Contradiction? 1-1

[Guest]

 

This is the first part of my notes on the crucifixion and how the stories from matthew, mark, luke and john are not contradictory. There are a few other "contradictions" that are not listed here I was just hoping to get some advice on my apologetic notes. I'm a little nervous go easy on me

 

Who carried the cross

    This is a very temporally sensitive topic here so let’s observe and see how the timeline in John 19:17 goes. It says in John 19:17-28

“So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.”

Seems pretty basic jesus carried his carried his cross all the way. PAUSE* This is false scripture doesn’t mention that jesus carried it the entire way rather it is a general summary of where he was heading not what happened on the way there. For example when you get pulled over by a cop you testify about where you’re from and where you’re going. The officer testifies about what transpired in between. So it’s not necessarily contradictory but rather details left out. So it is possible that this isn’t a record of the entire trip in John. Another piece of evidence for this is the actual wording. We need to look at the word “OUT” this word in itself implies leaving a place. The original greek word used which is Exerchomai.(G1831) According to the Greek Lexicon (G1831) the word means

1. to go or come forth of

A. with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the point from which he departs

1. 1. 1. of those who leave a place of their own accord

      2. of those who are expelled or cast out

Now there are two places mentioned which makes this the correct phrasing which are in John 19:17 and john 19:13.  Lastly we must consider if mark, luke, and matthew say if Simon met them on the way “OUT” or on the way there.  Simon of Cyrene is the one who carried the cross and described as “passing by” (mark 15:21),  “having met” (Having met AS THEY WERE GOING OUT matthew 27:32) and “who was on his way” (luke 23:26)

Conclusion

    I have presented ample evidence to show that this is not a contradiction and that John, matthew, mark, and luke are in agreement. John was simply describing how the trip was planned. Thank you for reading this and please notify me of any errors or additional evidence.

You have put a lot of thought into these possible contradictions.  I think the first question should be what are the gospels?  Are they objective history?  Are they testimonies?  I say they are to a degree history but not testimonies.  Christian faith does not depend on this.  Ancient Jewish writers were less interested in objective history and objective truth.  They were interested in the higher truth.  Their method of conveying this truth was by story telling.  The gospels contain parables by Jesus and parables about Jesus.  It is the concensus of scholars that the Road to Emmaus story, the wedding at Cana and the woman at the well(among others) are parables about Jesus.  Midrashic writing is also evident in the gospels.

 

Once more, complete and utter nonsense.  That is held only by liberal, usually non-Christian Bible scholars who do everything they can to discredit the Gospels of Jesus in order to justify their unbelief.  They usually manage to rope naive "Christians" into their web of lies and misinformation.

[Ozzy]

There are contradictions in the Bible and critics will be happy to point them all out. Most of them are inconsequential, such as did Paul's friends see the light, or did they hear it. One version of the story says they saw the light, while the other says they saw no light but only heard it. But does that change the story that Paul had a vision and converted? Nope.

 

The fact is, we as Christians, know the Bible has mistakes. We know it was written thousands of years ago by many different men, handed down through many generations, gone through many translations, survived through the 4th Century Roman Empire that was struggling for power, money, and politics where they compiled, edited, and cut out many portions of the texts, went through more translations, got put into a poetic form for King James, .... and on and on and on. What we have today is wonderful, but it is no sense a perfect record. It has great history and it has great spiritual stories. The intent of the book is to teach of Christ, bring faith to our hearts, and get the world to repent and live the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not saved by the book. We cannot hold it in our hands and claim salvation. Even if these stories had been passed down orally, they would have the same intent of building faith and teaching obedience to the laws of God. So, I cringe when I hear fellow Christians applauding the book like it is a perfect record with no flaws. Then they let critics get to them by pointing out some flaws as if God wrote some imperfect, therefore untrue, record. God did not write it, but inspired men did. Unfortunately, it has passed through some pretty uninspired hands. Please, study the history, know how the things we complied, and understand the full context of the record!

 

Though not perfect, it's ability to get people to build faith, repent, and join the kingdom of God is unmatched. Praise be to God for the Bible!

[Guest shiloh357]

There are contradictions in the Bible and critics will be happy to point them all out. Most of them are inconsequential, such as did Paul's friends see the light, or did they hear it. One version of the story says they saw the light, while the other says they saw no light but only heard it. But does that change the story that Paul had a vision and converted? Nope.

 

That is not an example of a contradiction.  A genuine contradiction in the Bible has never been found. 

 

The fact is, we as Christians, know the Bible has mistakes. We know it was written thousands of years ago by many different men, handed down through many generations, gone through many translations, survived through the 4th Century Roman Empire that was struggling for power, money, and politics where they compiled, edited, and cut out many portions of the texts, went through more translations, got put into a poetic form for King James, .... and on and on and on.

 

That isn't true and we have over 25,000 manuscripts of just the Greek NT alone going back to the early 2nd century to prove your comments wrong.

 

What we have today is wonderful, but it is no sense a perfect record. It has great history and it has great spiritual stories.

 

 

 

The Bible accuracy is impeccable actually.  The Bible has a source of history is amazingly accurate. 

