4 but everywhere. This leads to the teaching that our bodies themselves are temples to God as the Spirit would dwell within us.

You are arguing that the change from "I" to "you" is the "false testimony" described in Mark? Seriously?

The witnesses are accusing him of blasphemy

Like I said, this is why arguing contradictions with Christians is pointless. 2,000 years to put the square plug into the round hole.

philologos · 28-11-2010 01:03PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You are arguing that the change from "I" to "you" is the "false testimony" described in Mark? Seriously?

Jesus never said according to John that He personally would destroy the temple. Rather He prophesied that it would be destroyed.

Wicknight wrote: »

The witnesses are accusing him of blasphemy

I know, for many other things this would be a true accusation in Judaism such as Jesus claiming to personally forgive sin.

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I said, this is why arguing contradictions with Christians is pointless. 2,000 years to put the square plug into the round hole.

PDN and I have clearly shown you that it is a non-contradiction due to the fact that it actually doesn't contradict what either Gospel say.

Alas, it seems to me that is fishing rather than anything else for such "contradictions".

PDN · 28-11-2010 01:46PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't relevant to the contradiction Robin is pointing out (as I'm sure you are aware), but thanks for demonstrating why discussions like this are pointless with overtly defensive Christians, something I've long told the rest of them here. :P

What? Are you being serious? It's totally relevant because it clearly demonstrates that there is no contradiction.

In the Johannine quote Jesus says that, if someone destroyed "this Temple" that he would raise it again in three days.

In the Marcan quote it says that false witnesses claimed that Jesus had said He would destroy the temple.

So where is the contradiction? There isn't one. :rolleyes:

Genhiz Cohen wrote:

Wait, in the quote from Mark in Robins post it actually says "I will".

What?

Have I stepped into a parallel universe where people can't read?

In the quote from Mark it says that the false witnesses ascribed the "I will" to Jesus in respect of destoying the Temple.

In John it gives us the actual words Jesus spoke.

So there is no contradiction.

Wicknight wrote:

You are arguing that the change from "I" to "you" is the "false testimony" described in Mark? Seriously?

Absolutely seriously. The claim that someone would destroy the Temple would be considered blasphemy according to 1st Century Judaism. Indeed, to Jews, desecrating the Temp[le was the ultimate act of blasphemy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_Desolation

So, the context in which Jesus' words appear, and everything we know about Judaism, makes its inescapably clear that the 'blasphemy' that was referred to was a claim that Jesus would destroy the Temple.

John's quote clearly demonstrates that Jesus did not claim He would destroy the Temple. He said that if it was destroyed then He would raise it up again in 3 days. If He had been talking about the physical Temple (which John stresses that He wasn't) then such a claim would have seemed very foolish - but it most certainly would not have constituted blasphemy.

Like I said, this is why arguing contradictions with Christians is pointless.

Yes, if you haven't a clue what you're talking about, choose to ignore everything we know about the historical and cultural context, and insist on seeing imaginary contradictions then it really is pretty pointless.

Absolutely flipping mindnumbing in fact.

mikhail · 29-11-2010 12:23AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I know the so called "contradictions" you are referring to. Most are based on personal viewpoints, or rather that one gospel may give more detail in relation to one thing than another may do. This is logical given that there were a number of eyewitnesses who may describe parts in more detail than others. This is what one would expect of human testimony even in a court of law.

Less detail or more detail in one area than another != contradiction

Matthew 28:1-3

1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 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. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 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.”

Mark 16:1-7

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Luke 24:1-10

1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

So, was there an earthquake or not? Was the stone there when they arrived or not? Who exactly were they? Why did they go there? How many people in white clothes (angels?) did they meet? When did these angels arrive?

I reckon that I'd recall whether I saw one angel or two. Or whether their arrival was preceded by an earthquake or not. And recall, these are the so-called Synoptic gospels.

philologos · 29-11-2010 01:31AM

This is lazy. I'm suspecting you've gone and consulted either the Skeptics Annotated Bible, The Reason Project, or some other list of contradictions. I could just as lazily look up apologetics websites and link you to Christians who have already dealt with these contradictions on a quick google.

These can be resolved in a very similar way to the example provided by robindch earlier. I don't see much point in wasting both my time and yours.

Edit: Matthew is true if Luke and Mark are true. There is less detail in some than others. This is obvious for any reasoned observer to see.

PDN · 29-11-2010 10:06AM

mikhail wrote: »

Matthew 28:1-3

Mark 16:1-7

Luke 24:1-10

So, was there an earthquake or not? Was the stone there when they arrived or not? Who exactly were they? Why did they go there? How many people in white clothes (angels?) did they meet? When did these angels arrive?

