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 4 by rikuoamero]

Why didn't Jesus cast the stone, what with him being sinless and all?

I think you are astute enough to answer the question for yourself.

Next we'll have someone arguing that the gospels are bunk because Jesus called Herod a fox in Luke and clearly Herod did not have a tail!

[liamconnor]

quote="rikuoamero"]
[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

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?

Okay, challenge accepted.

In Gospel Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Jesus will do great things.
In Gospel Luke, the same happens to Mary, and shortly afterward Mary tells Elizabeth about this.

However, what do we see happening later on? Instead of having the highest regard for their son, and believing he is destined to do great things...in Mark 6, Jesus says that he doesn't receive any honour among his relatives and household.

That is not a contradiction: a contradiction involves two propositions that cannot both be true. What we have here is a psychological puzzle, which, after thirty years, is not that hard to digest.

There's also the different dates given for Jesus's birth. According to Matthew, he was born during the reign of Herod the Great, but according to Luke, his birth was during the reign of Quirinius, Governor of Syria who became such after Herod died.

Cites like Wikipedia and other popular sources give us the deception that ancient dates are fixed. They aren't; the ancients did not give us precise years like 4 B.C. or 1 A.D.

There is also a translation difficulty. As scholars learn more and more about ancient languages, translations adapt. The term "first" renders the greek "protos". But protos can also mean "before". Thus the sentence would run "This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

But, for me, none of this is relevant. It would only matter to a fundamentalist, or a hostile reader who doesn't realize he is attacking fundamentalism, not the Bible.

Luke has Mary and Joseph leaving their home in Nazareth to travel to Bethlehem, where Mary will give birth to Jesus.
However, Matthew has Mary and Joseph going to live in Nazareth after the birth.

I am not sure where the explicit contradiction lies. Matthew does not give us Joseph's origins: Luke makes it explicit he departed for Bethlehem from Nazareth; Matthew leaves the point of departure out; he only has them end up at Nazareth.

I would rank this as a discrepancy, not a contradiction.

There's also contradiction on whether John the Baptist knew who Jesus was. According to Gospel John, when he is baptizing Jesus (which by necessity would have to have occurred before his imprisonment), he refers to Jesus as 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world'.

However in Gospel Luke, while he is in prison, he asks two of Jesus's disciples to ask Jesus "Are you the one who is coming, or do we look for someone else?""

Also, not a contradiction. A man's confidence can wane. If John suspected that Jesus was the Messiah--that is, the one who would overthrow Roman occupation and restore Israel to its former days of glory--he may have been quite shocked to discover himself in prison, and Jesus wandering around healing people, as opposed to gathering arms and forming an army.

Once more, a discrepancy. A good one! but not a contradiction.

There's also what day the Last Supper fell on. Three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have the supper take place on the first day of Passover (with the arrest and trial by necessity happening the day after, on the second day). In Gospel John, the supper takes place the day before the first day of Passover.

This is a contradiction. It seems that John was willing to alter things for theological motifs and what not: John wanted Jesus' crucifixion to happen on the day the passover lamb was sacrificed, thereby linking the two thematically.

There's the betrayal by Judas Iscariot. He is claimed to have been given thirty pieces of silver, in accordance with prophecy. Well, when that 'prophecy' was written, 'pieces of silver' were indeed in circulation, but NOT in Judas's time.

Hmmm... you seem to be under the impression that the Greek term excludes a minted coin. It does not.

Judas's time period used minted coins, not currency that had to be weighed out, as Gospel Matthew writes.

You seem to think that the term "- (Mat 26:15 BGT) has to mean "weighed". It doesn't. NIV has "counted". Thirty minted coins of silver.

As to who bought the field where Judas dies: according to Matthew, it is the priests, whereas Acts has Judas buying it.

Yes, this seems to be a contradiction.

From an historian's perspective, we cannot say whether it was the priests or Judas himself.

Embarrassingly, in Gospel Matthew, Jesus says to his apostles "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

I'll need a little more here; the "renewal" or "regeneration" refers to the renewal of all things, including the general resurrection of the dead. That has not happened yet.

That will do for starters.

Thank you!

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

Sounds like you don't believe in a historical Jesus, or even in his teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, which are by in large very compatible with his native Judaism.

Question, do you believe Jesus even existed? Or are you simply saying we cannot really know anything about the real, historical Jesus?

I'm saying that we cannot know anything about any actual "Historical Jesus" even if he did exist. We can only assume that he probably said things somewhat along the lines of what the authors of the Gospels claim he said.

Would it be reasonable to conclude that a historical Jesus actually spoke the exact words verbatim that appear in Gospels that were written down many decades after he had died?

I don't see why that would be reasonable. In fact, I would suggest that it is extremely unlikely that anyone would be able to remember precisely what Jesus had said decades before they wrote actually it down.

This is why many secularists suggest that even if some "historical Jesus" existed who was the fodder for the Gospels rumors, that still wouldn't be sufficient reason to believe that the "Jesus" described in the Gospel rumors is a dependable portrayal of any actual historical Jesus.

In other words, even if there was a historical Jesus there's no reason to believe that the Gospel Jesus is a valid description of who Jesus actually was, or what he had actually said.

When you speak of the "Teachings of Jesus", really all you can speak of are the "Teachings Attributed to Jesus".

~~~~~~

In fact, look what you have actually done:

You have suggested that the Gospel of John is nothing more than "Teachings Attributed to Jesus" even implying that they are a gross misrepresentation of what Jesus "actually taught".

But then what are you going to point to as the "Actual Teachings of Jesus"?

Are you going to point to the writings of Mark as the "Actual Teachings of Jesus"?

Are you going to point to the writings of Matthew as the "Actual Teachings of Jesus"?

Are you going to point to the writings of Luke as the "Actual Teachings of Jesus"?

What about the writings of Paul? What are you going to claim about the writings of Paul?

