Biblical Contradictions

[HitchSlap]

COOL! Is that good or not good ?

Some are ok with that. Personally, I have an innate need to believe things that comport with reality.

 

[HitchSlap]

A car that is headed north is headed south too. < shrugs > simply a few thousand miles more, eh?

On foot, with a newborn?

 

[HitchSlap]

No. It should be taken as valid accounts of human testimonies.

This is actually what happens in human courts on a daily basis. Are you suggesting that the judges and juries to take all witnesses with their valid testimonies with a grain of salt?

Eyewitness testimonies are the worst kind of evidence.

The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

On foot, with a newborn?

Don't neglect snowboots.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Eyewitness testimonies are the worst kind of evidence.

The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus.

ummm.... oh, yeah, right ! (for others: no)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Some are ok with that. Personally, I have an innate need to believe things that comport with reality.

I can't tell from any of your posts, or from any eye witness yet .

Did you ever start to seek truth? Are you at all interested or think yourself that you have in the past been seeking truth ? Remember what you seek is what you find.

 

[HitchSlap]

ummm.... oh, yeah, right ! (for others: no)

It is what it is.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

But this is a moot point, since the anonymous authors never met Jesus, and were therefore writing hearsay, which is entirely inadmissible in court of law.

 

[HitchSlap]

I can't tell from any of your posts, or from any eye witness yet .

This doesn't seem coherent to me.

you ever start to seek truth?

Yes.

you at all interested or think yourself that you have in the past been seeking truth ?

Yes?

what you seek is what you find.

Absolutely!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But this is a moot poin

Never said otherwise.

since the anonymous authors never met Jesus,

What authors ?

and were therefore writing hearsay,

That's hearsay.

which is entirely inadmissible in court of law.

So ? (if you mean human court)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This doesn't seem coherent to me.
Yes.
Yes?
Absolutely!

Good!

 

[HitchSlap]

Good!

 

[Oldmantook]

When did Quirinius begin governing, then?

I don't know when Quirinius succeeded Herod as you would have to look that up. I don't think the specific date is really important though as it pertains to our discussion because the basis of Ehrman's claim is that the scriptures err in stating that Quirinius and Herod were governors at the same time. Obviously Quirinius succeeded Herod at some point.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't know when Quirinius succeeded Herod as you would have to look that up. I don't think the specific date is really important though as it pertains to our discussion because the basis of Ehrman's claim is that the scriptures err in stating that Quirinius and Herod were governors at the same time. Obviously Quirinius succeeded Herod at some point.

Yes, ten years after his death.
I'm still interested to hear your timeline, BTW.

When did Herod kill babies and die. When did Quirinius decree a census be taken?

 

[Oldmantook]

Read the Bible for yourself. Herod ordered the babies killed after Jesus was at Bethlehem at the age of two years or younger. Quirinius' decree took place when Jesus was an infant. If you disagree with that, it's certainly your prerogative. Seems to me that you are looking for details to discredit that Bible when the preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise. But then again that is your prerogative so I'll leave it at that since you already seem set in your belief.

 

[HitchSlap]

Read the Bible for yourself. Herod ordered the babies killed after Jesus was at Bethlehem at the age of two years or younger. Quirinius' decree took place when Jesus was an infant. If you disagree with that, it's certainly your prerogative. Seems to me that you are looking for details to discredit that Bible when the preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise. But then again that is your prerogative so I'll leave it at that since you already seem set in your belief.

So, regardless of when you thought Quirinius began governing, his census took place in 6 C.E. Herod dies in 4 B.C.E. This is a full decade of time between these two events. This is the problem of these two accounts, as they cannot be reconciled.

Thank you for your responses. It helps me understand how others reconcile these contradictions. In your case you choose to ignore them, claim I don't understand Greek, and that a plain reading of the English translation is insufficient for proper interpretation, then accuse me of attempting to "discredit" the bible. You claim there's a "preponderance" of evidence. I'm still waiting to see it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

that a plain reading of the English translation is insufficient for proper interpretation

this part at least is truth.
Even the best (so-called) religious leaders and teachers cannot gain understanding by just reading even the originals (at the time of Yeshua on eart ) .

 

[HitchSlap]

this part at least is truth.
Even the best (so-called) religious leaders and teachers cannot gain understanding by just reading even the originals (at the time of Yeshua on eart ) .

