The Gospels

Originally posted by Darfius
Those late dates are ridiculous, and are heavily reliant on there NOT being a God.

I think the dates may be inaccurate - but does it really matter? If we agree the the scriptures are inspired by God (literally God breathed) then it does not matter. The focus on the date it a red herring. It is interesting, and it might be usefully for some technical information, but that all.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Why would St John have chosen the day before Passover rather
than the more likely day of Passover? Theology. St John's Gospel is
filled with 'I am...' statements (e.g., I am the vine, I am the bread of
life, I am the resurrection, I am the shepherd). It has more of such
statements than the Synoptics combined....Nemesio

Could you give the scripture references were the date conflict occurs?

Originally posted by Darfius
Those late dates are ridiculous, and are heavily reliant on there NOT being a God.

The most glaring fact that makes a date later than 70 AD for at least the first 3 Gospels [b]highly unlikely is the Temple and Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans. Jesus had prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed, and the authors wouldn't include that He ha ...[text shortened]... . Contradiction means mutually exclusive, and that is not present anywhere in the Bible.[/b]

Your response beautifully highlights thesonofsaul's post. I can accept that the gospels are symbolic and this gives them meaning to those believe, but why do you have to continually attempt to shoehorn parables and take them as the literal truth? You will never convert anyone that way.

Tel, both you and Nemesio are losing more and more of my respect everyday.

Uhm . . . when did I ever have your respect? In fact, when has anybody who disagrees with you ever had your respect? You need some deoderant cuz your fruit stinks.

It is clear in Scripture that children do not go to Hell and those who haven't heard the Gospel aren't judged by the Gospel. I simply don't have time to debunk everyone of your outlandish and uneducated claims.

Face it Darfius. The scripture does not support your position. If it were so clear you wouldn't have tried to pass off those irrelevant snips. Don't blame it on time constraints. You clearly have plenty of time. Your 6 page rants about Nephilim aliens building pyramids is evidence of that. Insulting people will not make your case any stronger. If anything it does a great disservice to the faith that you represent.

You go into the "no title" thread and try to sweet talk EDG into reconsidering xtianity, but your attitude is speaker more clearly than your words. You tell us that your god is the source of everything lovely and good and joyful, but we see no love or goodness or joy in you.

Neither you nor Nemesio have a better understanding of Scripture than I do because you do not believe in the God who wrote it. You look at it as purely a work of literature. You do not and cannot fathom the underlying motives or reasons.

No, I do not believe in God. Yes, I do look at it as piece of literature, ironically, so does the program in which you study.

http://ah.utdallas.edu/undergraduate/literary_studies.html

Are you saying that you are studying at a program that does not fathom the Bible?

Originally posted by Coletti
Could you give the scripture references were the date conflict occurs?

I'll assume that you'll take the claim seriously rather than making me cite it (again and again)
only to disappear after the citation.

Consider first St Mark (Sts Matthew and Luke concord with this version) 14:12, 17.

12: On the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover
lamb...

17: When it was evening, he came with the twelve...

and then St Mark 15:42, after the Crucifixion - When it was already evening, since it was the
day of preparation, the day before the sabbath (recall that Jews dated 'tomorrow' as beginning
the night before (i.e., sundown marked the next day, not midnight).

Since the Pashcal Lamb having been sacrificed the morning before the Last Supper, it was
their Passover seder. Of this there can be no debate, no quibbling about interpretation, no making
up stories. At St Mark 14:12, they sacrificed the Lamb and celebrated the Passover. The next
day, Jesus was crucified.

Compare: St John 18:28, at Jesus's trial: Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the
praetorium. It was morning. And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not
to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover. (Having NOT eaten it the night before,
as in the Synoptic accounts.)

These are irreconcilable. In the one, they sacrificed the lamb so that they could eat the Passover.
By Jewish tradition, this was always done the morning before the Passover. This cannot be
disputed.

However, Jesus's trial necessarily happened the next day (it was morning by St John's
account, which is necessarily after the evening Seder). They couldn't have been worried
about defilement for a meal they already ate. Plus, you will notice that the beginning of the
extended discourse by Jesus (which takes the place of the institution of the Eucharist in St John's
Gospel) at chapter 13 says that this long evening discussion begins BEFORE the Feast of Passover
(the celebration of Passover would have already begun by nightfall) and immediately thereafter
(that evening) Jesus was captured for His interrogation to begin that coming morning (the morning
explicitly before Passover).

