A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[TRANSPONDER]

Indeed. It is surprising to see a Bible apologists getting aggrieved as someone 'bringing up' translation disagreements, when that is so often the excuse used to dismiss contradictions.Copying errors,or perhaps eyewitness mistakes are other excuses. Though one is really sticking the chin out to deny that there are any contradictions at all. I mean..no, damn...I swore I would never use that kneejerk prefix For example, I (We) recently looked at 'You are my beloved son or 'this is my beloved son', and the reasons for the difference. Denial that there is any difference would just make the person claiming that look silly.

Incidentally,I saw a definition of 'ad hoc'. I had a check just now as I've been seeing a lot of loose and ill -advised accusations of 'ad hoc'going around recently.
Ad Hoc Rationalization
In this fallacy, an explanatory factor, condition, or reason is set forth without validity to counter a specific objection or argument in order to defend one's original assertion, hypothesis, findings, or conclusion.

Example: In the following example, Dr. A uses ad hoc rationalization when questioned by Dr. B:

Dr. A: My paper and pencil test of intelligence is better than any of the others.

Dr. B: But in that recent study, it showed no reliability or validity.

Dr. A: I'm sure they scored it incorrectly.

Dr. B: They brought in 2 other teams to make sure the scoring was done correctly.

Dr. A: The researcher was probably one of my rivals, someone who wanted to do me in.

Dr. B: Actually, it's your best friend who has been your biggest supporter for decades.

Dr. A: Well, no wonder! He had to lean over backwards to make my test look bad so that he wouldn't be accused of favoritism!

I call this type of ongoing excusing, explaining away and dismissing of problems as 'making it up as you go along'. Even though they may be common and well - known excuses. I suppose it might be easy to confuse a range of possible explanations or some evidence- based explanations, with a string of excuses.

Perhaps the best one I've seen since I infected this forum was the excuse as to why Cleophas says that the women didn't see Jesus while Matthew says they did.

They split up on different paths and one met Jesus and the other didn't.

Now, that was a real ad hoc pulled out of the hat, thin air or somewhere else and not only is there no earthly reason for over- excited women to take different paths, but Matthew says specifically that Jesus appeared to them, not to 'her'. Which is where another excuse can be produces, such as copyist error. But that wouldn't work because Luke has Cleophas refer to the women, not just one, so he must have heard both of them report the angelic message but that they didn't see Jesus.

So each ad hoc excuse falls down, just as it is proffered.

[brunumb]

Something doesnt become a CONTRADICTION because it's difficult to understand, it is a CONTRADICTION because it is proven to be IMPOSSIBLE. The point is not invalidated by a new rule that "teaching or giving instruction" requires a new less flexible method of expression. The teacher's main aim it that his instruction be understood by his audience, there is no way to prove that this was not the case, even it it were relevant to the issue of CONTRADICTIONS (which is isnt).

Contradiction or not, your attempt at rationalising the different instructions was not valid.

[TRANSPONDER]

Something doesnt become a CONTRADICTION because it's difficult to understand, it is a CONTRADICTION because it is proven to be IMPOSSIBLE. The point is not invalidated by a new rule that "teaching or giving instruction" requires a new less flexible method of expression. The teacher's main aim it that his instruction be understood by his audience, there is no way to prove that this was not the case, even it it were relevant to the issue of CONTRADICTIONS (which is isnt).

Contradiction or not, your attempt at rationalising the different instructions was not valid.

Indeed it is not. And JW has simply used his own definition of a contradiction to simply exclude any contradiction that doesn't fit his definition.

contradiction
...
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"
a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"
the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"

I know what he is getting at - the only Bible contradictions that matter are the ones that have no possible explanation other than the Bible is in error. That isn't all a contradiction is, it's anything that differs or conflicts with another version or account of the same thing - whether or not there could be an explanation for that. But I get that it's what he sees atheist apologists trying to do with them.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... That isn't all a contradiction is, it's anything that differs or conflicts with another version or account of the same thing - whether or not there could be an explanation for that. But I get that it's what he sees atheist apologists trying to do with them.

So basically in a debate about biblical CONTRADICTIONS, we see differences in biblical accounts (thats a given) and whether or not there could be an explanation or not you want biblisists to ... er ...what do you want us to do again?


Serious question, what is the point in raising the question of CONTRADICTIONS if not to examine possible explanations? This is not to shut debate down (I enjoy them, easter challenges are one of the funnest things ever) but evidently we need to establish what is being asked. I presumed it was to examine possible explanations, was I wrong? If so what is being asked?




JW




FURTHER READING Synopsis
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p926583

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #84]

Serious question, what is the point in raising the question of CONTRADICTIONS if not to examine possible explanations? This is not to shut debate down (I enjoy them, easter challenges are one of the funnest things ever) but evidently we need to establish what is being asked. I presumed it was to examine possible explanations, was I wrong? If so what is being asked?

