Biblical Contradictions

[Tom 1]

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.

Challenge accepted - sort of, i.e there’s some speculation implicit in the question. Getting late here so will get back after the wkend
Have a good one

 

[Almost there]

Set in your ways, I think they call it.

"Steadfast" is another word.

I've been married to my wife for 20 years. Now, you can pull up anything you want about her from the past. If it matches the person I know, fine. If it doesn't, well, I question the reliability of the source.

To be clear, I'm not talking about things she may have done. I'm talking about things like, "she's asian" (when I know she's not). She likes heavy metal (she hates heavy metal. She likes country).

Stuff like that. Once you know someone, you don't need old books to tell you about them today. I don't need a book to tell me her race, her temperament, her height, her likes and dislikes, her ethics, etc. And the bible matches the personality of the God I've known since 1980. When someone argues aleged discrepancies about the bible, what is really going on is bad interpretations. I defer t

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.

Not worth the effort here. Sorry.

Wikileaks hasn't released the videotapes yet.

 

[Oldmantook]

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.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you don't do much research on your own and only seek out those sources and scholars that you prefer to believe. If you were really intent on resolving this apparent discrepancy then alternative explanation(s) can be posited and found if you simply search for them. Have you ever thought to question whether the census took place in 6 C.E.? Did it ever occur to you to scrutinize the validity of Josephus' date? I suggest you do your own further research and not just accept things at face value. Since you are fond of citing scholarly research, I'll provide you with this link. You can draw your own conclusions. Thanks for the discussion.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

 

[HitchSlap]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you don't do much research on your own and only seek out those sources and scholars that you prefer to believe. If you were really intent on resolving this apparent discrepancy then alternative explanation(s) can be posited and found if you simply search for them. Have you ever thought to question whether the census took place in 6 C.E.? Did it ever occur to you to scrutinize the validity of Josephus' date? I suggest you do your own further research and not just accept things at face value. Since you are fond of citing scholarly research, I'll provide you with this link. You can draw your own conclusions. Thanks for the discussion.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

Thanks.

 

[HitchSlap]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you don't do much research on your own and only seek out those sources and scholars that you prefer to believe.

I could say the same of you.

If you were really intent on resolving this apparent discrepancy then alternative explanation(s) can be posited and found if you simply search for them.

I simply have. It's not an issue in my mind. I interested in how you, personally, rectify the contradiction.

Have you ever thought to question whether the census took place in 6 C.E.? Did it ever occur to you to scrutinize the validity of Josephus' date? I suggest you do your own further research and not just accept things at face value.

Likewise.

Since you are fond of citing scholarly research, I'll provide you with this link. You can draw your own conclusions. Thanks for the discussion.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf

Thanks again.

 

[Oldmantook]

I could say the same of you.

No, I examined Erhman's claim as you asked me to do and found it to be the result of lazy or dishonest research on his part.

I simply have. It's not an issue in my mind. I interested in how you, personally, rectify the contradiction.

I gave you my explanation which rectified the alleged discrepancy. Since it's already settled in your mind, so be it.

Likewise.

I did my research and as a courtesy to you even provided the link for you.

Thanks again.

You're welcome!

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Here is what is known:

Quirinius took on an administrative role over the province of Syria in 6 or 7 AD. Prior to that he had been a senior military commander in Asia Minor from around 12 BC to 2 BC. The Greek expression hegemoneuo often translated as ‘governor‘ in Luke 2.2 actually means ‘to be leading’ or ‘to be in charge of’ (I don’t read Greek but that’s what I found). The administrator of Syria during this last period, Quintilius Varus, went down in history as less than competent. When Augustus began the process of carrying out a census for tax purposes in 7 or 8 BC*, Quirinius was entrusted, as military commander, with the delicate problem of handling this in the volatile area of Palestine, superseding the authority and governorship of Quintilious.