This contradiction is and has been well known. There is no disputing the clear and explicit details
given by the disparate accounts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
Could you give the scripture references were the date conflict occurs?

Were you planning on responding, or did I waste my time?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'll assume that you'll take the claim seriously rather than making me cite it (again and again)
only to disappear after the citation.

Consider first St Mark (Sts Matthew and Luke concord with this version) 14:12, 17.

12: On the ...[text shortened]... licit details
given by the disparate accounts.

Nemesio

Hmm, I've never seen this before - which is surprising, as I would have thought people challenging the inerrancy of the Bible would be rather fond of this one. It interested me when you first mentioned it earlier in this thread, so I'm quite glad someone already asked you to provide references.

Just to help me get my head around it, would you mind terribly translating all the references (day before, morning, evening etc) into days of the week - OUR week? With the Sabbath being Saturday, of course.

I know about the Jewish system of starting the day from sunset (so the Sabbath starts Friday night), but there are times when I find it really difficult to wrap my head around.

Um, hello? Nemesio? Where've you got to?

This thread has a continuity problem now.

Originally posted by orfeo
Um, hello? Nemesio? Where've you got to?

This thread has a continuity problem now.

???

Originally posted by Nemesio
???

I asked you for help in understanding the discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. Ironically enough, you disappeared from view just after asking whether Coletti was going to respond.

Originally posted by orfeo
I asked you for help in understanding the discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. Ironically enough, you disappeared from view just after asking whether Coletti was going to respond.

I'm very sorry. I didn't understand that you asked me a question.

I can provide no 'help.' It's a contradiction. The 'Day of Preparation'
and the 'Passover' are very specific terms which cannot be 'understood'
another way.

I offered a theological explanation for why St John would change the
history -- to make Jesus analogous to the 'Passover Lamb.' I typed
it in some other thread which I am not going to repeat now. If you
can't search my posts and find it (I typed it within the past month or
so), let me know and I can help you out.

I am thoroughly disappointed that Darfius and Colletti, after demanding
I cite my sources, have offered nothing to the conversation. I suppose
this is why I only glanced at your post and misunderstood your request.

Someone listed all the contradictions in the Crucifixion story on a web
site. They are pretty 'facts-specific,' so feel free to review them. This
is only one collection of all the contradictions in the Gospel accounts. It
should be sufficient to dispose of any claim of inerrancy.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/res_chart.htm

Nemesio

Um, you still misunderstood my request, but I think I've sorted it out now.

I can see your point but the slight problem with it I have is that "Passover" is used in two different ways in the Old Testament, so the notion of it being used in two different ways in the New Testament is not so unlikely.

In some places it clearly is referring to the single day, and the week after that is given the separate name of "Feast of Unleavened Bread". However, in some places it seems to be regarded as a single, week-long event. Have a look at Exodus 12:14-20 (especially 14-15) and also Deuteronomy 16:1-8.

I've always thought of Passover as the single day (or strictly speaking, night) but there clearly were more rituals and so forth to be done after that. Of course, the problem with this line of thought is that John apparently refers to them wanting to "eat the Passover". The most obvious reference is to that first meal, which by the Synoptic timeframe has already happened. I don't know enough about Jewish traditions to know whether there were other important meals during the rest of the week-long festival, or perhaps at its close.

I'm familliar with many of the issues in that chart. Some of them are genuinely troubling for someone arguing inerrancy. Some of them are actually pretty insubstantial because they only work if you claim that each gospel records EVERYTHING that happened. I mean, "how many times did Jesus appear after the resurrection" is a red herring, those boxes can only tell you how many events are RECORDED in each gospel. One resurrection appearance happening does not logically preclude other unmentioned ones occurring.

The 'Day of Preparation' is a single day. It is the day before the
Passover Seder which marks the beginning of the Passover celebration
(which runs for several days).

Originally posted by orfeo
I've always thought of Passover as the single day (or strictly speaking, night) but there clearly were more rituals and so forth to be done after that. Of course, the problem with this line of thought is that John apparently refers to them wanting to "eat the Passover". The most obvious reference is to that first meal, which by the Synoptic timeframe has already happened. I don't know enough about Jewish traditions to know whether there were other important meals during the rest of the week-long festival, or perhaps at its close.

