Contradictions in the NT - and does it matter?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, I seem to have run out of correspondents, so let's start a thread - and on my Pet Subject:- the Contradictions.

I already set out some major contradictions in the Resurrection -accounts, hinted at them in the Nativity accounts (and those are the two touchstone cases). I referred to Luke's version of the 'Rejection at Nazareth' and I think I mentioned the 'death of Judas' as a contradiction as well as being a fudged 'prophecy'.

But I think the point is made: minor contradictions aren't too important. Who said what and in what order isn't too serious. But really bad ones discredit the reliability of the gospels. It is serious when John has no angel at the tomb explaining where Jesus had gone, and Mary running back and gasping that she doesn't know where 'they' have taken him is a total refutation of the claim of a message given at the empty tomb. I also argued that Cleophas, having heard the Marys' account of this while relating that they had seen angels, specifically says that they did not see Jesus. Somebody is telling whoppers and John sides with Luke - there is no appearance of Jesus before the Marys report back to the disciples. Matthew made that one up.

But one I really like is the transfiguration. We can disentangle the added material, such as the Other feeding of 4,000 ir that improbable trip to Caesarea Philippi; it pretty much occurred over 2 days:-

Jesus and the disciples sail across lake Galilee to Bethsaida.
He feeds the crowd (of men sitting on the grass in groups of 50) with bread and fish.
He is recognised as the messiah, by his own followers at least.
He sends the disciples back to Capernaum in the boat and catches up with them, walking on the water.

And we know where the transfiguration should occur - after the recognition by Peter that Jesus is the Messiah and before the disciples return to Capernaum by boat.

So, why isn't it in John? There's no question of where it should be, but we get Jesus apparently escaping the crowd, who want to make him a king 'By force', going into the hills. Is anyone going to argue that John didn't know about the Transfiguration, or thought it not worth mentioning? He is describing what happened; why does he tell a totally different story?

[1213]

...
As I explained above, the sequence of events shakes down clearly

Jesus and the disciples cross the ea of Galilee to Bethsaida, the 5000 are fed then the disciples return to Capernaum and Jesus catches them up by walking on the water.

In between, there is the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah and the transfiguration....

It seems to me that you are wrongly connecting those events. Please tell, why do you think in between there should have been the transfiguration? And also, why should all Gospels be identical? Wouldn’t that be suspicious?

[Difflugia]

But I don't have to pretend that the stories are not true, just because we are in this forum.

No, but you need some sort of justification behind your assertion if you're going to treat this as a debate.

My position therefore is that they could be true so what makes them untrue?

Conflating "possible" with "likely," "probable," or "plausible" is both a weak argument and a hallmark of apologists everywhere.

All four stories include tons of supernatural stuff, all treated absolutely credulously by their respective narrators. We have examples of how contemporary historians treated the supernatural and it's not with that kind of credulity. Aside from the supernatural content, a number of even the mundane events are historically implausible, like Matthew's "slaughter of the innocents," Luke's taxation census, and various details of the trial.

Despite these, it's considered an open question whether the authors of the Gospels believed that what they were writing was historical. I think it makes more sense to treat the Evangelists as competent literary figures rather than incompetent and overly credulous historians, but I'll admit that I can't think of an objective way to demonstrate this.

I do not think so called 'contradictions' prove that they are therefore 'untrue' - which I think you are arguing that they do...

I'm not. I'm arguing two different things: first, the contradictions were the result of intentional literary differences between the Gospels and second, that the literary depictions of characters of the stories can't be extrapolated to reveal reliable historical data. Whether or not Jesus, John, Peter, or the Beloved Disciple were historical individuals, we have no way of knowing if they were in any way similar to their literary counterparts. On the contrary, since at least some of the literary versions conflict with each other (contrast, for example, the different ways Peter is depicted in the Synoptics, John, the Petrine Epistles, and Pauline Epistles), we have reason to believe that at least some of the characterizations are false in a historical sense.

Clearly the Catholic Church is responsible for including and excluding things which are in the bible.

OK.

If John's Gospel doesn't have a transfiguration, then you don't get to add one just because a different story has one.

I wasn't trying to add anything other than the obvious details which are missing.

You weren't trying to add anything except the things you added. Got it.

If you're going to claim that John is telling a story with a transfiguration despite not mentioning one, you don't get to just inherit it from Mark, but must somehow connect it to John.