 

Even if these stories had been passed down orally, they would have the same intent of building faith and teaching obedience to the laws of God. So, I cringe when I hear fellow Christians applauding the book like it is a perfect record with no flaws. Then they let critics get to them by pointing out some flaws as if God wrote some imperfect, therefore untrue, record. God did not write it, but inspired men did. Unfortunately, it has passed through some pretty uninspired hands. Please, study the history, know how the things we complied, and understand the full context of the record!

 

Sorry Ozzy, but you don't really know the history of the Bible very well.    God transmitted a perfect record through imperfect people but did so without any mixture of error.  There are texutal variants, misspellings due to scribal errors, but there is no error in the substance of the stories or teachings of Scripture.   Sorry, but you are out in left field.

[Jzyehoshua]

This is one of the alleged contradictions claimed by ThinkingAtheist, and I had to address it when completely debunking their list.

 

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ThinkingAtheist

My explanation for this alleged contradiction was as follows:

 

They both carried it. The "ThinkingAtheist" sneakily omits mentioning the corresponding Matthew 27:31-32 verses which show that Simon did not start out carrying the cross. First Jesus was led away to be crucified, and Simon was pressed into service to bear the cross, presumably after Jesus, who had been scourged, beaten, and tortured, was unable from fatigue to carry the cross the entire way.^[30] As further observed by Ty Benbow of Answers in Genesis:
 

“ "So then, why does John not offer the same details as Matthew? A possible consideration takes into account the impact Passover would have had on Jerusalem. The population of the city would have swelled to a number higher than any normal week. Thus, it would have been virtually impossible for John or Matthew to follow Jesus every step of the way from conviction to crucifixion. John likely recorded Jesus carrying the crossbeam through the city streets, where he was able to see Jesus. Likewise, Matthew likely recorded Roman officials ordering Simon the Cyrene to carry the crossbeam from outside the gates to Golgotha from his vantage point. Both observations are accurate, and both add a rich depth and power of the final hours of Jesus."^[31]

 

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by Jzyehoshua

[Jzyehoshua]

Ironically atheists make two contradictory claims.

 

When the Gospels contain similar details Bible critics claim this is evidence the Bible authors copied from one another per the Q Hypothesis.

 

When the Gospels contain different levels of detail, levels which complement rather than necessarily contradicting, Bible critics falsely assert these are contradictions or inconsistencies, and say one can't assume both accounts were equally true.

 

It's actually a clear double standard the Biblical critics are using.

[Jzyehoshua]

There are contradictions in the Bible and critics will be happy to point them all out. Most of them are inconsequential, such as did Paul's friends see the light, or did they hear it. One version of the story says they saw the light, while the other says they saw no light but only heard it. But does that change the story that Paul had a vision and converted? Nope.

 

I debunked that alleged contradiction when debunking Jim Meritt's list from Infidels. Analysis was as follows:

 

Although some bizarre attempts have been made to suggest the Greek words translated voice and heard/hearing (phone and akouo^[2] respectively) should be translated differently in each passage, I find them unpersuasive since both are used in both passages in the same way.^[3] You can see the transliterated Interlinear for the passages using PowerBible CD (or online with Biblos.com^[4]), which is as follows:

 

“ Acts 9:7 And <de> the men <aner> which <ho> journeyed <sunodeuo> with him <autos> stood <histemi> speechless, <enneos> hearing <akouo> <men> a voice, <phone> but <de> seeing <theoreo> no man. <medeis>

Acts 22:9 And <de> they that were <on> with <sun> me <emoi> saw <theaomai> indeed <men> the light, <phos> and <kai> were <ginomai> afraid; <emphobos> but <de> they heard <akouo> not <ou> the voice <phone> of him that spake <laleo> to me. <moi>

”

In my opinion, the only real probable explanation to avoid a contradiction involves the voices in 9:7 not including "the voice of him that spake to me". 22:9 after all says "heard not the voice of him that spake to me" whereas 9:7 says only "hearing indeed voices" (the Greek word men should have been translated verily or indeed by the KJV in 9:7 just as it was in 22:9).

 

Ultimately it's open for debate whether the voices they heard were their own or of angels, and whether they included the "voice of him that spake to [Paul]." If committed to giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt (which I am), then one will certainly be reluctant to assume the voices the men heard included the one specific to Paul when not overtly stated otherwise. Therefore this does not have to be a contradiction.

 

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Infidels#Meritt40

[Guest Teditis]

Judas wasn't "given" to Him...?

[Harikrish]

Judas wasn't "given" to Him...?

The 12 disciples of Jesus named.

Matthew 10;1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 5

[Guest Teditis]

 

Judas wasn't "given" to Him...?

The 12 disciples of Jesus named.

Matthew 10;1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 5

 

 

Read John chapter 17... particularly vrs 6 - 12. Judas wasn't one of the people given to Jesus.

[Harikrish]

Judas wasn't "given" to Him...?

The 12 disciples of Jesus named.

Matthew 10;1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. 2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 5

 

Read John chapter 17... particularly vrs 6 - 12. Judas wasn't one of the people given to Jesus.

The list clearly names Judas as one of the 12 disciples. It even says in John 17 Judas was destroyed.