Oh Christ!!

[Minimalist]

Oh, and btw, if you really want to look into the first issue, read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty.

Even among secularists and humanists, Doherty's work is considered a minority view point.

http://neonostalgia.com/resources/bible ... thing.html

Yeah, I was much more impressed with the "silence" of first century christians issue than the whole Q thing. Q is a little bit like astronomers saying that there must be a planet around a star because of perceived changes in orbit. It may be true but there may be other explanations.

The most obvious argument against Q is that so much of the so-called "doctrine" of Jesus shows up in the stories of other, older, cults that it could just as easily have been stolen/borrowed from them.

[Minimalist]

Oh come on Min! First you say that you don't discredit the Gospels because of a few errors then you go on to list the errors that you want to use to discredit the writings!

Read carefully, Dig.

I don't believe a word of the gospels. Period.

The errors between them are useful to argue with Fundies who insist that these documents are all completely true because they are divinely inspired! When presented with obvious contradictions they will twist themselves into a knot to make excuses for the obvious fallacies. These 4 documents survived a rigorous review process from the Council of Nicaea which determined what would and would not make it into the NT.

It's roughly like declaring a House Senate Conference Committee Report to be divinely inspired because after all the negotiations and compromises it was passed into law and signed by the president.

It's a political document arrived at through a political process.

[Digit]

My disagreement with the current discussion is not whether the events attributed to the Gospels occured or not, rather the view that the events could not have occured because some of the statements by the different writers do not agree with each other. In view of the period of time that has elapsed, plus the fact that some of the writings that we have are much later than the reported events, I cannot agree that these failing can be taken as evidence that any particular event did not occur.
Below is a comment on the Anglo-axon Chronicles, written a 1000years later than the Gospels and often in error.
We all know that King Harald was killed in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings by an arrow in his eye, but of course the man with the arrow in his eye in the Bayeaux Tapestry is seen to be removing the arrow.
It not certain that Harold was struck by an arrow or even whether the figure depicted on the left is the same one being hacked down by a Norman knight.
No arrow is mentioned in the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, attributed to Guy of Amiens and written sometime before 1068. Nor is it referred to by William of Jumièges, who wrote early in 1070 and says only that "Harold himself was slain, pierced with mortal wounds." Rather, the king is attacked by William, Eustace of Boulogne, Hugh of Ponthieu, and Giffard; "these four bore arms for the destruction of the king."
"The first, cleaving his breast through the shield with his point, drenched the earth with a gushing torrent of blood; the second smote off his head below the protection of the helmet and the third pierced the inwards of his belly with his lance; the forth hewed off his thigh and bore away the severed limb: the ground held the body thus destroyed" (545-550).
In the Gesta Guillelmi, which probably was written between 1071 and 1077, William of Poitiers indicates that the dismembered body was so bloodied that "He himself was recognized by certain marks, not by his face, for he had been despoiled of all signs of status" (II.25). (Orderic Vitalis, who used William as a source, says much the same thing: that "Harold was recognized by some tokens, not by his face," Ecclesiastical History, II.151). These Anglo-Norman chroniclers all supported Duke William and were, in differing degrees, panegyrists. They may not have thought the death of the king, possibly blinded and set upon by men on horseback, the most glorious of the Conqueror's victories.
William of Malmesbury later relates the same incident in the Gesta Regum Anglorum, written about 1125. There, he does refer to an arrow. (already we see romance entering the story)
"This alteration of fortune, now one side prevailing and now the other, held as long as Harold lived; but when his brain was pierced by an arrow and he fell, the English fled without respite till the night….One of the knights hacked at his thigh with a sword as he lay on the ground; for which he was branded with disgrace by William for a dastardly and shameful act and degraded from his knighthood" .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle

[Minimalist]

rather the view that the events could not have occured because some of the statements by the different writers do not agree with each other.

That's not my point, though.

I think the stories are fiction for a whole lot of reasons which I won't bother to go into here.

The contradiction in the facts is entertaining because the Archies of the world SWEAR that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS. In his view each of the 4 is completely true because God inspired their writing and God cannot be wrong on the facts. With that in mind the 4 BC to 6 AD is merely the most obvious contradiction but it is one for which we have actual, disinterested history to fall back upon, but there are others.


Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ).

For that matter...if "Joseph" wasn't the father who gives a rat's ass what his "genealogy" was?

Further, only Matthew and Luke seem to know of the virgin birth. You would have thought that something so miraculous would have be worth mentioning in all 4 books?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54). John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).


Barabbas
Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.
John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

(Note: Murderers and robbers were not executed by the somewhat costly and time consuming method of crucifixion. They were generally dealt with in the arena. "Galley slaves" a la Ben Hur, were Hollywood invention.)

Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 claim that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

Then there is the Empty Tomb routine!

Who found the empty tomb?
According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?
According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."
According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."
According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."
According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

Thanks to http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

for much of the above.

Now, the purpose of mentioning these is not to use them to "disprove" the gospels....I already think those are bullshit. The purpose is to disprove the notion that they have no contradictions because they were written by god.

