Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with

in article 1178512801.851402.146330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, snex at
snex@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/6/07 9:40 PM:

On May 6, 5:53 pm, George Evans <georg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article 1178252359.040701.51...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, snex at
s...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/3/07 9:19 PM:

<snip>

top 40? i doubt the number of claims not taken from mark or Q number that
much, let alone the ones that contradict each other. percentage- wise, there
*are* tons. here are some of the top ones i can list off the top of my head:

jesus birth:

matthew has herod slaughtering the innocents to prevent jesus' birth, which
causes mary and joseph to flee to egypt. this claim about herod is found
*nowhere else.*

That's really not a contradiction, is it? Does anything indicate Herod
couldn't have done it? BTW, how does killing children prevent a birth?

it contradicts actual historians. the murder of infants all over
israel wouldnt have escaped their notice. but the contradiction is
with luke.

What contradiction? Did Luke say it didn't happen? The conflict is with your
own conjecture, unsupported by evidence, that if something startling
happens, everyone must write about it. With other subject matter, historian
will realize that writing and copying was much more arduous in the past, and
will take relatively meager scraps and try to mesh them.

For some *strange* reason this doesn't happen when the bible is the subject.
Each particular grinding of the gears is lighted upon as something of great
significance.

luke has mary and joseph coming to bethlehem because of a census, and never
mentions the slaughter of the innocents.

not only are the reasons for them being in bethlehem in contradiction, but
both stories cannot possibly be true. the census in question had to happen
after 6AD, wheras herod died in 4BC.

I assume you are saying post 6AD because of the Quirinius issue. Thanks to
this controversy a fuller picture of Quirinius has resulted. He probably was
the one running things in 4 BC. He was certainly the highest ranking official
in the region and highly trusted. It is perfectly reasonable that he would be
called on by Augustus oversee the 4 BC census. Luke most likely was trying to
explain that this census was not the second one, in 6 AD, that caused all the
ruckus.

this is of course a complete lie which is not based on any evidence
whatsoever. saying "i want quirinius to have been the governer at 4BC means he
was" is not a response.

in any case. the story in matthew contradicts the story in luke.

There is no doubt he was in the area. That he was in charge is somewhat
speculative, but he was big man on the block.

the resurrection story:

matthew and luke list different details about the resurrection story, which
contradict each other, such as the day of the resurrection (remember, jesus
said 3 days and 3 nights - friday to sunday is 3 days and 2 nights!), the
reason the women came to the tomb, how many angels were present at the tomb,
whether or not the rock was rolled away before the women got there, what
jesus did after rising, etc. it is impossible to construct a coherent set of
events from the stories.

Nothing contradicts anointing with spices as the reason they came to the
tomb. Nothing contradicts that there were two angels. Nothing contradicts
that the stone was already rolled away. Nothing contradicts the scenario that
he appeared first to Mary and the other women, then the two on the road, then
the group in the room. There is a contradiction between Matthew saying that
the women touch Jesus, and John saying that Jesus wasn't touched. All in all,
this is superb consistency for events recalled decades later.

matthew: no spices. luke: spices

Matthew doesn't say no spices.

matthew: one angel. luke: two angels.

Matthew-one angel outside, sitting on stone, Mark-one angel inside tomb,
Luke-two angels. Is this really a contradiction worthy of criticism
considering that everyone was running around frantically?

matthew: stone rolled while they were there. luke: stone rolled away before
they arrived.

The word translated "came" in Matthew is in the aorist tense which is not
concerned with timing, past, present, or future. So the passage in Matthew
is not inconsistent with the stone being rolled away while the women are on
there way, which is the story told by the others.

matthew: jesus appears to the women. luke: jesus appears on the road to emmaus
to two apostles.

There are no contradictions here. Luke does not claim that the road to
Emmaus appearance was the first. All accounts are consistent with the first
appearance to Mary and the second to the two on the road.

so, when are you going to give us that full story that includes every single
verse in it?

Here is the list of events:

1. Women come to tomb to anoint body.
2. While they are on their way, the stone is rolled away
3. Women arrive, talk to angels, and enter tomb.
4. Women return to report missing body.
5. Peter, John, and others race to tomb.
6. Jesus appears to Mary Magdelene and other women.
7. Mary reports that Jesus is alive.
8. Jesus appears to the two on the road to Emmaus.
9. The two return to Jerusalem to report appearance.
10. Jesus appears to group in Jerusalem without Thomas.
11. After eight days, Jesus appears second time in Jerusalem with Thomas.
12. Disciples travel to Galilee.
13. Jesus appears on bank of the sea of Galilee.
14. Disciples return to Jerusalem to hear gospel commission and wait.
15. The ascension.

One thing I have been struck with while doing this project is that these
authors didn't tell us that as soon as they saw the empty tomb they began to
worship the risen Lord. They tell a very non-complimentary story about
themselves.

the death of judas:

matthew reports that judas felt guilty about his deed, threw the 30 silver
pieces back into the temple, and hung himself.

luke reports (in acts of the apostles) that judas used the 30 silver pieces
to buy a field, in which he fell on a rock and split his belly open.

I don't think there is as much of a problem here as you think. First, to fall
from several feet up and split open on a rock, a body has to be pretty ripe
from possibly hanging from a rope for several days. Second, Matthew says that
the priests used the money to buy a potters field. The field under the
rotting body would be a pretty good choice.

you are making nonsense up. matthew says he hung himself. luke says he fell on
a rock. neither say that both happened.

matthew says judas threw the money back and the priests bought the field. luke
says that judas himself bought the field.

I don't know what to do with this. It could be true that neither writer was
an eyewitness of the events.

i could find more if i actually cracked open the book, and i bet you could
too.

Well, you haven't found much yet.

no, you have just invented unconvincing lies that are not in the text itself.
one would think that a divinely inspired work wouldnt need to be rationalized
by you to make sense.

OK. That's that then.

George Evans

.

Loading