[Dark Tofu]

I will be deleting my posts 2-6 by the time I get my new responses if I don't get a good reason not to. I have changed my opinion from them and will make new ones soon and they are pointless. If you don't want me to, give me a good reason not to.

[joshaber]

I don't know why you'd really need to.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Read 1 Kings 4:29-34
Soloman was a very wisdomatic man, his wisdom was given unto him by God so all of his proverbs would be of God

this isn't the word of God. it proves nothing.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

nice selective quoting. what I said was a non-17th century way of saying stiffnecked.

I made it clear it was a choice of his, not an inteligence issue, using modern terms. Dense does not mean stupid, it means impervious, an identical meaning to stiffnecked.

it is still insulting.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by joshaber

I don't know why you'd really need to.

What would you have me do instead? And also, if you guys want me to respond soon then please don't post any arguements for about a week and my new stuff will be up.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I will be deleting my posts 2-6 by the time I get my new responses if I don't get a good reason not to. I have changed my opinion from them and will make new ones soon and they are pointless. If you don't want me to, give me a good reason not to.

comparison of your old beliefs with new. I am glad your beliefs are changing because he who decides what words of God are the words of God is acting as an editor for God, and placing himself in a position only God himself is in.

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Maybe they aren't 'contradictory' but this makes the Bible not inerrant. Let me explain.

If the Bible says only one person went naming them, it must mean just that person. Your statements above don't make sense. You would only say Bill if the subject was only on Bill or he was the only one who went. Which is not the case with these books. So you are telling me that John is correct in saying that only Mary Magdalene went and that when Luke says that at least 5 women went that he was right too?

No, this is not correct at all! You are attempting to force a bizzare, wooden contruct onto the writers of the gospels that I have never seen before. And most people, from lay persons to scholars (excluding rabid skeptics), would disagree with you.

Each of the writers of gospels had different styles, and emphasized different parts of the story. We get to see the story through the eyes of different witnesses. If all four accounts were exactly the same, other than in style, the skeptics would be crying collusion instead of contradiction!

Matthew was impressed by power and prestige, and told his account focusing on these elements of Jesus's life.

Luke was more interested in what Jesus did for and meant to the common man, and so devoted his account to Jesus's work with these people.

John wanted to communicate the diety of Jesus more than anything and so related events that he witnessed that clearly showed this.

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Wrong.
Matthew: Violent earthquake, then one angel came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Mark: Stone already rolled away and one angel was inside tomb.
Luke: Stone was gone and they entered. Two angels appeared to them.
John: Stone gone. Two angels appeared to her.

It is contradictory. What happened? Was there a violent earthquake after they got there or was the stone already rolled away? Did an angel roll it away or was it already rolled away? Did angel come and sit on rock or was it already in the tomb or did 2 appear to them? Inside or outside tomb?

Again. The difference here is not contradiction, but added information.

Just because the Matthew relates the earthquake and the others don't doesn't mean that they believe it didn't take place. That's Matthew's style.

Here is a good example of what probably happened:

Sometime early in the morning of the third day, there was an earthquake, and the angel rolled the stone away. (You have assumed that the earthquake took place after the women arrived at the tomb, but there is no reason to believe that that is the case. In fact, I would argue that text in Matthew seems to imply that the earthquake and the stone being rolled away took place sometime before the women arrived.)

Now as I said before on the issue of were there one or two angels, there were two; just because Matthew and Mark only tell about the angel who spoke does not mean that they have excluded the possibility of other angels being present.

As for their locations, again, you are making assumptions about where the angels were seen by the women:
Matthew: an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Mark: As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
Luke: suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.
John: As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
From these passages, we can really tell very little about where the angels were when they were seen by the women. (John is by far the most specific, and none of the gospels can truly be said to contradict him.) In addition, as has already been pointed out, you seem to believe that the angels can’t move, be in one place and then another.

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Notice how Mark says a young man dressed in a white robe. Does that mean it was an angel? No. Does that mean there were two, no it means there was one.

I will grant that in general the description of a young man dressed in a white robe would not lead one to assume that he is an angel. However, this is not a general circumstance, and the Bible uses this description of the "angel of the Lord" in several other places in the Bible.

And again, you are placing ridiculous requirements upon the writers of the Gospels that no one today, and especially in the ancient near east, would agree with. Because Matthew and Mark only speak of one angel means that there could not have been others!?!?

Who was at the park?
Jim was at the park.
Jim and Bob were at the park.
All your friends were at the park.

Are any of these statements contradictory? By your standard they are.
But I don't think that many will agree with you.

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

John 20:1-20
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

Just a note about this passage and who went to the tomb early in the morning. John only sees fit to mention Mary Magdelene but clearly there are others with her who he does not name. "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know were they have put him!"

[Narcil]

Dark Tofu, In claiming contradictions regarding Judas and the resurrection accounts in the Gospels, you’re guilty of several things most skeptics are guilty of when arguing against the Bible: holding the writers to a modern-western precision that’s so exact that we don’t have problems when our own authors fail to meet these standards.

1. Why should differences in the Gospel accounts be any more problematic or irresolvable than those found in four bios of Abraham Lincoln done by professional historians?

2. Complete ignorance of ancient near-east customs, especially when it comes to writing. When analyzing the Bible, or any other document that comes from that time and location, it is extremely important to remember the differences in writing practices and not hold them to our standard, but judge their precision using a near-east mindset.

Abraham Rihbany in The Syrian Christ writes of Easterners who offer what we call "misstatements" which "are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il -- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered."

This is important to remember when it comes to minor varying details.