Here’s the speculation:

*This is thought to be the ‘first’ census under Quirinius as specified by Luke in Luke 2.2, and not the 2nd census carried out around 6-8AD. Existing evidence tells us that the Roman prefect at the same time period in Egypt carried out a census every 14 yrs. There isn't any evidence for how often they were carried out in Judea.

After the discovery of a Latin inscription in 1764 it has been suggested that Quirinius was twice appointed governor of Syria.

Translation of Luke 2:2 is apparently ‘awkward’. Some translators argue that the translation should read ‘the census that took place before Quirinius was governing Syria’, and this is a secondary translation in some versions of the bible.


Not much else is known, not much data from that period.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I don't justify it. I just take the four Gospels as forms of ancient literature. If there are inconsistencies between them, and a handful of contradictions are also noticeable, then they are what they are. Who cares? I don't. I don't know why anyone really should. After considering various nuances involved with the Philosophy of History and what it took for an average Jewish person to write things down in ancient Palestine, I don't have high expectation of the biblical material. Do all written references or accounts pertaining to Socrates or, later, to someone like Christopher Columbus, agree in every fine detail?

I don't even know why it's important to consider the bible as infallible or inerrant. It's not a necessary proposition. It's a convenient one, for sure, but not a necessary one. No, as far as I can tell, all that the biblical writings "have to do" is express some level of historical impression about Jesus being the long sought after Messiah of the Jews. The outcome of our response to this will depend upon anything God might do in our lives, if He's real, coupled with what we each find to be rationally and even aesthetically appealing on a personal level.

So, when Bart Ehrman opens his mouth, all he's doing is poking holes in the extra-biblical contrivances which the Church has built up about how 'perfect' the Bible is supposed to be. I'm sure he thinks he's doing 'more' than that, but his efforts don't disprove the Bible. They just sober us up to see the bible as it is: a collection of imperfect human writings that represent various individual person's encounters with God/Jesus and His affiliates. And being that no complex social collection of human beings can or will agree on the fine details of events or the meanings in those events, then I think it's safe to say that we should expect to see some diversity of representation among the biblical writings.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[cloudyday2]

So, when Bart Ehrman opens his mouth, all he's doing is poking holes in the extra-biblical contrivances which the Church has built up about how 'perfect' the Bible is supposed to be.

I didn't watch the entire video, but apparently Ehrman shows contradictions between the birth narratives. When the two narratives are almost completely different and contradict each other and with history, and when the earliest texts such as Mark and Paul seem to know nothing of a virgin birth, a sensible person should probably believe that the birth of Jesus was totally ordinary.

CF defines "Christian" by belief in the Nicene Creed which says "incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary".

Furthermore, Christians need to be much more circumspect about what they believe to be true. If a Christian has not had any experience of God, then he/she needs to renounce the faith and become an atheist. Even if a Christian has had some apparent experience of the spiritual, he/she should not assume that this supports the specific claims of Christianity (unless it truly does). In other words, if you witnessed a miraculous healing, do not assume that this supports your belief in Christianity. Or if you see a vision of Jesus, consider the possibility that you imposed your own preconceptions on something else.

That's my opinion FWIW

EDIT: Of course, I'm not urging Christians to become atheists. I just want them to think about the reasons for their beliefs.

 

[Tom 1]

I didn't watch the entire video, but apparently Ehrman shows contradictions between the birth narratives. When the two narratives are almost completely different and contradict each other and with history, and when the earliest texts such as Mark and Paul seem to know nothing of a virgin birth, a sensible person should probably believe that the birth of Jesus was totally ordinary.

CF defines "Christian" by belief in the Nicene Creed which says "incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary".

Furthermore, Christians need to be much more circumspect about what they believe to be true. If a Christian has not had any experience of God, then he/she needs to renounce the faith and become an atheist. Even if a Christian has had some apparent experience of the spiritual, he/she should not assume that this supports the specific claims of Christianity (unless it truly does). In other words, if you witnessed a miraculous healing, do not assume that this supports your belief in Christianity. Or if you see a vision of Jesus, consider the possibility that you imposed your own preconceptions on something else.

