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?

[otseng]

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

Contradictions in the NT - and does it matter?

I don't believe it matters much. The way I look at it is listening to witness accounts in a trial. Just because witnesses in a case would have different accounts, that doesn't mean the entire case needs to be dismissed. Reading the Bible is reading the accounts of multiple witnesses, each with their own perspective. It is up to the reader to piece together what actually happened. More of this in: Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.

I suppose the first question to answer is "Was it the 'John' who wrote the Gospel of John, who was the "brother of James" who accompanied Jesus up the mountain?"

I believe it was Lazarus. More on this in: Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"?.

[JoeyKnothead]

Contradictions in the NT - and does itmatter?

I don't believe it matters much. The way I look at it is listening to witness accounts in a trial. Just because witnesses in a case would have different accounts, that doesn't mean the entire case needs to be dismissed. Reading the Bible is reading the accounts of multiple witnesses, each with their own perspective. It is up to the reader to piece together what actually happened. More of this in: Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.

When ya hear you the crack of the ball, and then watch it fly high over the fence

Looking at it as otseng has, allows us to think for ourselves, to act as ourselves, opposed to just following along mindlessly*. It allows us to consider our thoughts and actions as they relate to today's world, not some ancient time of less knowledge and education.

*Sorry, offensive term but I can't think of one more apt - it's the only word I have here, and exposes me to folks thinking how lessly it is, is mine.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Contradictions in the NT - and does it matter?

I don't believe it matters much. The way I look at it is listening to witness accounts in a trial. Just because witnesses in a case would have different accounts, that doesn't mean the entire case needs to be dismissed. Reading the Bible is reading the accounts of multiple witnesses, each with their own perspective. It is up to the reader to piece together what actually happened.

But has the word contradictionchanged its meaning? Since when is it a synonym of "different"? Look at what you just just did, you answered a question about "contradictions" by addressing the question of difference. (This is like someone asking you: "how's your daughter ? " ... and you answering: "my wife is very well"). Half of this thread blighthly presents ommissions as contradictions without the slightest bit of embarrassment . If colloquial language becomes so seperate from dictionary definitions, and nobody can even intellectually grasp the fact (let alone notice), does that not undermine the basis meaningful discussion?

I ask you otseng, because I believe you will understand the question.




JW

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

But has the word contradictionchanged its meaning? Since when is it a synonym of "different"? Look at what you just just did, you answered a question about "contradictions" by addressing the question of difference.
...

See what you did there? You went from asking about dictionary definitions, to asking about synonyms.

Ain't all contradictions the result of differences?

Synonymomatically...

these guys think so.

[Difflugia]

I don't believe it matters much. The way I look at it is listening to witness accounts in a trial. Just because witnesses in a case would have different accounts, that doesn't mean the entire case needs to be dismissed. Reading the Bible is reading the accounts of multiple witnesses, each with their own perspective. It is up to the reader to piece together what actually happened. More of this in: Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.

How different do you allow those perspectives to be in your own understanding?

As an example, how do you read the two stories of Judas' death? Inerrantists typically find ways to weave them into a single, historical event (Jesus hanged himself and then fell). I read them as two different stories (at least one of which would be considered fictional) with completely different theological meanings (suicide vs. divine punishment, remorse vs. unrepentance). Without worrying for the moment about which one is correct, where do you fall in the spectrum? How do you synthesize the two accounts into your overall understanding of the Gospels?

On a related note, how different do you think the different New Testament authors are allowed to be theologically? I think that Mark's unforgiveable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (3:28-29) is unreconcilable with what I read as the potential for universal salvation in John 3:16-18. Do you read those in a way that they're compatible (e.g. failure to believe is blasphemy against the Spirit) or can Mark and John represent different ideas about who can and cannot be saved?

[William]

I don't believe it matters much. The way I look at it is listening to witness accounts in a trial. Just because witnesses in a case would have different accounts, that doesn't mean the entire case needs to be dismissed. Reading the Bible is reading the accounts of multiple witnesses, each with their own perspective. It is up to the reader to piece together what actually happened. More of this in: Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.

How different do you allow those perspectives to be in your own understanding?

As an example, how do you read the two stories of Judas' death? Inerrantists typically find ways to weave them into a single, historical event (Jesus hanged himself and then fell). I read them as two different stories (at least one of which would be considered fictional) with completely different theological meanings (suicide vs. divine punishment, remorse vs. unrepentance). Without worrying for the moment about which one is correct, where do you fall in the spectrum? How do you synthesize the two accounts into your overall understanding of the Gospels?

On a related note, how different do you think the different New Testament authors are allowed to be theologically? I think that Mark's unforgiveable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (3:28-29) is unreconcilable with what I read as the potential for universal salvation in John 3:16-18. Do you read those in a way that they're compatible (e.g. failure to believe is blasphemy against the Spirit) or can Mark and John represent different ideas about who can and cannot be saved?

Is it possible that when one relies on a book for their connection to The Creator and the book itself is insufficient an object to unite people, that the book itself has proven to bring separation rather than unity, that the book is not intended to be the medium between an individual and The Creator?

Is it the intention of the book to cause schism? It is just a book, so "no" must be the answer.

Then, what is the book that it has that affect - and does cause schism?