3. You’re making demands of inerrancy that the Bible never makes of itself. Variations in oral tradition in no way contradict the idea of inerrancy. The idea of inspiration as wooden and mechanical in all cases is something that the Scriptures never demand.

4. In regard to John’s account, which I will post on very briefly: John's Gospel is seen as a sort of supplement to Mark. Therefore, we expect John to report things that Mark does not, purposely, in order to fill gaps, only touching on Mark’s narrative at points essential to telling the story.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

What would you have me do instead?

...leave them up?

I don't think anyone is still posting arguments about your original view.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Dark Tofu, you seem to desire a religion more like that of Islam than Christianity (not in every way, don't attack me, bear with me as I explain). Islam believes strongly that the Quran is the exact words of God. It was not "God inspired" and written by humans as the Christian Bible was. The Quran is said to be the very word of God, and to Muslims, to say anything apart from that is wrong. You view the Christian Bible much like Muslims do, in that you see it was written by humans, you know that humans are imperfect and flawed, you see minor inconsistancies in it, so you throw entire books out, except for the parts that are the actual words of God. Well, if we're going to be overly critical about things, how do you even know that the parts of the Bible that are said to be God speaking actually are? Anyone could say it's the exact word of God, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. You're conditions for it being so are arbitrary. Even I could say that what I'm typing right now is actually God speaking. Thus saith the Lord, "Thou hast brought much confusion upon thee." Was that God actually speaking? Of course not! Now, I'm not saying that the Bible is false and that where it says God speaks He did not actually speak, though that could be the case. I'm just showing you your flawed logic and how you show no proof or basis to throw out one piece of the Bible over any other piece.

The thing is with Christianity that makes it so much more different from any other religion is how messy it is. Let's face it, Christianity isn't all clean and perfect. We're flawed humanity, and we know it, and yet we still try to make sense of the eternal. We are the imperfect trying to reach perfection. Yet this is impossible for us, until the Perfect came down to the imperfect. God becoming man. Let's think about what Jesus was. He was all God, yet He was all man too. Jesus humbled himself to become a messy, disgusting human. He had to pee, take craps, he bled, he probably sneezed on his hand, and whatever other disgusting human necessities we have. Now, just for a second, let's look at the first book of John.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Then skip down to verse 14:

14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

As you can see, the Word of God is Christ. The Greek term used, logos, the truth, was Jesus Christ. Now, what do we know that Christ was? God in man. The "Word" was God in man. God sent His logos down to inhabit a messy, imperfect vessel of man, but was perfect because He was God. But can you not see the parallels? Sure, things are messy, because we're human and imperfect unlike Christ. But that's what the Word of God consists of. God speaking through the imperfection of humans. If we got everything exactly right, we wouldn't need grace. So could there be minor inconsistancies in the Bible? Maybe. Yet what I also know is that a little less than 2000 years ago, a bunch of very Godly men got together and decided what books would benefit the Church and which wouldn't. Communally, much like the Church is the body of Christ, these men struggled over which books would be best to put in the canon. To doubt the presence of God being there in the midst of that communal gathering of the Church is to doubt the very existance of God. As it says in Matthew 18:20,

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

So I believe the Bible was divinely canonized for a reason. Sure, some other books that weren't canonized may have some value to be read, and nothing's stopping you from reading them. But do you think that they just threw the Bible together without thought? Of course not! There are reasons behind why they chose to leave books out or include books, and there are reasons why God allowed them to. Sure, we cannot trust flawed humanity, but we can trust what Christ can do through them.

[Dark Tofu]

I'm just saying, If all the gospel accounts are true then what was the order of events on the day of Jesus' ressurection?

[Narcil]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I'm just saying, If all the gospel accounts are true then what was the order of events on the day of Jesus' ressurection?

We can rebuild the order of events from the gospel accounts (which I am presently working on). You're problem is that you are holding the gospel writers to a modern western standard that the writers of the gospel in the acient near-east (ANE) knew nothing about.

Let me quote again:
Abraham Rihbany in The Syrian Christ writes of Easterners who offer what we call "misstatements" which "are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il -- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered."

That even goes for the degree freedom with chronology that we see in the comparisons of Luke and John's accounts.

The only place that one can find a real apparent contradiction is in Johns account, were Mary Mag seemly tells Peter and John about the empty tomb before here encounter with the angel; and Luke's account, where she it looks like she tells the diciples about the tomb after her encouter with the angel.

All the subjects of the accounts are perfectly in line with each other. There is only what I would call a minor difference in chronology. A difference minor enough that writers and readers in the ANE would not even see that as a contradiction. The readers to whom these writings were originally given were not concerned by this item that you find so important, they would certainly wonder what you were making such a fuss about. It's a totally different mindset than today.

Another item. It was somewhat common for writers of the ANE to relate events out of order, knowing full well that they did not occur in the chronological order they set them down on paper in. This was not seen as decitefull in anyway, but standard writing practice.

Again, to force a contradiction in the accounts, you are holding the writters to a standard that no one in their day and age was held to. (I should also note that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in perfect harmony with each other, as are Matthew, Mark and John's accounts. And even between John and Lukes accounts, the same details are all there, but with one item presented in a different order, that's all. Hardly worth writing off the gospels over)

[quakermomma]

Originally Posted by Narcil

Let me quote again:
Abraham Rihbany in The Syrian Christ writes of Easterners who offer what we call "misstatements" which "are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il -- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered."

Interesting point - That would explain a lot of the confusion.

[goldenchild]

Reading the title thread brought something to my mind. As it is completely off-topic I refrained from saying it. But I just can't help myself .

The Bible is not the complete Word of God. The Bible and the Holy Tradition of the Apostles is. There. I said it. Shoot me if you wish.