Contradictions in the N.T.

[liamconnor]

I apologize, for I am sure this is a hackneyed topic.


Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 90 by rikuoamero]

Interesting!

That is something I had not yet discovered about skeptics here.

You seem to be under the illusion (widespread, now that I look through things) that unless a man's latest achievements in a given discipline fall in line with his formal discipline, those achievements are impotent and do not qualify him!

Is that correct? In order for a person to be considered an historian, he has to have taken obtained a degree which says "history"?

E.G. in order for Plato to be considered a philosopher he needs to have taken so many philosophy courses at Yale?

What if someone who never went to school beyond college, but had a good library nearby in his hometown, went daily; studied voraciously; then wrote a thesis on, say, economics of 17th c. Scotland, a thesis which after decades made its way into scholarly circulation and became recognized as "good, solid, history".

The obvious point here is that a profession or even academic celebratory is not limited to one's degree.

So when I refer to an historian, I mean one who is recognized as an historian.

If you can find me a few sources that claim E.P. Sanders (who by the way, is not a Christian) is not an historian of 1st c. Judaism (I am obviously not talking about the merits of this or that historical claim made by him, but a wholesale remark) then I will take that into perspective.

Otherwise you have committed a very big error.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 88 by liamconnor]

So you are going to ask about contradictions, but then NOT discuss them? Brilliant. Or even better, ignore them?

What should we have thought you were going to do when confronted with an irreconcilable contradiction? Change the subject?

Ha! We do have pretty good proof Jesus didn't exist; http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... kooks.html

He didn't make any current history books, of ~30AD or so. He just made books that promoted the temporal Roman Empire.

LC, I really think all you Christians should obey the Roman Empire, pay it's taxes and not molest it's tax collectors. If you do all that, and say you are sorry to God, and really mean it, you can go to heaven, that's what the Bible says.

Does it say anything else?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 82 by polonius.advice]

There is no evidence presented here, just hypothesising about a supposed "split between Christianity and Judaism" in 85CE (with is itself hightly questionable since Christianity obviously existed from the time of Christ whose followers did not conform to the tenets of the Jewish faith... something supported by the writings of Paul and Luke (Acts) which document the persecution of the early Jewish Christians in the first century)...

Anyway, I asked for verifiable evidence of the datings of the bible manuscripst not hypothesis about the development of the Christian church or biblical interpretation which is obviously highly subjective - especially one which is based on a presupposition of the very point I am challenging!*

Have you referenced any independent manuscripts from the period that enables you to claim the dating of Matthews gospel as you did? What are the earliest references that enable us to date the gospel? Upon what documents or manuscripts do you come to your conclusion? References appreciated.

JW

*paragraph in bold

RESPONSE:

JW posted:

There is no evidence presented here, just hypothesising about a supposed "split between Christianity and Judaism" in 85CE (with is itself hightly questionable since Christianity obviously existed from the time of Christ whose followers did not conform to the tenets of the Jewish faith... something supported by the writings of Paul and Luke (Acts) which document the persecution of the early Jewish Christians in the first century)...

RESPONSE: No Christian Church “obviously existed from the time of Christ.�
Following the death of Christ, his followers remained members of a very orthodox Jewish sect called alternately �The Way� and the “sect of the Nazarenes�. It was headed by James the Just, the brother of the lord. (See Acts of the Apostles written about 80 AD and beginning with the Ascension c. 30-33 AD).

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpres ... ly-church/

Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,

Act 24:5 For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

Anyway, I asked for verifiable evidence of the datings of the bible manuscripst not hypothesis about the development of the Christian church or biblical interpretation which is obviously highly subjective - especially one which is based on a presupposition of the very point I am challenging!*
*paragraph in bold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον ε�αγγέλιον, translit. To kata Matthaion euangélion; also called the Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew) is the first book of the New Testament. The narrative tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world.[1]

“Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[4] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek",[5] he drew on three main sources: the Gospel of Mark, the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[6]
The Gospel of Matthew uses Mark as its primary source, compressing Mark's narrative in some places, and adding other details not mentioned in Mark in others

Have you referenced any independent manuscripts from the period that enables you to claim the dating of Matthews gospel as you did? What are the earliest references that enable us to date the gospel? Upon what documents or manuscripts do you come to your conclusion? References appreciated.

RESPONSE: Yes. See below.

The earliest extant (still existing) fragment of Matthew is dated 250 AD (plus or minus 50 years)

P1
250 Matthew 1
University of Pennsylvania
P. Oxy. 2; E 2746 Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... ent_papyri

Note: If you can positively date an earlier copy, please submit your information.


The oldest complete NT dates from 325 AD.

Codex Sinaiticus (Modern Greek: Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας, Hebrew: קודקס סינ�יטיקוס‎‎; Shelfmarks and references: London, Brit. Libr., Additional Manuscripts 43725; Gregory-Aland nº � [Aleph] or 01, [Soden δ 2]) or "Sinai Bible" is one of the four great uncial codices, an ancient, handwritten copy of the Greek Bible.[1] The codex is a celebrated historical treasure.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sin ... _the_codex

***Once again, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Have you referenced any independent manuscripts from the period that enables you to claim the dating of Matthews gospel as you did? What are the earliest references that enable us to date the gospel? Upon what documents or manuscripts do you come to your conclusion? References appreciated.

RESPONSE: Yes. See below.