Obviously it is a book written by a number of authors, and not all agreed with one another, regarding belief.

So it is therein we identify the cause of Schism...it is a book written by those already not in agreement.

That is the reason as to why the book itself cannot be used to justify itself - yet folk continue to attempt to do just that. In this, the best analogy which comes to mind is that of a bunch of jigsaws which have been carelessly placed within the one box which itself has a picture of what the pieces inside should show upon completion of the jigsaw.

Only, anyone who tries to make the completed picture from the pieces within the box, will never gain that result, because the pieces in the box come from a variety of puzzles.

Where evidence of the belief in [even worship of] the book comes to the fore is where the one doing the puzzle fails to at some stage recognize that they are dealing with pieces which are mixed and from other puzzles and therefore cannot be placed together as one coherent picture, no matter which way the pieces are twisted and turned.

[Difflugia]

The way I look at it is listening to witness accounts in a trial. Just because witnesses in a case would have different accounts, that doesn't mean the entire case needs to be dismissed.

But has the word contradiction changed its meaning? Since when is it a synonym of "different"?

This argument is often used in inerrancy apologetics, but the courtroom analogy doesn't actually work for inerrancy. Court witnesses give different accounts specifically because they're human beings and human beings have fallible memories.

If we use the courtroom analogy to examine Peter's denials, for example, it causes no problem to assume that it's unimportant to whom exactly Peter made the three denials and come to the conclusion that Peter did, indeed, deny Jesus three times, but we don't know (and it doesn't matter) to whom exactly.

If we try to treat the "differences" as inerrantists do, meaning differences that are nonetheless absolutely true, then we end up with either extra denials or word games that create events that none of the evangelists actually described.

[otseng]

Hence, I see Biblical contradictions as a red flag to tread very cautiously and not to believe everything you read in the Bible. . . . . . . . if anything all

I do not believe it's an either/or situation. It's not either everything in the Bible is factually correct or nothing is factually correct. Unfortunately though, many people hold to this position, including both Christians and non-Christians.

I think the first thing that has to be addressed is the doctrine of inerrancy. Don't want to hash it out all again, but it is discussed in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?. Bottom line, it's possible to believe the Bible is authoritative without the need to be an inerrantist.

Another issue is the Greek/western way of thinking. The western mind typically puts things in an either/or box. Something is either in box A or in box B. Things need to be logical. In the eastern mind, things can exist which seem contrary to each other. Things do not have to be logical.

An example of this is light. A western mindset would have more difficulty accepting light is both a wave and a particle. An eastern mindset would more easily accept it. Pioneers of quantum mechanics such as Heisenberg were influenced by eastern philosophy, even though he was a devout Christian:

Heisenberg admired Eastern philosophy and saw parallels between it and quantum mechanics, describing himself as in "complete agreement" with the book The Tao of Physics. Heisenberg even went as far to state that after conversations with Rabindranath Tagore about Indian philosophy "some of the ideas that seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_He ... _worldview

Another example is something I was discussing with someone I met at church. A western mindset would have more difficulty accepting it's possible for people in the church to accept different political, racial, ideological positions and still be one unified church body. In the eastern mindset, it would be easier to accept the fact that a Democrat and a Republican can sit in the same pew.

[2ndpillar2]

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?

The message of Yeshua was the coming kingdom of God/heaven. It was presented in parables so as to not to be understood by those without ears to hear (the wicked). The "wicked", the "tares", the followers of the false gospel of grace, were to be left undisturbed until the "end of the age" (Mt 13:30 & 13:30). The NT is composed mostly of the tare seed, the gospel of lawlessness, the gospel of grace, which was planted next to the "good seed", the message of the son of man (Mt 13). As for what is true or what is not, Yeshua referenced the OT, and said any matter had to be confirmed by two witnesses, and any self testimony was not true (John 5:31). Now as for what happens to those who adds to, or subtracts from the Word of God (Rev 19:13) it is probably best determined by Rev 22:18-19. As we are now at the end of the age, the tares, those who do lawlessness (Mt 13:41-42) will be the first to be gathered and thrown into the furnace of fire (Mt 13:30).

[William]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #40]

As for what is true or what is not, Yeshua referenced the OT, and said any matter had to be confirmed by two witnesses, and any self testimony was not true (John 5:31).

“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”

This - in context - [if memory serves me well] was referencing an accusation and refuting said accusation.
It was not to say - as your statement implies - that an individuals subjective experience is 'not true'.

Also, Yeshua made claims about what The Creator had showed him regarding The Creators Realm. These things cannot be "referenced in the OT" because they are not there in the OT.

And furthermore, Yeshua had no witness to the things he claimed about The Creator other than a voice in the sky, reported to have spoken the words “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!” coming from an unknown/invisible source and which not everyone was there to witness.

But we do have at least one story about Yeshua in which is told but there were no other witnesses...[Matthew 4:1-11]

So in that, we have an indication that ones subjective experience - that which one is witness to, [on a scale between vaguely to intimately] is an acceptable truth to allow for even that there are no other witnesses.

Although of course, one might argue that The Creator is one such witness to ones subjective experience...that in itself then says that "it is impossible for one to bear witness of oneself alone" -