That's my opinion FWIW

EDIT: Of course, I'm not urging Christians to become atheists. I just want them to think about the reasons for their beliefs.

This is a bit random. Could you back up at least some of your assertions with some verifiable facts?

Thanks

 

[cloudyday2]

This is a bit random. Could you back up at least some of your assertions with some verifiable facts?

Thanks

I imagine the facts are presented by Ehrman in the video although I only watched a few minutes at the beginning.

Here is a Wikipedia article on the birth narrative and a critical analysis ( Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia ). My impression is that a large percentage of otherwise orthodox Christians accept that the virgin birth is not historical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't watch the entire video, but apparently Ehrman shows contradictions between the birth narratives. When the two narratives are almost completely different and contradict each other and with history, and when the earliest texts such as Mark and Paul seem to know nothing of a virgin birth, a sensible person should probably believe that the birth of Jesus was totally ordinary.

...Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in your response here, I see that you haven't taken into account the contingencies implied by my reference to the Philosophy of History. So, unless you've studied Philosophy of History and the issues involved in that field, quite apart from all that is involved in Historiography as a separate field, or even just History as a general field, then I don't think the way in which any of us individually handles the variations we find in the Gospel accounts should by any necessity lead us to automatically discount the New Testament writings in some simplistic fashion.

CF defines "Christian" by belief in the Nicene Creed which says "incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary".

Yeah, CF defines belief in this way, but this citation of yours is a red-herring that has very little to do with the issue at hand, Cloudy.

Furthermore, Christians need to be much more circumspect about what they believe to be true. If a Christian has not had any experience of God, then he/she needs to renounce the faith and become an atheist.

Yes, many Christians do need to be much more circumspect in what they believe to be true. But they also need to be much more circumspect in HOW they believe as well; of course, then again, so do MANY atheists. By the way, Cloudy, what exactly is an "experience" of God? Is it any one specific thing? I have to ask since I can't say that I've ever "had" an experience of God that anyone would label as supernatural, and by your reckoning, I should drop my faith like a falling meteor.

Even if a Christian has had some apparent experience of the spiritual, he/she should not assume that this supports the specific claims of Christianity (unless it truly does). In other words, if you witnessed a miraculous healing, do not assume that this supports your belief in Christianity. Or if you see a vision of Jesus, consider the possibility that you imposed your own preconceptions on something else.

That's my opinion FWIW

Yep.

EDIT: Of course, I'm not urging Christians to become atheists. I just want them to think about the reasons for their beliefs.

Sure. But I'd want EVERYONE to think about these issues, and not just Christians.

 

[Tom 1]

I imagine the facts are presented by Ehrman in the video although I only watched a few minutes at the beginning.

Here is a Wikipedia article on the birth narrative and a critical analysis ( Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia ). My impression is that a large percentage of otherwise orthodox Christians accept that the virgin birth is not historical.

Wiki articles are ok for summaries of some current viewpoints, not much use for what is being discussed here. If you could be a little more specific about some of your assertions and what specific evidence you have based them on, that would be helpful.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yeah, CF defines belief in this way, but this citation of yours is a red-herring that has very little to do with the issue at hand, Cloudy.

Christians on CF need to be ready to defend the virgin birth in an apologetics thread if that is part of CF's definition. Ehrman just shot a massive hole in your chest, and you said it was only a flesh wound and not at all life-threatening LOL

By the way, Cloudy, what exactly is an "experience" of God? Is it any one specific thing? I have to ask since I can't say that I've ever "had" an experience of God that anyone would label as supernatural, and by your reckoning, I should drop my faith like a falling meteor.