Well since Mark and John were connected anyway...

Just asserting so without justification doesn't buy you much.

Peter, James, and John were there.

Both stories include the characters Peter, James, and John. I'll also agree that the stories are meant to depict the same overall story, but they're still different stories. If John left a detail out of his story, you can't just assume that his characters experienced it anyway.

Mark wasn't...so we have to treat Marks account as second hand.

Whether Mark's account is firsthand, secondhand, or totally made up, his literary characters only know what they're written as knowing. That may be less than what Mark knew, but it can't be more (at least without it necessarily being abstract).

Astral Plane stuff - where humans experience alternate realities. Jesus obviously had a good understanding and foothold in that realm. [He referred to the Astral Plane as "My Fathers Kingdom"] - as the story goes.

Before the Bible and even before religion, The Astral Realms have been experienced by human beings.

Some have even become masters within it through understanding it.

Jesus obviously was able to take others with him and the transfiguration story is evidence of that.

To the disciples at the time, it seemed to be the other way around and the Astral Realm came to them - into their world.
It doesn't really matter which is which as the reality is they superimpose upon each other.

If any of that is part of your argument, you're going to have to justify it somehow. It just sounds an awful lot like woo to me and I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to suggest that I'm not alone.

Where do we think theism comes from?

The propensity for humans to attribute random events to an intelligent agent.

You are mistaken. Theism understands there is intelligent agency involved with real-world events - and the agency can be experienced as real.
That is why theism has persisted, in various form and function. Zooming in upon one small part of it, does not show one the whole picture.

One of us is mistaken, anyway. You haven't offered much to support that it isn't you.

[Paul of Tarsus]

So, why isn't it in John? There's no question of where it should be, but we get Jesus apparently escaping the crowd, who want to make him a king 'By force', going into the hills. Is anyone going to argue that John didn't know about the Transfiguration, or thought it not worth mentioning? He is describing what happened; why does he tell a totally different story?

The most likely explanation is that the four Gospel writers were making up their stories, and they weren't always aware of what fiction the other three were coming up with. So John didn't "know" about the transfiguration because he hadn't read Matthew's tall tale. Christians have a real problem here because as you say if the story of the transfiguration is historical, then it seems very odd that John thought it wasn't worth mentioning or never heard of it.

None of these facts will bother most Christians, though. When salvation is on the line, truth loses its importance.

[otseng]

You have a history of asking for more and more justification of others' positions without actually presenting your own.

Moderator Comment

It's best to avoid making statements about other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #6]

That is the thing about stories and authors. Natural at that, too.

John does give the reader a whole other perspective to bath in. Assuming he is the same "Beloved Disciple" his take on things went through particular filters associated with the relationship he had with Jesus - itself filtered through his particular attitudes, beliefs, world view and subconscious intention.

Perter, as a different example, could never have written the same way as John. Peter was quick to anger - "Shoot first and to hell with the questions" and more than a few time he was pulled up by Jesus on account of his thoughtless rash behavior.

Matthew was a tax gatherer, so someone who was willing to sell out his fellows for a bit more straw in his mattress. Jesus came along and gave him something better to think about.

"willing to sell out his fellows for a bit more straw in his mattress"

I really do like how you word. And by doing it like ya do, ya help me to better understand this whole god and stuff thing we're us here us about.

Most of the time folk don't really appreciate how unique we each are as we group together in fair approximates and arm the bastions against others so obviously different.

Yeah, I think we'd all be better off if we all understood our shared humanity, but that we can pick on us the truly evil folks amongst us.

Now - Just because John didn't mention the Transfiguration...does not mean he was not there at the time or that it did not happen.

As another has mentioned, it don't mean it happened it either.

Jesus was revealing some of the content of his 'bag of tricks' to some of his disciples but not to others. At least, in the earlier stages of his mission.

The idea of planting seeds is to see what will grow from the different strains. People get too hung up on seeming contradictions. It is somewhat sad enough when non-theists do this for the sake of trying to make a case of the bible being false.

Do not contradictions point to at least some of it being it false?

It is even sadder still when Christians are seeing contradictions in one another. And what is that type of contradiction other than the acknowledgement that "they" are not like "us"? Sad, because they didn't get the point John was making about Jesus.

I'll leave that for TD&D

Conclusions?