I reckon that I'd recall whether I saw one angel or two. Or whether their arrival was preceded by an earthquake or not. And recall, these are the so-called Synoptic gospels.

Oh dear, this is descending into some rather desperate straw-clutching.

All this stuff is simply pointing out that different writers ommitted certain details, which is exactly what you would expect because different people remember, and ascribe significance to, different things from the same incident.

If I read 3 different accounts of Arsenal's victory at Villa Park on Saturday, then I don't expect each account to record exactly the same incidental details. Does that mean that they contradict each other?

PDN · 29-11-2010 10:11AM

Wicknight wrote: »

thanks for demonstrating why discussions like this are pointless with overtly defensive Christians, something I've long told the rest of them here.

This is a wonderful insight into the mindset of the more dogmatic variety of atheist.

An atheist claims to have discovered a contradiction in the Bible.

A Christian replies, "Er, if you bother to read it properly then you'll see it quite clearly isn't a contradiction."

A second atheist accuses the Christian of being "overtly defensive". :pac:

29-11-2010 10:56AM

Ug
either it's true or it isn't, contradictions aside

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-11-2010 12:04PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you explain which bits I "glossed over" as I'm more than happy to go into as much detail as necessary.

The one I usually hear is that people “gloss over” the fact the body was missing.

This is always a rib tickler for me given that essentially what they are doing is presenting a lack of evidence as evidence.

I can make objects disappear for example. The evidence for this is that I am currently not holding a pineapple in my right hand! Clearly I made it disappear!! What other possible explanation is there for it not being there? :-p

A missing body is evidence for nothing but the fact the body is missing. Yet I am constantly offered this as the greatest evidence that the body was resurrected and ascended into heaven.

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 12:21PM

PDN wrote: »

This is a wonderful insight into the mindset of the more dogmatic variety of atheist.

An atheist claims to have discovered a contradiction in the Bible.

A Christian replies, "Er, if you bother to read it properly then you'll see it quite clearly isn't a contradiction."

A second atheist accuses the Christian of being "overtly defensive". :pac:

Atheist: There is a contradiction in the Bible here
Christian: No, no it isn't a contradiction because of X
Atheist: Er, that isn't the contradiction I mean ..
Christian: No no no it is not a contradiction because of interpretation Y
Atheist: Er, that doesn't make any sense, why would ...
Christian: See you are a dogmatic atheist you won't accept the obvious truth of scripture.
Atheist: Well no, there is a contradiction here
Christian: No no it isn't a contradiction because of X

Rise and Repeat :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I think discussing this with you guys is as pointless as you no doubt think discussing it with us is.

PDN · 29-11-2010 12:24PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheist: There is a contradiction in the Bible here
Christian: No, no it isn't a contradiction because of X
Atheist: Er, that isn't the contradiction I mean ..
Christian: No no no it is not a contradiction because of interpretation Y
Atheist: Er, that doesn't make any sense, why would ...
Christian: See you are a dogmatic atheist you won't accept the obvious truth of scripture.
Atheist: Well no, there is a contradiction here
Christian: No no it isn't a contradiction because of X

Rise and Repeat :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I think discussing this with you guys is as pointless as you no doubt think discussing it with us is.

Well maybe, since you can apparently see a contradiction that nobody else can see, you can do us all a favour and point out what it is?

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 12:27PM

PDN wrote: »

Oh dear, this is descending into some rather desperate straw-clutching.

All this stuff is simply pointing out that different writers ommitted certain details, which is exactly what you would expect because different people remember, and ascribe significance to, different things from the same incident.

If I read 3 different accounts of Arsenal's victory at Villa Park on Saturday, then I don't expect each account to record exactly the same incidental details. Does that mean that they contradict each other?

I've read a Christians description of what must have happened if all accounts are true. It is ridiculous

For example

1. "Mary Magdalene" visited Jesus' tomb Sunday morning "while it was still dark” (John 20:1 ). (It is possible that someone was with her, since she refers to "we" [J ' 20:2].)

2. Seeing that the stone had been rolled a (John 20:1 ), she ran back to Peter and John in Jerusalem and said, "We do not know where they have laid him" (v 2).

3. Peter and John ran to the tomb and saw the empty grave clothes (John 20:3-9) and "the disciples" (Peter and John) "returned to their homes" (v. 11 ). But Mary Magdalene' followed Peter and John to the tomb.

