Need help; Easter story contradictions

[Segnosaur]

I need a little help here. I was recently involved in a debate with someone here over contradictions in the Easter story.

I pointed to the story "Leave No Stone Unturned" (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html), where someone suggests that it is impossible to write a complete timeline of the Death and ressurection of Jesus from the bible, due to contraditions in the 4 gospels (plus one of the other books of the bible).

Now, the person I was debating with mentioned a book called "Who moved the stone" (by Morison), supposedly from a non-believer who ended up 'proving' biblical history.

Now, I did some searching on the Morison book, and found out a few things (such as he wasn't really a skeptic about the bible and god, just about the resurection story), and he made a few assumptions. (For example, in one gospel, a group of women set out at night, in another its at daybreak; the reason Morison gave is that it takes a group of women a while to get organized to go anywhere .)

Now, my question is, is anyone here familiar with the Easter contradtions and the Morison book? Can you point out any other glaring contraditictions that Morison leaves out?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is some stuff...

Look at Issue No. 2,

Resurrection

Here is a big bunch of:

BIBLICAL INCONSISTENCIES

These will probably keep you busy for a while...

 

[Segnosaur]

Here is some stuff...

...

These will probably keep you busy for a while...

Thanks. I've seen a lot of these. I've also browsed through the skeptics annotated bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). I was looking for specific criticisms of the "Who moved the stone" book though.

 

[stamenflicker]

Now, my question is, is anyone here familiar with the Easter contradtions and the Morison book?

I can't help you with the book, but as far as the contradictions go, it's a waste of time IMHO. Think about this way. September 11th strikes and you have four different accounts of what happened from a participants view. One says the fire department showed up first, the other says it was the police. One says the event was terrifying, the other says it brought out his inner strength.

Point is, that whatever personal stories you get about 9-11, they will contain different events, even different interpretations, than say your CNN news report. Anyway, if you're looking for CNN objectivity (what an oxymoron) regarding the resurrection, forget it. These are either stories, or personal recollections, meant to tell a tale and serve a purpose. If you want to trust any one of them over the other-- trust Luke's account. At least he claims to be writing accurately.

Flick

 

[synaesthesia]

Basically we get a whole variety of stories, most of which derive from the other stories. There are similarities and incongruities as we should expect from such a human tale.

The evidence suggests that these are humans writing a human book with a splash of a bit of human ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ (parting of the seas? Give me a break. Supernatural ninjas removing Jesus without killing the guards.

The point is not that God could not have written the bible because it is contradictory. The points is that humans DID write the bible, and nothing about it's writing suggests that any superhuman aid was necessary for it!

Just a whole lot of bad editing.

 

[stamenflicker]

The point is not that God could not have written the bible because it is contradictory. The points is that humans DID write the bible, and nothing about it's writing suggests that any superhuman aid was necessary for it!

Blah. You have raised all the right questions, but have settled for a lazy conclusion. As polietly as I can, I encourage you to give it more thought.

Flick

 

[Yahzi]

Stupidflucker

As polietly as I can, I encourage you to give it more thought

Of all the people on this board to accuse of thoughtlessness, Synthesia is the worst possible choice. No one has shown a more consistent patience and erudition. Even the big guns, like Tricky, Dr X., etc. recognize and admire the depth of Synth's thinking. He is quite possibly the only person on this board that one could never accuse of holding a poorly considered position.

Everytime I take you off ignore long enough to read a post, you are worse than I remembered.

 

[Liamo]

If you want to trust any one of them over the other-- trust Luke's account. At least he claims to be writing accurately.

Flick

Well, anyone can claim that; it doesn't follow that his account is accurate...

Liam

 

[stamenflicker]

Of all the people on this board to accuse of thoughtlessness, Synthesia is the worst possible choice. No one has shown a more consistent patience and erudition. Even the big guns, like Tricky, Dr X., etc. recognize and admire the depth of Synth's thinking. He is quite possibly the only person on this board that one could never accuse of holding a poorly considered position.

I'd rather be accused of thoughtlessness than malice. And currently, both apply to you. Have a nice day

Flick

 

[Segnosaur]

I can't help you with the book, but as far as the contradictions go, it's a waste of time IMHO. Think about this way. September 11th strikes and you have four different accounts of what happened from a participants view.

Well, there is a difference.... there are people who THINK the bible is 100% accurate and guided by god. They also claim there are no contradictions (I remember, a radio host on a local talk station made that claim a few months ago), and the lack of contraditions somehow proves god exists.

Nobody is claiming that news accounts from 9/11 were inspired by a higher power.

Like I said, I was looking for specific information about a book claiming that the time line of the easter story could be layed out with no contraditions. I just want to know what the book author overlooked.

 

[Finella]

Hi, Segnosaur...