Please note that, after Jesus was crucified, in St John 19:42, the
author indicates that had lain Jesus in the on the Day of Preparation. (14 Nissan)

Contrast this with St Mark 14:12, which clearly shows that the Day
of Preparation precedes the Crucifixion. (15 Nissan)

The 'Day of Preparation' isn't a continuous event; it is a discrete day.

This is a contradiction.

I'm familliar with many of the issues in that chart. Some of them are genuinely troubling for someone arguing inerrancy. Some of them are actually pretty insubstantial because they only work if you claim that each gospel records EVERYTHING that happened. I mean, "how many times did Jesus appear after the resurrection" is a red herring, those boxes can only tell you how many events are RECORDED in each gospel. One resurrection appearance happening does not logically preclude other unmentioned ones occurring.

While this is possible, the way in which the stories unfold suggest
that this is not the answer.

For example, consider St Mark 16:1-4; the women are wondering who
is going to roll back the stone. This suggests that they have not been
there already (as does the fact that they are bringing spices, for if
He had been risen, there would be no need). When they arrive, the
stone is already rolled away.

Compare with St Matthew 28:1-2 -- The women are approaching the
tomb and there is an earthquake and the stone rolls away.

Which happened first? If you say St Mark happened first, then are
you suggesting the stone rolled back in place before the visited the
second time (and how can you explain their surprise and elation at
a message they already heard)? If you say St Matthew happened first,
then why would the women be wondering how they will move the stone
and bringing spices (and why would they flee from the tomb fearful
and bewildered)?

Suggesting that one came before the other makes no sense based on
the details of their reactions before and after the event.

The logical explanation is that Sts Matthew and Mark are recounting
their (flawed) versions of the story (as neither were witnesses to the
event). As such, any claim to historical inerrancy is necessarily invalid.

Nemesio

Yes, you picked one of the ones that I DO have difficulties with. In fact, the whole stone-rolling episode in Matthew seems excessively grand compared to Mark's version, and even Luke's.

Shock does terrible things to people's memory, I'd say.

Originally posted by orfeo
Shock does terrible things to people's memory, I'd say.

Here is the problem, Orfeo.

If you are willing to admit that even one detail is in error (and, obviously,
one of them is in error -- either the rock was moved before or after they got there),
then you necessarily have to discard the notion of inerrancy.

Inerrancy necessarily entails no historical error. If you admit that, because
of shock, one of the Evangelists made a mistake, it opens the door to the possibility
that another mistake was made. And another, and another, and another.

If you are willing to concede that St Matthew's memory was in error on this issue,
then why not his recounting of which or how many women? If St Matthew's memory
was in error on this issue, then perhaps his recollection of the Beatitudes was incorrect
(for they are neither the same in content or number with St Luke's Beatitudes). Or,
what about the death of Judas which differs irreconcilably from the account in Acts.
What about the Christmas account which has very little in common with the account in
St Luke.

Do you see the problem, Orfeo: you either have to submit your intellect and reason to
the notion that there are no contradictions (when it is clear that there are), or you have
to admit that there are historical errors in the Gospel accounts.

Here is the thing: You've probably been taught that, without historical truth, there can
be no theological truth.

This is a false statement. Consider the powerful interpretation that St John's Gospel has
for the Crucifixion. I'm assuming that you have accepted the fact that 'the Day of Preparation'
is a specific day in the Jewish calendar and that St John's Gospel and the Synoptics clearly
differ in their accounts. While Jesus was almost certainly crucified on the day after the
Passover Seder, St John chooses to alter his account for symbolic reasons. These symbolic
reasons emphasize the notion of Jesus's Crucifixion as a sacrifice; Jesus becomes
the Passover Lamb for all people, dying so that all may live. This is a powerful image; the
fact that it is not historically true does nothing to reduce the power of the metaphor. It
remains one of the most signficant and pointed metaphors in all of Christendom for over
2000 years. Just because He wasn't really crucified on that day doesn't reduce the Truth
of that particular image.

Inerrancy is crippling, Orfeo. It forces you to think one way when the Bible can be read a
myriad of ways. And not only is it crippling, but it also demonstrably false.

Nemesio