4. After Peter and John left, Mary Magdalene lingering at the tomb, saw two angels "where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:12). Then Jesus appeared to her (Matthew 28:9) and told her to return to the disciples, (John 20:14-17).

5. As Mary Magdalene was leaving, the "o ~ women' arrived at the tomb with spices to anoint the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1).' , this time, it "began to dawn" (Matt. 28) The group including the "other Mary" (28:1), the mother of James (Luke 24:10), Sa lome (Mark 16:1), and Johanna (Luke 24:1, 10) also saw that the stone had been rolled away (Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1 ). Entering the tomb, they saw "two men" (Luke 24:4), one of whom spoke to them (Mark 16:5) and told them to return to Galilee, where they would see Jesus (Matt: 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7). These two young "men" were actually angels (John 20:12).

6. As Mary Magdalene and the women left to go tell the disciples, Jesus appeared to them and told them to go to Galilee to his "brethren" (Matt. 28:9-10). Meanwhile, the "eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them" (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:7).

7. Mary Magdalene with the "other women" (Luke 24:10) returned that evening to the eleven (Luke 24:9) and "all the rest" (v. 11) now reassembled in Galilee behind closed doors "for fear of the Jews" (John 20:19). Mary Magdalene told them she had seen the Lord (v 18). But the disciples did not believe her (Mark 16:11). Neither did they believe the story of the other women (Luke 24:11).

8. Upon hearing this news, Peter got up and ran again to the tomb. Seeing the empty grave clothes (Luke 24:12), he marveled. There are noticeable differences between this visit and his first one. Here Peter is alone, whereas John was with him the first time (John 20:3-8). Here, Peter is definitely impressed; the first time, only John "saw and believed" (John 20:8).

If you believe that then that goes along way to why you are a theist

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 12:28PM

PDN wrote: »

Well maybe, since you can apparently see a contradiction that nobody else can see, you can do us all a favour and point out what it is?

Shockly the people who don't see the contradiction are the two Christians. Perhaps God has opened your mind to the truth.

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 12:29PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The one I usually hear is that people “gloss over” the fact the body was missing.

This is always a rib tickler for me given that essentially what they are doing is presenting a lack of evidence as evidence.

I can make objects disappear for example. The evidence for this is that I am currently not holding a pineapple in my right hand! Clearly I made it disappear!! What other possible explanation is there for it not being there? :-p

A missing body is evidence for nothing but the fact the body is missing. Yet I am constantly offered this as the greatest evidence that the body was resurrected and ascended into heaven.

True. Apparently the idea that the body was stolen is completely ridiculous and far far less likely than he was resurrected by a supernatural deity.

PDN · 29-11-2010 12:36PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Shockly the people who don't see the contradiction are the two Christians. Perhaps God has opened your mind to the truth.

So that's a 'No' then?

We have, in one Gospel, Jesus saying "If you destroy this temple (referring to His body) then I will raise it up again in three days."

Then in another Gospel we read that false witnesses accused Jesus of saying, "I will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days."

Now, you claim that there's a contradiction there but won't tell us what it is?

And the thread title is "Reasons why religion fails to impress." :pac:

29-11-2010 12:46PM

Ummm guys I went back and read the quotes, what's the issue?

in one he says "destroy it and i'll raise it up again"
in the other people are lying and saying he said "i'll destroy it and then raise it up"

PDN · 29-11-2010 12:54PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Ummm guys I went back and read the quotes, what's the issue?
in one he says "destroy it and i'll raise it up again"
in the other people are lying and saying he said "i'll destroy it and then raise it up"

Now, now, you're being an overtly defensive Christian! :pac:

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 12:57PM

PDN wrote: »

So that's a 'No' then?

We have, in one Gospel, Jesus saying "If you destroy this temple (referring to His body) then I will raise it up again in three days."

Then in another Gospel we read that false witnesses accused Jesus of saying, "I will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days."

Are you saying that the "false" bit of the testimony is the change between "I" to "you"?

29-11-2010 01:05PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you saying that the "false" bit of the testimony is the change between "I" to "you"?

"if you destroy this I'll rebuild it"
"OMG HE SAID HE'S GOING TO DESTROY IT HE'S A BLASPHEMER"

:pac:

also I think it's a change from "you" to "I"

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 01:18PM

bluewolf wrote: »

"if you destroy this I'll rebuild it"
"OMG HE SAID HE'S GOING TO DESTROY IT HE'S A BLASPHEMER"

:pac:

also I think it's a change from "you" to "I"

I think the point is that the authors of the Bible are not being as pedantic as PDN and Jakkass. But again this is the problem, I can't prove to PDN that the false testimony was not the change from "you" to "I". To me that is ridiculous, but if PDN wants to hang on to that so that he doesn't see a contradiction I can't convince him otherwise.