Oh, you know - the burning bush, etc. For me, it seems to be synchronicities and hallucinations that convey a message. I don't think I have seen anything that could not be explained-away if a person was skeptical enough.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians on CF need to be ready to defend the virgin birth in an apologetics thread if that is part of CF's definition. Ehrman just shot a massive hole in your chest, and you said it was only a flesh wound and not at all life-threatening LOL.

Well, there are different 'kinds' of, and approaches to, Christian apologetics, Cloudy, not just one. I just did give a defense for the Virgin Birth, but it's not the direct approach which every person in Post-Enlightenment society has been acculturated (brainwashed) to consider or to accept. Besides, I see Christian faith as a journey for exploration of faith in this life and not a destination to arrive at in a concrete fashion, not until death, anyway.

Oh, you know - the burning bush, etc. For me, it seems to be synchronicities and hallucinations that convey a message. I don't think I have seen anything that could not be explained-away if a person was skeptical enough.

I've never been under the impression that a person HAS to have some kind of Charismatic Type experience to be able to say, "I'm a bona-fide Christian!"

 

[Tom 1]

Christians on CF need to be ready to defend the virgin birth in an apologetics thread if that is part of CF's definition. Ehrman just shot a massive hole in your chest, and you said it was only a flesh wound and not at all life-threatening LOL

Ehrman isn’t really saying anything at all. What do you think he is saying? What is the ‘massive hole’?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Christians on CF need to be ready to defend the virgin birth in an apologetics thread if that is part of CF's definition. Ehrman just shot a massive hole in your chest, and you said it was only a flesh wound and not at all life-threatening LOL

...it would only be a massive hole for those who EXPECT the bible to be some kind of magical paragon of epistemic and historical perfection. I have never held such a credo. However, this doesn't mean that I don't respect the Nicene Creed, it just means that I'm not beholden to it as some kind of epitome of faith. For me to do so would mean that "I've arrived" at a destination, which would change what I expect to see epistemically.

Moreover, I find it telling that in the video in the OP, Ehrman says something to the effect that in looking at the details of the Gospel accounts, we should be like crime detectives. I fine this a bit funny when the apologist J. Warner Wallace, who is a homicide detective, says something a bit different about how all of that kind of thing can really work. I'm not here to repeat what J. Warner Wallace has already said. If you want direct apologetics that supposedly close the gaping wound that Bart Ehrman has fired at the chest of Christians everywhere, then you can read Wallace. I, however, keep Wallace in mind, but I take a different tact than he does in defending and expressing the nature of the Christian faith. I'm a philosopher, not an apologist; I think philosophy is more nuanced and expansive than apologetics is.

 

[cloudyday2]

Ehrman isn’t really saying anything at all. What do you think he is saying? What is the ‘massive hole’?

Well the virgin birth is kaput according to Ehrman, so the Nicene Creed is kaput, and CF's definition of Christian is kaput.

Actually, I think this only means that CF might want to change their definition of Christian. It seems that many Christians on CF do not believe in the virgin birth, but they are perfectly orthodox Christians in every other way. Some denominations use a less stringent creed than the Nicene. ... Of course this issue existed when CF created the current definition, so I suppose the reasons that made this seem best are still in effect.

 

[Tom 1]

Well the virgin birth is kaput according to Ehrman, so the Nicene Creed is kaput, and CF's definition of Christian is kaput.

Actually, I think this only means that CF might want to change their definition of Christian. It seems that many Christians on CF do not believe in the virgin birth, but they are perfectly orthodox Christians in every other way. Some denominations use a less stringent creed than the Nicene. ... Of course this issue existed when CF created the current definition, so I suppose the reasons that made this seem best are still in effect.

Ok I’ll stop asking you questions that require you to produce some sort of evidence.

 

[cloudyday2]

Ok I’ll stop asking you questions that require you to take produce some sort of evidence.

Sorry. I guess I don't feel like trying to persuade you when the video in the OP by Bart Ehrman didn't persuade you. I didn't watch the video, but Ehrman know the issues better than I do.