So what's your point?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So what's your point?

Reading Yahweh's Word often results in unbelievers (with NO faith in Jesus) gaining power over other people.

 

[Tom 1]

I'd like to hear how Christians justify any of the contradictions in the video.

This is pretty thin gruel...I haven’t read all of the posts here (there are a lot) so apologies if I’m just repeating what has already been said.
Re. the birth narratives you highlighted, I’d suggest reading both through a few times, better still invest in some decent commentaries but all the info you need is there in the text. Jesus is born - 40 days later his parents travel to Jerusalem - a whopping 9km away, return to Bethlehem some time later. Somewhere between 6 or 7 months and a couple of years later, the wise men - whoever they were - visit, Herod grills them and, to be on the safe side, decides to have all children under 2 killed. Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt, where they stay from somewhere between a few months and a few years. Initially intending to return to Bethlehem, they decide against it (for the reasons outlined in the text), and settle in Nazareth. Luke skips the Egypt voyage altogether- why? Who knows? What difference does it make to the message of the gospel?
As for the rest of it, it’s worth giving some thought to what is meant by contradiction, and what is meant by ‘difference’. Matthew remembers Jiarus saying his daughter had just died, Mark (or Peter, who is believed to have dictated his account to Mark) remembers him saying that she was ‘dying’. Well, what of it? This is hardly the glaring contradiction this chap rather dramatically tries to make it out to be. Matthew, Mark and John were written down or dictated years after the events by eye witnesses, Luke put his history together based on eye witness interviews. There are some minor differences in how they remember things that have no bearing on anything of importance. They were writing for different audiences and so highlighted different events and aspects of those events - something worth looking into if you want to understand the gospels, the question of who the gospels were penned for at the time is crucial to understanding how they are put together. You can’t get off that lightly lol! You’ll need to do a lot better than a few inconsistencies to get out of your responsibility to respond to Christ.
It’s difficult to understand where this guy is coming from. Either he genuinely has some difficulty processing what he has learned, or he has some other agenda. If you want a decent atheist argument and haven’t read it already, I’d recommend Bertrand-Russell’s ‘why I am not a Christian’. I don’t agree with his conclusions, but he at least knew how to put an argument together.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is pretty thin gruel...I haven’t read all of the posts here (there are a lot) so apologies if I’m just repeating what has already been said.
Re. the birth narratives you highlighted, I’d suggest reading both through a few times, better still invest in some decent commentaries but all the info you need is there in the text. Jesus is born - 40 days later his parents travel to Jerusalem - a whopping 9km away, return to Bethlehem some time later. Somewhere between 6 or 7 months and a couple of years later, the wise men - whoever they were - visit, Herod grills them and, to be on the safe side, decides to have all children under 2 killed. Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt, where they stay from somewhere between a few months and a few years. Initially intending to return to Bethlehem, they decide against it (for the reasons outlined in the text), and settle in Nazareth. Luke skips the Egypt voyage altogether- why? Who knows? What difference does it make to the message of the gospel?
As for the rest of it, it’s worth giving some thought to what is meant by contradiction, and what is meant by ‘difference’. Matthew remembers Jiarus saying his daughter had just died, Mark (or Peter, who is believed to have dictated his account to Mark) remembers him saying that she was ‘dying’. Well, what of it? This is hardly the glaring contradiction this chap rather dramatically tries to make it out to be. Matthew, Mark and John were written down or dictated years after the events by eye witnesses, Luke put his history together based on eye witness interviews. There are some minor differences in how they remember things that have no bearing on anything of importance. They were writing for different audiences and so highlighted different events and aspects of those events - something worth looking into if you want to understand the gospels, the question of who the gospels were penned for at the time is crucial to understanding how they are put together. You can’t get off that lightly lol! You’ll need to do a lot better than a few inconsistencies to get out of your responsibility to respond to Christ.
It’s difficult to understand where this guy is coming from. Either he genuinely has some difficulty processing what he has learned, or he has some other agenda. If you want a decent atheist argument and haven’t read it already, I’d recommend Bertrand-Russell’s ‘why I am not a Christian’. I don’t agree with his conclusions, but he at least knew how to put an argument together.

Thanks for the reply.

Here's your challenge: Put together a timeline that puts Joseph & Mary in Bethlehem for the census of Quirinius in 6 C.E., and then in Bethlehem again before the death of Herod in 4 B.C.E.