I have heard about this author, and I would say that his book (not having read it, but only his description of it) is flawed in that he uses only the Bible for evidence of his arguments (if I remember right -- correct me if I'm wrong). Thus it doesn't really fit the skeptics' code of looking at all the possible evidence, if you know what I mean.

I don't know if you're up to much more reading, but check out _Liberating the Gospels_ by John Shelby Spong. I'm still finishing it, but basically his argument is that the gospels were written to fulfull specific social, religious, and political purposes; thus they were never meant to be literal accounts of Jesus' life, rather their versions of the stories are allegory and metaphor, meant to illuminate how important Jesus really was at the time. Therefore, contradictions don't really matter (and yes, there are of course contradictions! sheesh, people!), at least in the sense of the gospels.

---,---'--{@

 

[Christian]

Maybe you can check this out:

The Resurrection accounts

 

[Yahzi]

Stupidflucker

I'd rather be accused of thoughtlessness than malice. And currently, both apply to you. Have a nice day

You accused Synthesia of thoughtlessness. No-one accused you of thoughtlessness. I accused you of smug arrogance bordering on contempt. Try to keep the details straight.

What I exhibit towards you solidly exceeds the borders of contempt, and for well-deserved reasons. Your inability to grasp the fact that you might be wrong is paralled only by the consistency with which you are wrong.

In any case you failed to address the issue: that Synth, a professional philosopher, has undoubtedly put more thought into this issue that you have, your condescending vaccuity not withstanding.

I read your reply out of obligation, since I had posted to you. But your response was so idiotic as to render me free from any further obligation. So I shan't bother to read any replies to this. And hopefully it will be a good while before I forget again why I don't read your posts.

 

[stamenflicker]

What I exhibit towards you solidly exceeds the borders of contempt,

Wonders never cease, we agree.

and for well-deserved reasons.

Whoops. I spoke to soon. Your "reason" is that you lost an discussion with me. Rather than finding the middle ground in good taste, you decided it would be better to ignore a contradictary thinker.

Your inability to grasp the fact that you might be wrong is paralled only by the consistency with which you are wrong.

I've conceeded many points and arguments on this board.

In any case you failed to address the issue: that Synth, a professional philosopher,

Dang! I always wanted to meet one of those. Yee-haw!

has undoubtedly put more thought into this issue that you have, your condescending vaccuity not withstanding.

You can't even come close to demonstrating how much thought either of us have put into any subject. You are speaking from your @ss, just like last time we debated.

Oyeah, last time I checked "condescending vaccuity" was double talk, and therefore meaningless. I do like the ring to it though, is it copywrited?

I read your reply out of obligation, since I had posted to you. But your response was so idiotic as to render me free from any further obligation. So I shan't bother to read any replies to this. And hopefully it will be a good while before I forget again why I don't read your posts.

Want some cheese with that whine?

Flick

 

[kedo1981]

Hey flicker!
The more I consider your 9.11 analogy the more I like it; mostly because it makes the “inconstancies in the bible” point and not “no inconstancies in the bible” point of view.
When the history of the 9.11 attacks is “codified” how many versions will there be? Jet plane hit the buildings :::::::::::::::::: buildings collapsed :::::::::::::::: many died. Will there be a chapter that says there was a Jewish conspiracy that claims to be the truth, and another chapter that says there was a UFO involved and that also claims to be the truth?
I don’t think so!!

The Bible has been given “a free pass down the hallway of illogic” ; mostly; I think because for the first 17 hundred years of Christianity almost no body could read it.

 

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

Of course:

Think about this way. September 11th strikes and you have four different accounts of what happened from a participants view. One says the fire department showed up first, the other says it was the police. One says the event was terrifying, the other says it brought out his inner strength.

is a false analogy. First NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written by contemporaries, let alone witnesses. A disagreement on "who got there first" is a far cry from being ten years off on a birth narrative, having completely different events, et cetera ad nauseum.

Not to mention that Lk and Mt rewrite Mk independently.

Rather, this results from a desire to avoid about 100 years of biblical scholarship. One may wish to intellectually bury one's head in the sand; however, one cannot criticise others for having an open mind.

--J.D.

 

[stamenflicker]

First NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written by contemporaries

Can U prove it?

A disagreement on "who got there first" is a far cry from being ten years off on a birth narrative

Unfortuneately we can't stick around to see how 9-11 will be recorded 50 years from now, much less how it is interpreted 2,000 years from now. It's hard to know what stories will surround the event and which ones will be taken as "final" authority on the matter. Undoubtedly there will be descrepencies.

Rather, this results from a desire to avoid about 100 years of biblical scholarship. One may wish to intellectually bury one's head in the sand; however, one cannot criticise others for having an open mind.

I welcome an open mind... just pointed out that contradictions in no way determine a truth or the lack of a truth when personal stories or recollections are involved-- actually when people in general are involved.