~~~~~

The bottom line is that historically speaking NONE of the above are claimed to be the actual teachings of Jesus. To the contrary they ALL claim to be nothing more than belated hearsay reports.

So even if there was a historical Jesus that wouldn't validate any of the teachings in the Gospels as actually being valid teachings of Jesus.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]

Why didn't Jesus cast the stone, what with him being sinless and all?

I think you are astute enough to answer the question for yourself.

Next we'll have someone arguing that the gospels are bunk because Jesus called Herod a fox in Luke and clearly Herod did not have a tail!

You aren't making any sense with the above post liamconnor.

If it's God's law that people who are free of sin are to stone adulterers to death, and Jesus was sin free, then he would be violating the law of God by not stoning the woman to death himself. Thus becoming an instant "sinner" right on the spot for refusing to obey the laws of God.

Your analogy with Jesus calling Herod a Fox is totally irrelevant.

This is a contradiction in the NT and it doesn't even require going to back to the OT to prove it. Jesus' failure to stone the women to death himself proves this contradiction right in the NT itself.

So there you go. You have your contradiction in the NT that you claimed would cause you to abandon Christianity. Are you going to abandon Christianity now?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

DI I never said (or meant to suggest) the Synoptics were certainly the actual teachings of Jesus, but they were 'most probably, most likely" more authentic than the teaching or "words of" Jesus found in John, or in the letters of Paul. That's all.

Yes, we do not know with any certainty as Jesus never wrote anything himself, at least that we know of.

But common sense and recent scholarship believes the Synoptics to be closer to what an historical Jesus would have actually taught than anything in John or Paul, which are more saturated with myth-making, hero-worship, theological accretions, and Greco-Roman Pagan influence.

But yeah, I agree, we cannot know for sure. So we makes our best guess.

[Elijah John]

Here's another one, from Edgar Jones' site:

Paul says:
Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.

Jesus says:
Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

That is an important theological contradiction, not a mere matter of narrative discprepency.

Liam, did you get a chance to consider this one?

[Divine Insight]

But yeah, I agree, we cannot know for sure. So we makes our best guess.

Exactly.

So does this sound like the methods of a trustworthy God?

He's going to send you hearsay rumors that you need to make your best guess from on matters that are important to your eternal fate?

It just doesn't add up.

[liamconnor]

Here's another one, from Edgar Jones' site:

Paul says:
Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.

Jesus says:
Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

That is an important theological contradiction, not a mere matter of narrative discprepency.

Liam, did you get a chance to consider this one?

I did not.

In fact, I have commented on all I have read: which means two now.

I don't see a contradiction in the logical sense. Paul is not saying that the Law is bad in itself; Jesus affirms the law is good, just as Paul does in the same letter.

What I notice is that a good many participants here like to cut and paste a couple verses, ignoring the rest of the letter or narrative.


I mean, can you imagine if law courts today recognized cut and pasted text messages as evidence!!!

Read the whole letter; study the whole letter; buy commentaries on the whole letter.


Or, if you can't. ASK QUESTIONS before ARGUING.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 24 by Divine Insight]

You aren't making any sense with the above post liamconnor.

I made perfect sense.

You "interpreted" his statement. None of what you say was included in his statement. If what you are saying was his point, he should have made that point. Otherwise, you are speaking for him, which might be offensive to him.

[Elijah John]

Here's another one, from Edgar Jones' site:

Paul says:
Rom.7
[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
[10] the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.

Jesus says:
Matt.19
[17] And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.

That is an important theological contradiction, not a mere matter of narrative discprepency.

Liam, did you get a chance to consider this one?

I did not.

In fact, I have commented on all I have read: which means two now.

I don't see a contradiction in the logical sense. Paul is not saying that the Law is bad in itself; Jesus affirms the law is good, just as Paul does in the same letter.

What I notice is that a good many participants here like to cut and paste a couple verses, ignoring the rest of the letter or narrative.


I mean, can you imagine if law courts today recognized cut and pasted text messages as evidence!!!

Read the whole letter; study the whole letter; buy commentaries on the whole letter.


Or, if you can't. ASK QUESTIONS before ARGUING.

I have read the letters or Paul, and I read them as a contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, on several points, blood atonement for one, and the function of the Law for another.

This is a clear example.

In my own words, to paraphrase.

Jesus: "keep the Commandments and live"

Paul: "try to keep the Commandments and die".

Clearly Paul contradicts Jesus. Paul indicates that no one can be justified (enter life, be "saved" etc.) by works of the Law. Jesus indicated one can enter life, inherit eternal life, by keeping the Commandments.

Clear contradiction.

Let me ask you this...IF you can admit to any contradiction between Paul and Jesus, whose side would you take?

Also, have any of us demonstrated any serious contradictions or discrepancies on this thread to your satisfaction?

In addition, did Paul ever indicate that the means of forgiveness is anything other than the "blood of Christ" and believing in his "sacrifice"?

Jesus did, in the parables, (prodigal son and others) the Beattitudes, (the merciful will receive mercy) and the Lord's prayer, (forgive as we forgive).

And John the Baptist taught that one could be forgiven, implictly independent of Jesus by repenting and being baptized, or as Luke indicates, John performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Not "baptisms of perparations for being washed in the blood."

Did Paul teach any of that?

If not, yet another serious contradiction, because Paul was wedded to the idea of salvation by blood.