New testament contradictions.

by Anti-Christ 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  snowbird

  So which is it? They stayed in Galilee until the end of the reign of Archelaus or they go to Jerusalem year after year

  Their residing in Galilee didn't necessarily preclude their going to Jerusalem year after year for the annual festivals. Joseph and Mary are both described as being upright and zealous for the Law. Although women weren't required to attend the festivals, Mary's presence when Jesus was 12 years of age speaks volumes about her concern for religious matters.

  Jesus may have gone with them incognito as He later did as recorded in John chapter 7. Anyway, Archelaus was so busy with his own political intrigues that he probably forgot about Jesus. History records that his father, Herod the Great, kept his descendants guessing as to which son was going to inherit what.

  Now, the full brother of Archelaus, Herod Antipas, was from a different kettle of fish. It was he who had John the Baptist beheaded, and it was he whom Jesus referred to as "that fox" in Luke Chapter 13. It was also Herod Antipas who mocked and ridiculed Jesus when Pilate sent Jesus to him after His arrest.

  There was so much going on during those times. Instead of looking for inconsistencies in the Gospels, it behooves us to search more thoroughly into the world in which the Savior was born. We may just be a little bit surprised at the results.

  Thank you.

  Sylvia
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event.

  Right. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem. John's gospel describes the same event, with the same OT application. Luke mentions it, and so does Mark. Matthew mentions that there was a donkey AND a colt. I don't see where this demonstrates that there is a contradiction, but an expansion on detail. "I rode in a horse and buggy." Which one did I ride? The simplest explanation is that we are hearing different eyewitness accounts, and it really means nothing at all. The other three gospel's specify he rode on the colt.

  It is probably a waste of time to deal with these nitpicks you toss. Most of these "contradictions" have been thoroughly dealt with many times. You probably have a list, either at skepticsannotated or infidels.org, and you will wear me out with the length. You will toss one. It will be considered, and after it has been explained, you will toss another, attempting to find a "gotcha".

  Burn
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Well I think we milk that cow enough so here are some more.

  MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
  (default is against)

  MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
  (default is for)

  LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
  (default is for)

  The next ones can be found here

  Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions?

  MT 4:18-20, MK 1:16-18 (One story about choosing Peter as a disciple.)
  LK 5:2-11 (A different story.)
  JN 1:35-42 (Still another story.)

  MT 10:2, MK 3:16-19 The twelve apostles (disciples) were: Simon (Peter), Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, John his brother, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Labbaeus), Simon, and Judas Iscariot.
  LK 6:13-16 The above except that Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, and Judas the son of James is added (and Judas Iscariot remains).
  AC 1:13, 26 Same as MT and MK except that, like LK Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, Judas the son of James is included, and Mathias is chosen by the others to replace Judas Iscariot.

  MT 26:34, LK 22:34, JN 13:38 Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed.
  MK 14:30 Before the cock crowed twice.
  MK 14:66-72 The cock crows after both the first and second denials.
  (Note: These discrepancies have been "translated out" in some Bible versions.)

  MT 26:40-45, MK 14:37-41 The disciples fall asleep three times.
  LK 22:45 One time.

  MT 26:49-50, MK 14:44-46 Jesus is betrayed by Judas with a kiss, then seized.
  LK 22:47-48 Jesus anticipates Judas' kiss. No actual kiss is mentioned.
  JN 18:2-9 Jesus voluntarily steps forward to identify himself making it completely unnecessary for Judas to point him out. No kiss is mentioned.

  MT 27:3-7 The chief priests bought the field.
  AC 1:16-19 Judas bought the field.

  MT 27:5 Judas threw down the pieces of silver, then departed.
  AC 1:18 He used the coins to buy the field.

  MT 27:5 Judas hanged himself.
  AC 1:18 He fell headlong, burst open, and his bowels gushed out.

  MT 27:11-14 Jesus answers not a single charge at his hearing before Pilate.
  JN 18:33-37 Jesus answers all charges at his hearing before Pilate.

  MT 27:46-50, MK 15:34-37 Jesus' last recorded words are: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
  LK 23:46 "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit."
  JN 19:30 "It is finished." (Note: Even though both MT and MK represent direct quotes and are translated similarly, the actual Greek words used for God are different. MT uses "Eli" and MK uses "Eloi.")

  MT 27:48, LK 23:36, JN 19:29 Jesus was offered vinegar to drink.
  MK 15:23 It was wine and myrrh, and he did not drink it.
  JN 19:29-30 Whatever it was, he did drink it.

  Well I think that's enough for now.
• 

  Leolaia

  An other thing. Why is it that the only place there is an account of the massacre of babies is in Matthew?