[Digit]

For the sake of this discussion Min I'll take your view that the Gospels are fiction, that does not alter my point that you cannot use errors and contradictions in ancient scripts to support that view, we must expect errors in these things.
Take the death of JFK 44yrs ago, the period of time that some of the Gospels were written after the 'events', and what do you find? Conspiracy theories, 'magic bullets' multiple shots fired, and if you were a witness to the events and your 'memories' have not been reinforced by pictures taken at the time, by now your memory will probably be becoming hazy as to the exact events that you saw. That is human nature.
I watched TV show some years ago when a number of 'attackers' rushed into the studio and 'kidnapped' a member of the audience. As they fled the host explained that it wa a test of observation, and the audience couldn't even agree as to how many 'attackers' there had been!
Many years ago I was severly injured in a motor bike accident of which I still have no memory, when I left hospital I went in search of witnesses as the impact had occured in front of more than 50 witnesses, it was a total waste of time! They couldn't even agree as to how many people were in the vehicle that hit me even though those people had got out of the vehicle to assist me.

[Minimalist]

Take the death of JFK 44yrs ago, the period of time that some of the Gospels were written after the 'events', and what do you find? Conspiracy theories, 'magic bullets' multiple shots fired, and if you were a witness to the events and your 'memories' have not been reinforced by pictures taken at the time, by now your memory will probably be becoming hazy as to the exact events that you saw. That is human nature.

But do you have ANYONE saying that all of these contradictory accounts must be true? That is the point about the gospels. I certainly expect 4 works of fiction written at different times in different places for different audiences to have differences. I am not the one saying that every one of them is true in every detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

[Digit]

Where we differ Min is that you are saying that 4 works of fiction will differ whilst I'm pointing out that 4 witnesses to actual events will also differ so that the results cannot be established as either fact or fiction using the written account.
Look at the way the arrow in the eye story began to develop as little as 60 yrs after the Battle of Hastings, this was probably used as a sop to Saxon feelings as they would have considered the Norman's way of fighting as being unfair, and yet within a few years it had become the accepted way that Harald had died and was taught to generations of school children as fact.

[Minimalist]

I agree with you but we're arguing about different things. You are saying that different accounts will always say things differently. I agree. Any cop knows that he's better off with forensic evidence than eyewitness testimony which can be ripped to shreds by a first year law student on cross examination.

I'm saying that in spite of the obvious differences in the story, Fundies will say that both stories are completely true in every detail.

It would be like finding one copy of Caesar's Gallic Wars which said he wore a red cloak into battle and another that he wore a purple cloak into battle.

No one would say that the Gallic Wars are fictional because of the discrepancy but neither would a reasonable person say that red = purple. But, if a Fundie were presented with a similar discrepancy he/she would move heaven and earth trying to show that red WAS purple.
We would simply chalk it up to a trick of lighting or a simple error. But, once you introduce the concept of bible inerrancy into the equation then such simple errors are not allowable because "god" can't make a mistake.

[Forum Monk]

That's you guys forte.

Please don't lump me into any groups. I merely presented evidence, with minimal commentary.

Would you be happier with "unsubstantiated" instead of "unhistorical?"

Yeah, it is a better word.

[Minimalist]

Please don't lump me into any groups. I merely presented evidence, with minimal commentary.

You're right.....I was flashing back to my Arch-enemy days!

[Forum Monk]

EDIT:
As I was posting the above, I opened media player to verify my version, and a pop up reminded me to download an update. Apparently it is a new version since it is a 24mb update! So maybe tonight, the standard version of WM will work. Who knows?

In case anyone cares:
When I got home from work yesterday, the download was complete and after the requisite, 'reboot', my internet was broke. Bringing up IE would cause it to say "Connecting...." forever! I then launched WM11 to see if there was a problem in the install. It hung also. Then a popup insisted I must run a program to verify I have a genuine copy of Windows. Never being a friend of Microsoft, I saw this as an invasion of my privacy (even though my software IS genuine) as I have never downloaded the update which runs the check (though i've stayed current with the other updates, even that ridiculous "Malicious Software tool" thing which has never found a thing, even though Adaware and Spybot will fire flares when I run them). One of my pet peaves is software which uses my internet connection which I pay for to do things which I know not nor can I control. Since my internet was NOT responding, I decided to run the verification software just in case Bill Gates was deciding he had the legal right to block my internet until he verified my software. Well apparently, the verification could not reach the internet either. Several more attempts to launch WM11 hung and in the end, I was forced to fall back to a restore point. Now I am happily running WM9 with all my internet connections working again. Windows sucks! (but like all of you its that, or the Mac)

[Minimalist]

Do you, by chance, happen to use McAfee's AV software?

Even the Windows Firewall can interfere with Pando. I had to shut it off.

[Forum Monk]

I do not use McAfee but another antivirus program. Pando is not bothered by it. I personally only use pando to downoad your files then I unistall it because is keeps a continuous two-way connection going with the main site. This takes away a certain amount of bandwidth, and I am not sure what kind of info may be exchanged without my knowledge. I can also choose to block it with my firewall but its better to remove it altogether. Its like paying for phone service and everytime you use the phone, someone is already online, talking in between your conversation or like paying for cable and letting your neighbor tap the line and watch for free.

[Minimalist]

Quite an interesting essay.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ephus.html

Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian).

[Forum Monk]

Quite an interesting essay.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ephus.html

Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian).

Its all unsubstantiated inference. In my opinion, Josephus got lazy and cut and paste Lukes gospel and book of acts because they tell the same events. Josephus then filled in some details later. My opinion has as much credibility as the author's. Luke was a witness and traveled with Paul. He would have written his account well before 100ce.