Flick

 

[Doctor X]

Can U prove it?

Yes.

Start with:

Koester: Ancient Gospels

Mack: Who Wrote the New Testament?

and consult their extensive bibliographies. Should you disagree with roughly a hundren years of biblical scholarship, then can arrange to have your DETAILED rebuttal--complete with textual criticism, of course--reviewed by the Journal of Biblical Literature.

Unfortuneately we can't stick around to see how 9-11 will be recorded 50 years from now, much less how it is interpreted 2,000 years from now.

Does not at all support the attempt to make the Synoptics or Jn, or other non-canonical works contemporary.

Thus:

Undoubtedly there will be descrepencies.

The degree of discrepencies, as explained above, do not compare.

Unless, of course, you conceed that the contraditions in the Synoptics and Jn have expanded so far now that we cannot give them any credence now. . . .

I welcome an open mind...

Evidence indicated otherwise.

. . . just pointed out that contradictions in no way determine a truth or the lack of a truth when personal stories or recollections are involved-- actually when people in general are involved.

Wrong.

As stated, even two thousand years hence, I highly doubt we will have a ten-year discrepency between dates of 9/11.

--J.D.

 

[stamenflicker]

Should you disagree with roughly a hundren years of biblical scholarship, then can arrange to have your DETAILED rebuttal--complete with textual criticism, of course--reviewed by the Journal of Biblical Literature.

I figured you jump right to "experts." All you done is offered a suggested interpretation of the data. It cannot be proven or disproven. And there are some very good documents and research on the gospels that point to a contrary interpretation. But we've been down that road. Bottom line: You can't prove the gospels were not eye-witness accounts.

The degree of discrepencies, as explained above, do not compare.

You can't know this, seeing that only a fractional amount of time has passed. Further, you are basing modern information gathering techniques and pressing them backward with a false hermeneutic.

Unless, of course, you conceed that the contraditions in the Synoptics and Jn have expanded so far now that we cannot give them any credence now. . . .

I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, if you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.

As stated, even two thousand years hence, I highly doubt we will have a ten-year discrepency between dates of 9/11.

I bet we do, if it's remembered at all. And that's in spite of all the wonderous 20th century methods of recording information, which last time I checked, were not available in 50AD.

Flick

 

[Doctor X]

I figured you jump right to "experts."

While the attempt to Poison the Well with quotation marks is noted and demonstrates an inability to argue to the point, if one wishes to overturn the findings of scholarship, one must actually confront the scholarship.

Otherwise, one merely buries his head in the sand. Such is not a position amenable to progress.

All you done is offered a suggested interpretation of the data.

Ipse dixit not supported by scholarship and, hence, wrong.

It cannot be proven or disproven.

Should one wish to actually consult scholarship, one might very well have a more informed opinion.

And there are some very good documents and research on the gospels that point to a contrary interpretation.

Argumentum ad ignorantium--they seem quite absent in this discussion. However, to repeat, one is free to use these sources to rebut a century of scholarship and submit it to a scholarly journal. I can guarrantee that it will be reviewed.

But we've been down that road.

"We" have not. I have, I must confess, followed the road of scholarship which, it seems the respondent fears to tread.

Bottom line: You can't prove the gospels were not eye-witness accounts.

Ipse dixit and wrong. Again, enlightenment merely requires an honest appraisal of the evidence. If one refuses to do that, I cannot help him.

Certainly, I would find it interesting how one "eye-witness" saw an event ten years before a completely different event ten years after--both connected to a birth.

Ten years seems rather prolongued for a labor, even in the 1st century CE. . . .

Moi: The degree of discrepencies, as explained above, do not compare.

You can't know this, seeing that only a fractional amount of time has passed.

This error remains the individual's.

Moi: Unless, of course, you conceed that the contraditions in the Synoptics and Jn have expanded so far now that we cannot give them any credence now. . . .

I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, . . .

Unfortunately, a direction towards a hole in the sand does not appeal to me.

. . . if you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, . . .

Not a question of willingness. Evidence tends to lead one to conclusions.

. . . then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.

Here, the individual is wrong.

I refer again to the "small" problem of ten years "between" births. Again, I cannot help those who refuse to consider scholarship.

Moi: As stated, even two thousand years hence, I highly doubt we will have a ten-year discrepency between dates of 9/11.

I bet we do, if it's remembered at all.

Unfortuntately, precedence rather argues against this hope. We rather remember the date of ascension of Roman Emperors, we recall the dates of Hellenistic Wars, et cetera ad nauseum.

Again, I cannot help those who chose not to learn.

. . . were not available in 50AD.

Most curious since the earliest Synoptic is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.

Funny thing what actual research rather than wanting reveals.

--J.D.