otseng wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 7:59 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:50 am
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:20 am
So, you'll need to provide testimony that directly counters the resurrection. As far as I know, there is only one reference to that in the Bible. I'll leave it to you to find it.
The discrepancies are more than minor - there are terminally serious contradictions. Many of them omissions which by all reason should have been at least hinted at by one of the others.
You brought up more non-doctrinal issues and did not even address my challenge of providing a single reference that counters the claim Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Again, what you appeal to is inerrancy of scripture in which every statement in the Bible must be factually correct or else the Bible is entirely false. Inerrancy is not assumed to be true in this thread. We can even assume all the gospels are incorrect in their recollection of how many angels were at the tomb, how many women went to the tomb, and how many guards were at the tomb, and it would still not falsify the resurrection. All of these are incidental to the resurrection.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:41 am
This would be true if inerrancy is assumed. But, in this thread, inerrancy is not assumed.
If you're not assuming inerrancy, then you can't assume the veracity
of the accounts.
How many historical documents are inerrant?
That is an irrelevant point. You would not expect a polemic arguing for the resurrection to contain claims that it didn't happen. However there is the story that Matthew recounts that the the Jews said that the disciples stole the body. I have mentioned the principle of embarrassment (which has the variant that you don't invent an argument that one has to explain away), so that story is probably the actual Jewish claim, though I suspect they just made that explanation up rather than had actual knowledge. But to use your methods, you prove it isn't true - that Arimathea and Nicodemus didn't remove Jesus from the tomb - which would explain why the tomb was left open (if that claim is true).
You see, even if the accounts are true, they point at a removal of the body, not a resurrection, which is why Matthew recounts a tomb guard that, as we so often find with contradictions, nobody else even hits at. These are not minor differences but major contradictions that pour cold water on accounts that are supposed to be first or 2nd hand. If we must digress into other histories, then doubts about the veracity will come up. 'Inerrancy'(perfect or pretty sound) is not the issue. The topic should long ago have been read as veracity (is it true, or reliable?) rather than (perfect) inerrancy.
I mentioned Josephus and Philo on Pilate (1).They describe the tough character more convincingly than the weak appeaser of the gospels. Historians have noticed that. They also note that the images (Josephus) and the tinsignia (shields) in Philo do seem related though differ in the telling. Historians work with that, but they would not credit a story that Pilate turned into an eagle and flew to Rome to get instructions. They just wouldn't. Nor should we just accept the resurrection claim unless it was at least as agreed as the crucifixion, which I do credit.
Not the resurrection, for reasons given. The empty tomb is the last thing agreed. John deflates the angelic message. John and Luke undermine Jesus appearing to the women. Nobody has the tomb - guard (I suggest invented to counter the suggestion that the disciples took the body), and nobody has Jesus appearing to Mary after the disciples look in the tomb.
Matthew does not have Jesus turning up in the evening and Luke and John do not have this pointless trip to Galilee. Mark of course has none of these stories,at all. You cannot excuse these glaring contradictions as minor differences. I know that it had all been swallowed as real events. Even by historians in general or at least they haven't fallen over themselves to point up the problems.
But I shall, and while I accept that you and many others would shrug off the contradictions, and appeal to other discrepant histories, how about you give good and persuasive reasons why these big contradictions actually aren't or can be explained, or don't matter.
I mentioned doctrine. This was to make sure that the red herring of doctrine didn't come into it, it is recorded contradictions that call the accounts into question that matter.
(1) Wiki on these writers.
According to Philo's Embassy to Gaius (Embassy to Gaius 38), Pilate offended against Jewish law by bringing golden shields into Jerusalem, and placing them on Herod's Palace. The sons of Herod the Great petitioned him to remove the shields, but Pilate refused. Herod's sons then threatened to petition the emperor, an action which Pilate feared that would expose the crimes he had committed in office. He did not prevent their petition. Tiberius received the petition and angrily reprimanded Pilate, ordering him to remove the shields
In fact Philo is contemporary (supposed 20 BC to 50 AD) but he did live in Alexandria., not Judea.
Wiki again According to Josephus in his The Jewish War (2.9.2) and Antiquities of the Jews (18.3.1), Pilate offended the Jews by moving imperial standards with the image of Caesar into Jerusalem. This resulted in a crowd of Jews surrounding Pilate's house in Caesarea for five days. Pilate then summoned them to an arena, where the Roman soldiers drew their swords. But the Jews showed so little fear of death, that Pilate relented and removed the standards
So these incidents might be related, but differ. But not so much that the historical record can be dismissed.