Why is Mary Magdalene's behavior inconsistent in the resurrection narratives? That's what I'm asking.

[TRANSPONDER]

.... That isn't all a contradiction is, it's anything that differs or conflicts with another version or account of the same thing - whether or not there could be an explanation for that. But I get that it's what he sees atheist apologists trying to do with them.

So basically in a debate about biblical CONTRADICTIONS, we see differences in biblical accounts (thats a given) and whether or not there could be an explanation or not you want biblisists to ... er ...what do you want us to do again?


Serious question, what is the point in raising the question of CONTRADICTIONS if not to examine possible explanations? This is not to shut debate down (I enjoy them, easter challenges are one of the funnest things ever) but evidently we need to establish what is being asked. I presumed it was to examine possible explanations, was I wrong? If so what is being asked?




JW

Well to start with admit that there is a contradiction at all. Then yes, look at various hypotheses about why the contradiction is there.

You said "Something doesn't become a CONTRADICTION because it's difficult to understand, it is a CONTRADICTION because it is proven to be IMPOSSIBLE." And you are saying something else now. The contradiction is the start, the discussion follows, the conclusion based, say, on what is impossible...
"'Joseph could not have been a Galilean who went to Judea in AD 6/7 and then returned to Nazareth a week or so later And
Also a Judean resident (as he intended to go back to Bethlehem) who went to Egypt before Herod died and then returned to Judea, but was redirected to Nazareth for the first time to avoid Herod's son (1)'."

That is an impossible contradiction and both stories cannot be true.

There's your 'impossible' conclusion (2) and is the end of the discussion, really, where the acceptance of a contradiction is the start.

There are those who deny or at least dismiss the contradictions'

'The basic point of the story is still the same - Jesus was born in Bethlehem'

Yes, but that's not the explanation of the contradiction but the reason for it. Just as the need for a resurrection is the reason for the contradictions, not a reconciliation of them.

Which is Why I regard the nativity as the touchstone case and the resurrection as the 2nd best collapse of Gospel credibility.

(1) ....to labour he point...who of course was deposed in 6 D, the Romans took over Judea (but not Galilee) and had the census which was the reason for Joseph to go to Bethlehem, 10 years after Jesus had been born, according the Matthew.

(2)aside denial, and irrelevant arguments like 'there were Bethlehems in Galilee' .and red herrings like 'The Bible doesn't say there were Three kings or wise men'.

[JehovahsWitness]

You said "Something doesn't become a CONTRADICTION because it's difficult to understand, it is a CONTRADICTION because it is proven to be IMPOSSIBLE**."

** As in "IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile because they are opposite and cannot both be true."

... two facts that are IMPOSSIBLE To reconcile.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

That is an impossible contradiction and both stories cannot be true.

Given the above, I think definition #2 matches the closest to what you seem to be working with.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... look at various hypotheses about why the contradiction is there.

Well I have NO interest in such an endeavor. My understanding was this is an invitation to attempt to offer hypotheses that reconcile that which may appear to be irreconcilable; effectively disproving they are CONTRADICTIONS as per definition #2 above.

I understand now you do not want any claim of biblical contradictions (#2) to be challenged, whether it can be successfully be done or not. This is of no interest to me whatsoever, although it might be fun to ask atheist to offer hypotheses as to why they are wrong to have no belief in God.



JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[TRANSPONDER]

You said "Something doesn't become a CONTRADICTION because it's difficult to understand, it is a CONTRADICTION because it is proven to be IMPOSSIBLE**."

** As in "IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile because they are opposite and cannot both be true."

... two facts that are IMPOSSIBLE To reconcile.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

That is an impossible contradiction and both stories cannot be true.

Given the above, I think definition #2 matches the closest to what you seem to be working with.

I'd agree. A contradiction (one that is worthy of attention) is where it would appear that both cannot be true. There is a disagreement. But your initial point was about one being impossible. We both know that there are explanations that may resolve the discrepancy. So one being impossible, or no reconciliation being possible wouldn't seem to be the definition of what a contradiction is. But anyway what it important is that the contradiction (impossible to reconcile or not) is accepted as something to discuss.

[TRANSPONDER]

.... look at various hypotheses about why the contradiction is there.

Well I have NO interest in such an endeavor. My understanding was this is an invitation to attempt to offer hypotheses that reconcile that which may appear to be irreconcilable; effectively disproving they are CONTRADICTIONS as per definition #2 above.

I understand now you do not want any claim of biblical contradictions (#2) to be challenged, whether it can be successfully be done or not. This is of no interest to me whatsoever, although it might be fun to ask atheist to offer hypotheses as to why they are wrong to have no belief in God.



JW

That's entirely up to you as is your opinion about what I want or do not want challenged. I spend a lot of discussion time discussing challenges to my explanations of such contradictions. You are at liberty to be uninterested in such, but I am and shall continue doing it and I hope that others are interested as well. You are perfectly free to ignore such discussions.