  There is no account in Luke because the Lukan nativity narrative utilizes an entirely different series of exegetical traditions than the Matthean narrative. All the features of the latter that are paralleled in the OT and midrash (e.g. Jubilees, 4QAmram, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, b. Sotah, Targum Ps.-Jonathan, Exodus Rabba, Pirqei de R. Eliezer, Ephraem, Passover Haggadah, Sefer ha-Zikronot) on the nativity of Moses (such as the divorce, divine resassurance to the father who then remarries, the magicians, the omen to the king who fears that a future king would threaten him and who orders a mass infanticide, the flight from/to Egypt to escape the king and the return after the death of the king) are absent in Luke. Similarly, all the features in Luke and the Infacy Gospel of James that draw on traditions of the nativities of Samson and the prophet Samuel (e.g. 1 Samuel, 1 Samuel LXX, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, Sefer ha-Haggadah) are missing in Matthew.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  It is probably a waste of time to deal with these nitpicks you toss. Most of these "contradictions" have been thoroughly dealt with many times. You probably have a list, either at skepticsannotated or infidels.org, and you will wear me out with the length. You will toss one. It will be considered, and after it has been explained, you will toss another, attempting to find a "gotcha".

  Burn

  There is a difference with explaining something and actually proving something to be true. What I have observed is that all I get for an explanation is just that explanation, most of the time it is pure speculation with no proof to back up the claims or simply ignoring historical events, or finding a different meaning to the bible verse. A lot of these contradictions are translated out in newer version and I find that very dishonest.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  There is a difference with explaining something and actually proving something to be true. What I have observed is that all I get for an explanation is just that explanation, most of the time it is pure speculation with no proof to back up the claims or simply ignoring historical events, or finding a different meaning to the bible verse.

  As I have said, you are asserting a contradiction between the accounts. You need to prove that there is in fact a contradiction. You used the contention regarding the census, I have provided evidence that Luke is accurate from a very early reference in Justin Martyr. You tried to demonstrate a contradiction regarding the family residing in Nazareth vs visiting Jerusalem on the passover, I explained, as did Snowbird, that it is a false dilemma. You raise the objection that the infanticide in Matthew should have recieved wider mention, I cite sources showing that it was probably a small amount of children therefore not a historically important event outside the interest of followers of Christ. All you have offered amounts to speculation as well from a source with a very big axe to grind.

  Burn
• 

  Anti-Christ

  I do believe that statement, however, I do not assert that the Bible is historically inerrant. I have nothing to "prove" regarding the historicity of the events described. My faith does not rest on that foundation. So, you see, as far as I am concerned, the burden rests on the shoulder of you, who started the thread.

  Burn

  As I have said, you are asserting a contradiction between the accounts. You need to prove that there is in fact a contradiction. You used the contention regarding the census, I have provided evidence that Luke is accurate from a very early reference in Justin Martyr.

  Like you said you will ignore historical events has proof. Luke and Matthew are historically contradicting. I did not offer any speculation on history. Quirinius was not governor of Syria when Herod the great was alive. If you can prove that he was then by all means go ahead. The rest of your explanations are no better or worst then mine.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Like you said you will ignore historical events has proof. Luke and Matthew are historically contradicting. I did not offer any speculation on history. Quirinius was not governor of Syria when Herod the great was alive.

  No, not governor, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread from Justin Martyr's First Apology, circa 150 AD, addressed to the Roman Emperor:

  Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judæa.

  I doubt that Justin Martyr would have falsely stated something so easily referenced, especially since he was providing references!

  The word rendered "governor" in Luke 2:2 is hegemoneouo. It can mean, among other things:

  1. to be leader, to lead the way
  2. to rule, command
     
  3. of a province, to be governor of a province
  4. said of a proconsul, of a procurator

  LINK

  While, Saturninus was the governor of Syria, Cyrenius Quirinius was procurator. The term hegemoneouo can apply to either. So no, Luke was accurate.

  Burn
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Okay now I did not say Luke was not accurate I said that Matthew and Luke can not both be right

  There was no census during the reign of Herod the great because that census could not have included Judea, for Judea was not under direct Roman control at that time, and not being directly taxed. There is no example of, or rationale for, a census of an independent kingdom ever being conducted in Roman history. Therefore, the census Luke describes could only have been taken after the death of Herod, when Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria, just as Josephus describes.

  That Statement was taking in the link I provided earlier.
• 

  Anti-Christ

  While, Saturninus was the governor of Syria, Cyrenius Quirinius was procurator. The term hegemoneouo can apply to either. So no, Luke was accurate.

  Burn

  Two Last Ditch AttemptsThe Date of the Nativity in Luke

  Even allowing such an inconceivable error on the part of Josephus, this whole theory runs afoul of the problem that Quirinius could not have been governor of Syria twice (see Section II above) nor could there have been a census in Judaea when Herod was still alive (see Section III above). But Finegan employs two ad hoc maneuvers in an attempt to bypass these facts:

  (1) Finegan's response to the first conundrum is that Quirinius was actually prefect or procurator of Syria in 2 B.C. (§ 522), not an actual governor. But that is definitely impossible: those were offices held only by knights (men of the equestrian class), never by senators, much less senators of the most prestigious consular rank, and Quirinius had been of consular rank since 12 B.C. This mistake is similar to that made by those who want Quirinius to have been a co-governor. It just isn't possible or logical, and of course has no evidence of any kind in support of it.