Which is why these discussions are pointless. Christians have had 2,000 years to come up with explanations for why the things that look contradictory in the Bible are not actually.

Look at the way they reconcile the resurrection story. It is ridiculous. You have everyone coming and going over and over. But it technically works (heck you put a alien teleporter in there and I can't prove that this didn't exist), so they cling to it. That alternative, that these books are a collection of hazy recollections that have been passed down through oral history and change and altered is not something they can consider because it nulifies the authority of the Bible.

It does make it rather ridiculous thought that they then argue that non-Christian alternatives such as the body being stolen or the grief stricken followers of Jesus imagining appearances are "less likely" than a supernatural deity existing.

But like so many things to do with Christianity reasonable is a phrase that never springs to mind.

29-11-2010 01:20PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I think the point is that the authors of the Bible are not being as pedantic as PDN and Jakkass. But again this is the problem, I can't prove to PDN that the false testimony was not the change from "you" to "I". To me that is ridiculous, but if PDN wants to hang on to that so that he doesn't see a contradiction I can't convince him otherwise.

How it is ridiculous? it's a change from "if you" to "I will". It's clear enough at a glance, imo. There may be lots of ridiculous things in the bible but this doesn't appear to be one of them and isn't helping any argument.

Which is why these discussions are pointless. Christians have had 2,000 years to come up with explanations for why the things that look contradictory in the Bible are not actually.

It doesn't look contradictory

Look at the way they reconcile the resurrection story. It is ridiculous. You have everyone coming and going over and over. But it technically works (heck you put a alien teleporter in there and I can't prove that this didn't exist), so they cling to it. That alternative, that these books are a collection of hazy recollections that have been passed down through oral history and change and altered is not something they can consider because it nulifies the authority of the Bible.

It does make it rather ridiculous thought that they then argue that non-Christian alternatives such as the body being stolen or the grief stricken followers of Jesus imagining appearances are "less likely" than a supernatural deity existing.

But like so many things to do with Christianity reasonable is a phrase that never springs to mind.

Right well this is another rant altogether

edit: these passages are totally different stories

John is him responding to "how will you prove yourself" when they're all gathered at a temple, and mark is
"55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56 Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57 Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet even then their testimony did not agree. "
it even says their testimony didnt agree when they were trying to lie

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 01:52PM

bluewolf wrote: »

How it is ridiculous? it's a change from "if you" to "I will". It's clear enough at a glance, imo. There may be lots of ridiculous things in the bible but this doesn't appear to be one of them and isn't helping any argument.

It is ridiculous given what Jesus is being accused of.

It is the "I will rebuild it" was the center of accusation because the Jews were trying Jesus for claiming to be God, an act of blasphemy.

Neither those supporting Jesus (the authors) nor the Jews would have cared who was tearing down the temple, it was the claim that he would rebuild it that was the center of the charge against him. If Jesus hadn't said that he would tear down the temple he still said he would rebuild it and that is the charge being put against him, the charge of claiming to be God and have supernatural powers. Pointing out that Jesus never said he himself would tear down the temple would therefore be pointless.

It would be like being accused of saying "I'm doing to drive to the police station and kill everyone there" when what you really said was "I'm going to walk to the police station and kill everyone there"

Would your supporters being falling over themselves to point out that what you actually said was walk not drive?

The Jews are accusing Jesus of claiming he will rebuild the temple in 3 days (thus showing supernatural powers) and the author of the Bible is saying this is false testimony.

Except that is what in another gospel Jesus said he could do.

bluewolf wrote: »

Right well this is another rant altogether

It is a rant against the general pedantic explanations for Bible contradictions.

PDN · 29-11-2010 03:07PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is ridiculous given what Jesus is being accused of.

It is the "I will rebuild it" was the center of accusation because the Jews were trying Jesus for claiming to be God, an act of blasphemy.

This is getting mind-numbingly stupid. You are tring to rewrite every bit of historical and cultural knowledge we have about First Century Judaism to manufacture a contradiction, even when it is abundantly obvious that you haven't an iota of knowledge about the subject.

There is a reason why historians call First Century Judaism "Second Temple Judaism". It is because the Temple, as the place where God dwelled, was the centre of their worship, and any act of desecration against the Temple was viewed as blasphemy.