We have us here a debate about folks that can't be shown to have existed, can't be shown to have em them their claimed opinions, and can't be shown to have performed actions it can't be shown they acted.

This is the "state of the art" in religious apologetics.

"Lets us all spam us Christianity & Pologetics, and disregard us fundamental precepts of debate, like proving us these fellers even ever even em existed to have done em them any of em them the stuff it is, we claim they did".

I propose that what's most sad here, is that the preachers have been allowed to swamp C&A with their preachings.

And the pretty thing said I can't have me no more sausage no more'n me oncet a week. Danged oatmeal. And can't put me no sugar on it, cause best I can tell if I ever eat me a sugar again, I'm just gon up and die.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #26]

We have us here a debate about folks that can't be shown to have existed, can't be shown to have em them their claimed opinions, and can't be shown to have performed actions it can't be shown they acted.

This is the "state of the art" in religious apologetics.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence which can be presented that such stories are true and really did happen as they were writ.

Any argument I offer is based on that notion. Weird strange and alternate things do happen. My subjective experience has shown me that this is the case.
And my argument regarding how stories are written and read are also relevant truthful insights...internal filters have much to do with how we individuals process information and subsequently express our findings back into the external world we call reality.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #23]

No, but you need some sort of justification behind your assertion if you're going to treat this as a debate.

The question is "does it matter?" and in that I am giving my answer..."no it does not" and furthermore providing reasonable explanations as to why it does not matter.

Conflating "possible" with "likely," "probable," or "plausible" is both a weak argument and a hallmark of apologists everywhere.

So?

All four stories include tons of supernatural stuff, all treated absolutely credulously by their respective narrators. We have examples of how contemporary historians treated the supernatural and it's not with that kind of credulity. Aside from the supernatural content, a number of even the mundane events are historically implausible, like Matthew's "slaughter of the innocents," Luke's taxation census, and various details of the trial.

Are we to conflate "Supernatural stuff" with "historically implausible mundane events"?
Remember, it was the Catholics who gave us the Bible, but they claim to have gathered their data from various authors they deemed to be "the genuine article".

That is not all we have to work with though. That which the Catholics tried to hide from the world - still prevails to this day.
I see it like the story of the Hubble Telescope. It started off with a bang - fizzled in the interim and then "bingo"...now what is it that was once hidden from us. "OMG!"



The reality superimposed upon the mythology...but let us not forget that it was the reality which produced the mythology...that and the fact that we are [in relation to reality] only in an embryonic stage of our existence within it...so...too soon to go making any definitive claims either way...


[Did you scroll past the movement in the above image?]

Despite these, it's considered an open question whether the authors of the Gospels believed that what they were writing was historical. I think it makes more sense to treat the Evangelists as competent literary figures rather than incompetent and overly credulous historians, but I'll admit that I can't think of an objective way to demonstrate this.

I'm arguing two different things: first, the contradictions were the result of intentional literary differences between the Gospels and second, that the literary depictions of characters of the stories can't be extrapolated to reveal reliable historical data.

It is what the Catholic presented to the world. I do not know if they had the wisdom to interconnect the variables as a kind of proof-reading or just cut and pasted from whatever sources were available and which they deemed acceptable.

So I view the Bible under those conditions and examine the results. I am undecided as to their intentions but since I am not bound by their order, I am permitted to bring in other pieces of the theist puzzle in order to see what might be found therein...

Whether or not Jesus, John, Peter, or the Beloved Disciple were historical individuals, we have no way of knowing if they were in any way similar to their literary counterparts. On the contrary, since at least some of the literary versions conflict with each other (contrast, for example, the different ways Peter is depicted in the Synoptics, John, the Petrine Epistles, and Pauline Epistles), we have reason to believe that at least some of the characterizations are false in a historical sense.

If you are saying that the Bible could simply be the work of fiction by Rabbis and Monks - then yes - it very well could be, but I do have to consider that they did so for various reasons - especially in relation to Rome and Romans. In relation to agendas of empires.
It appears therefore reasonable to me that Rome was responding to events which were out of its immediate control and in failing to eradicate that problem, they hatched the ingenious plan to hijack the movement and direct it to their own purpose - effectively re-purposing whatever 'it' was which caused Rome to have to do that.

William wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 2:03 am
Clearly the Catholic Church is responsible for including and excluding things which are in the bible.

OK.

Exactly.

You weren't trying to add anything except the things you added. Got it.

