Contradictions within the Gospels?

Festus wrote: »

Reasonable assumptions. To assume. To make an ass of u and me.

Any scholarly work that is based on assumption has to assume that any criticism is prepared to accept the assumption or otherwise assume there is a limit to the scholarliness of the article.

Fine, criticise so instead of throwing out empty catch phrases. Do you suggest that the start figure of 1000 was too small, in which case Christianity would have grown at a slower rate than 40%. Do you suggest that the end figure of approx 6 million is too low? What then would you suggest is a more realistic figure for 300 AD. Or are you, as I believe, just criticizing for the sake of it? Give something positive instead of sniping from the bushes.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ehrman, a former preacher?

Yeah, I think it was during his time at Moody Bible Institute, it may have been after that though.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What I'm criticising is your tendency to mix facts with your opinion and pass the result off as an all or nothing package.

On the money! From when the posters user name was Charco, that has been my beef. Opinion, mixed with elements of history and presented articulately as fact. If a poster was genuinely interested in engaging us in historical study, their posts would not be so littered with anti-Christian sentiment. Though tbh, I prefer to know someones mindset. It helps decide whether to engage or not.

I'm glad its not just me that seen this though.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Where is my "anti-Christian sentiment" which you think would not be an opinion shared by the vast majority of historians today? Please just point it out.

Your anti-Christian leaning oozes from your 'historical analysis' constantly. Your input here is only ever to belittle Christianity. What you say or conclude doesn't actually bother me. You are welcome to conclude whatever you like. Its how you present your 'historical analysis' as matter of fact.

Read the Gospel of St.Thomas....amazing writing.

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.

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?

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.