The earliest extant (still existing) fragment of Matthew is dated 250 AD (plus or minus 50 years)

So are you suggesting that you base your dating of the Gospel of Matthew to {quote} " "about 80 CE" on the above evidence? If so, why is your date so much earlier than the fragments you present here? In short,

you post:

Mathew wrote in about 80 AD.

And when asked for the dated manuscriptural evidence for that (very early) date you refer to a fragment nearly 200 years after that date? A curious logic to say the least, can you explain why your date is so much earlier than the manuscripts you present as evidence?


JW

[polonius]

Mathew wrote in about 80 AD.

And when asked for the dated manuscriptural evidence for that (very early) date you refer to a fragment nearly 200 years after that date? A curious logic to say the least, can you explain why your date is so much earlier than the manuscripts you present as evidence?


JW

RESPONSE: Perhaps that's because there is no manuscript dated 80 A.D.

The conclusion about date is based on the content of Matthew's gospel itself and the Acts of the Apostles (both written c. 80 AD) and the Jewish 12th Benediction (c. 85 AD).Reference is made in Matthew, (later in John's gospel) to Jewish synagogues rather than just synagogues (used by both Christians and Jews) from which the Christians were excluded as "minim" or apostates. (Read again the Jewish 12 benediction) This occurred in about 85 AD.

As has been demonstrated by Acts of the Apostles, the Christian community remained a sect of Judaism (called "The Way" or the Nazarenes) until their exclusion.

Some time later Paul's followers founded the Christian religion.

As a recent poster has asked, how can you possibly demand as proof a document which never existed?

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA,

in the Article: Judaism,
section:
The Roman period (63 BCE-135 CE) …
Origin of Christianity: the early Christians and the Jewish community

"… There were four major stages in the final break between Christianity and Judaism: (1) the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem to Pella across the Jordan in 70 and their refusal to continue the struggle against the Romans; (2) the institution by the patriarch Gamaliel II of a prayer in the Eighteen Benedictions against such heretics (c. 100), and (3 and 4) the failure of the Christians to join the messianic leaders Lukuas-Andreas and Bar Kokhba in the revolts against Trajan (115-117) and Hadrian (132-135), respectively. …"

[Willum]

[Replying to post 94 by JehovahsWitness]

Still more curious is you accusing Polonius of being out, when you should know for certain.

When do you say they were written? and what is your basis for belief? Who wrote them? Did Moses chip them out on stone, or did Moses cause them to materialize on paper? Or who did write them?

Did the scribes have any motive or reason to obstruct the Word?

These are all questions a believer should have knowledgeable answers for, instead of relying on a skeptic to provide them for them, then challenging them.

Am I wrong?

So, true believers, who, where, when, why, how and under what bias was the NT written?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 95 by polonius.advice]

The conclusion about date is based on the content of Matthew's gospel itself

So basically you only have speculation and hypothesis based on subjective interpretation of the text. I see. Well that is not very convincing, since hermeneutics is far from "a precise science" as it were, you certainly do not have enough to state catagorically that Matthew wrote his gospel "around 80" rather than say, a decade or more earlier (which would have placed it before the Jerusalem destruction).

Have an excellent evening,

JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 97 by JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE: No. I use the facts of history which I presented.

Now we are waiting for proof of your claim that:

"There is no evidence presented here, just hypothesising about a supposed "split between Christianity and Judaism" in 85CE (with is itself hightly questionable since Christianity obviously existed from the time of Christ whose followers did not conform to the tenets of the Jewish faith... something supported by the writings of Paul and Luke (Acts) which document the persecution of the early Jewish Christians in the first century)..."

Please note this passage from Act concerning an event taking place after Jesus' Ascension:

Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple area for the three o’clock hour of prayer.

...since Christianity obviously existed from the time of Christ whose followers did not conform to the tenets of the Jewish faith..

So John and Peter are continuing in "the tenets of Jewish faith" as devout Jews would.

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

And what do you have?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 91 by liamconnor]

Is that correct? In order for a person to be considered an historian, he has to have taken obtained a degree which says "history"?

Not strictly speaking no...not as a hard and fast rule, but we have academic degrees and titles for a reason. Someone with the appendage of M.D. after their name is known to others as a Medical Doctor; this serves to signify their chosen area of expertise. Thus, if Joe Brown, M.D., comes up to me and starts talking about the effects of cancer on various parts of the body, I can concede his superior knowledge in that area.
However, if Joe Brown, M.D., comes up to me and starts talking about the finer points of corporate law, I will hold up a hand and ask him just where the heck he gets this information. He's not a lawyer, he doesn't have a J.D.

You seem to be under the illusion (widespread, now that I look through things) that unless a man's latest achievements in a given discipline fall in line with his formal discipline, those achievements are impotent and do not qualify him!

I honestly do not know if this Sanders guy has been trained in history. What I do know about him though is that he has a background in theology and apparently in literature. Neither of those signify that he has an expertise in history. If he has an expertise in history, why did he apparently never go for a history degree, to add to his collection?

What if someone who never went to school beyond college, but had a good library nearby in his hometown, went daily; studied voraciously; then wrote a thesis on, say, economics of 17th c. Scotland, a thesis which after decades made its way into scholarly circulation and became recognized as "good, solid, history".

Wouldn't such work grant him a degree, even if only an honorary one?

The obvious point here is that a profession or even academic celebratory is not limited to one's degree.

Agreed...but it doesn't mean I don't pause for a moment when someone with a recognised expertise in one field starts talking about another field. I would have the exact same reaction if a person with a master's in finance claimed to be able to teach (or wrote a book) on X-ray crystallography.