Not what I wrote. What I wrote was this;

I wasn't trying to add anything other than the obvious details which are missing.

Just asserting so without justification doesn't buy you much.

Well it is the Bible which is saying they had a connection related to following Jesus...I am just repeating what I heard...just to say that is the story we are presented with.

If John left a detail out of his story, you can't just assume that his characters experienced it anyway.

Not on that alone. But if the Monks who wrote the story of John left that out, I have to try and figure out why, other than it was a typo...

But that is a big 'if' which you and I do not know either way.

Astral Plane stuff - where humans experience alternate realities. Jesus obviously had a good understanding and foothold in that realm. [He referred to the Astral Plane as "My Fathers Kingdom"] - as the story goes.

Before the Bible and even before religion, The Astral Realms have been experienced by human beings.

Some have even become masters within it through understanding it.

Jesus obviously was able to take others with him and the transfiguration story is evidence of that.

To the disciples at the time, it seemed to be the other way around and the Astral Realm came to them - into their world.
It doesn't really matter which is which as the reality is they superimpose upon each other.

If any of that is part of your argument, you're going to have to justify it somehow. It just sounds an awful lot like woo to me and I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to suggest that I'm not alone.

It doesn't matter to me personally if you think the reams of information available to everyone [internet] is a bunch of 'woo' to you and others. The fact that there is so much out there about the subject [Astral Planes] is enough to warrant serious investigation. That is the justification for doing so.
I do not do so for you or other benefit. Not because I wouldn't want to. but because the nature of the subject being investigated isn't something everyday science can do. "Woo it is" is one gap filler and "God did it" is another. Neither explain anything in their default settings.

SO one is forced to dig deeper for one self, if that is one's occupation...most of the data only helps me personally - I cannot show it to those who have already made up their minds. That is what I have learned, anyway...

Where do we think theism comes from?

The propensity for humans to attribute random events to an intelligent agent.

You are mistaken. Theism understands there is intelligent agency involved with real-world events - and the agency can be experienced as real.
That is why theism has persisted, in various form and function. Zooming in upon one small part of it, does not show one the whole picture.

One of us is mistaken, anyway. You haven't offered much to support that it isn't you.

I have offered a great deal. There is the door. We each have to open it and see for our self.

[Difflugia]

So John didn't "know" about the transfiguration because he hadn't read Matthew's tall tale.

This is an interesting question and one without a consensus. C. H. Dodd argues that John was aware of the traditions that the Synoptics draw on. James Tabor claims that there is an independent core of John's Gospel that is independent of the Synoptics, but a subsequent redactor knew the other three Gospels. John Dominic Crossan is convinced that certain constructions and passages in John make no sense unless John knew at least one of the Synoptics and possibly all three.

[Paul of Tarsus]

So John didn't "know" about the transfiguration because he hadn't read Matthew's tall tale.

This is an interesting question and one without a consensus. C. H. Dodd argues that John was aware of the traditions that the Synoptics draw on. James Tabor claims that there is an independent core of John's Gospel that is independent of the Synoptics, but a subsequent redactor knew the other three Gospels. John Dominic Crossan is convinced that certain constructions and passages in John make no sense unless John knew at least one of the Synoptics and possibly all three.

Well, I'm glad that some Bible scholars are actually starting to agree. If John was at least partly influenced by the synoptics, then the four gospels are looking less independent and possibly all based in Mark. If Jesus was historical, then all this copying of Mark among the writers of Matthew, Luke, and John seems odd. Wasn't information about Jesus available to all four of these "historians" or only available to Mark? Historical information should be available to many independent sources--anybody who was in a position to know the facts. If it all boils down to one source, on the other hand, the history of the matter is not so assured.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #26]

We have us here a debate about folks that can't be shown to have existed, can't be shown to have em them their claimed opinions, and can't be shown to have performed actions it can't be shown they acted.

This is the "state of the art" in religious apologetics.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence which can be presented that such stories are true and really did happen as they were writ.

Any argument I offer is based on that notion. Weird strange and alternate things do happen. My subjective experience has shown me that this is the case.
And my argument regarding how stories are written and read are also relevant truthful insights...internal filters have much to do with how we individuals process information and subsequently express our findings back into the external world we call reality.

Well put, my friend.

I very much respect your honesty and integrity - it's among the reason I seek me out your posts - even if sometimes I might not agree with your conclusions.