This is why Stephen was stoned to death - because he was accused of the blasphemous crime of speaking against the Temple - They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” (Acts 6:13-14)

So, the blasphemous statement for which Stephen was falsely accused and executed was not for saying that Jesus was God, but for allegedly saying that Jesus would destroy the Temple.

Pointing out that Jesus never said he himself would tear down the temple would therefore be pointless.

It wouldn't be pointless, because speaking against the Temple was considered to be a serious act of blasphemy. :rolleyes:

The Jews are accusing Jesus of claiming he will rebuild the temple in 3 days (thus showing supernatural powers) and the author of the Bible is saying this is false testimony.

No, the Jews are accusing Jesus of saying that He would destroy the Temple and then rebuild it in three days. I realise you're digging desparately in that hole you've dug for yourself, but please don't start ommitting the stuff that doesn't back up your rather amazing and singular version of First Century Jewish thought.

Except that is what in another gospel Jesus said he could do.

Well, no, He didn't. He said that if 'this Temple' was destroyed (and John makes it very clear that He was speaking of His bodily death and resurrection, not the Jewish Temple) then He would raise it up in 3 days.

He didn't say that He would destroy any Temple at all.

To try to present that as a contradiction is, to be frank, a classic example of knowing nothing about a subject and yet arguing for the sake of it. To persist in doing so when your error is pointed out to you is sheer unthinking obstinancy. To accuse others of being pedantic because they listen to the opinions of just about every historian that has ever studied First Century Judaism instead of listening to Wicknight is, I'm sorry to say, really making a bit of an arse of yourself.

philologos · 29-11-2010 03:09PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I think the point is that the authors of the Bible are not being as pedantic as PDN and Jakkass. But again this is the problem, I can't prove to PDN that the false testimony was not the change from "you" to "I". To me that is ridiculous, but if PDN wants to hang on to that so that he doesn't see a contradiction I can't convince him otherwise.

Now you're claiming to know the cognition of Mark and John?

Wicknight, it's a pretty clear distinction.

PDN · 29-11-2010 03:16PM

Let's look at it this way.

Let's imagine that I happened to say to a New York cop, on the 10th of September 2001, "If anyone ever blows up the World Trade Centre I'm going to build a giant ice ceam cone in its place.

Now fast forward 48 hours. The cop alleges that I said, "I'm going to blow up the World Trade Centre and build a giant ice cream cone in its place."

Would I be overly pedantic to point out the difference between what I actually said and what the cop alleges I said? Or is the change so unimportant that it's not worth bothering about? After all, my real crime is obviously my delusional dream of building a giant ice cream cone - not the threat to blow up a building.

The Mad Hatter · 29-11-2010 03:44PM

Sorry, wicknight, I'm with PDN and bluewolf on this - I can't see any contradiction here. There is a conflict between what the bible says Jesus said and what the bible says Jesus is reported to have said, but that's not actually a contradiction, just propaganda on the behalf of those who reported it. Think of any Fox News report you've seen on a speech given by Barack Obama.

Mark Hamill · 29-11-2010 04:09PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sorry, wicknight, I'm with PDN and bluewolf on this - I can't see any contradiction here. There is a conflict between what the bible says Jesus said and what the bible says Jesus is reported to have said, but that's not actually a contradiction, just propaganda on the behalf of those who reported it. Think of any Fox News report you've seen on a speech given by Barack Obama.

I think the contradiction is that in John 2:19-21, Jesus says that he will rebuild the temple in 3 days, while in Mark 14:57-58, its said that only the liars who are claiming that Jesus said this (in order to get him executed). If Michael is true, then that would make John of those liars claiming that Jesus said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days. The contradiction is in whether or not Jesus actually said he would rebuild the temple (Jackass and PDN are trying to distract by pointing at who each gospel said would do the destroying).
Personally I think the different stories of the finding of the body of Jesus after his crucifiction is a much better example of the contradictions in the bible.

Zombrex · 29-11-2010 04:11PM

PDN wrote: »

This is getting mind-numbingly stupid. You are tring to rewrite every bit of historical and cultural knowledge we have about First Century Judaism to manufacture a contradiction, even when it is abundantly obvious that you haven't an iota of knowledge about the subject.

There is a reason why historians call First Century Judaism "Second Temple Judaism". It is because the Temple, as the place where God dwelled, was the centre of their worship, and any act of desecration against the Temple was viewed as blasphemy.

Groan :mad:

The charge against Jesus is given in the very passage we are discussing.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

Once again you demonstrate the utter pointlessness of discussing this with you. You go off on what ever tangent you can, such as bringing Stephen into it, to avoid a contradiction.

Reasons why religion fails to impress

Comments