Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Well by that logic there was a conjurer and balloons at the last supper.
    The point is you have no logical argument otherwise. Translators certainly would have been around.


    No other gospel does. What sources? We know very little about Pontius Pilate as a historical figure. However, I ask again, why do you imagine his wife [as Matthew tells us] would have been with him?
    Again, you have no logical basis to counter what is in Matthew.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so, which I will leave to the sincere seeker to find on his own since they are numerous and readily available through a simple internet search query. I will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today, and so they used what we might consider unconventional methods such as reordering events thematically rather than chronologically, compressing multiple events into a single narrative, paraphrasing, approximating, and so on. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. "
    I think your stylus has got stuck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Just admit it MM you cannot explain these contradictions. Don't worry. Your secret is safe with me!
    As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so, which I will leave to the sincere seeker to find on his own since they are numerous and readily available through a simple internet search query. I will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today, and so they used what we might consider unconventional methods such as reordering events thematically rather than chronologically, compressing multiple events into a single narrative, paraphrasing, approximating, and so on. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. "

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    So what? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
    Well by that logic there was a conjurer and balloons at the last supper.


    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Well that is what the Gospel of Matthew tells us. Do you have any other source to back up your claims?
    No other gospel does. What sources? We know very little about Pontius Pilate as a historical figure. However, I ask again, why do you imagine his wife [as Matthew tells us] would have been with him?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so, which I will leave to the sincere seeker to find on his own since they are numerous and readily available through a simple internet search query. I will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today, and so they used what we might consider unconventional methods such as reordering events thematically rather than chronologically, compressing multiple events into a single narrative, paraphrasing, approximating, and so on. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. "
    Just admit it MM you cannot explain these contradictions. Don't worry. Your secret is safe with me!
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 05-11-2021, 12:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


    Really? Are you contending there was some kind of resurrection information exchange?

    Then if so, why does Jesus give different accounts?

    Mark:
    • Jesus before Pilate.
    • Pilate: Are you the king of the Jews?
    • Jesus: You say so.
    • Accused by Chief Priests.
    • No answer by Jesus
    • Pilate astonished.

    Matthew as Mark, except that Pilate was “greatly” astonished.

    Luke:
    • Chief Priests charge Jesus.
    • Pilate: I find no crime in him.
    • Chief Priests: Trouble maker from Galilee to Jerusalem.

    John:
    • Before Pilate early on the eve of Passover (not after Passover as in the Synoptics).
    • Pilate: What is the charge?
    • Pilate: You judge him.
    • Jews: We cannot execute.
    • Pilate: Are you king of the Jews?
    • Jesus: A kingdom not of the world
    As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so, which I will leave to the sincere seeker to find on his own since they are numerous and readily available through a simple internet search query. I will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today, and so they used what we might consider unconventional methods such as reordering events thematically rather than chronologically, compressing multiple events into a single narrative, paraphrasing, approximating, and so on. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. "

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    The most obvious source for the details about Jesus' conversation with Pilate is Jesus is himself.
    Really? Are you contending there was some kind of resurrection information exchange?

    Then if so, why does Jesus give different accounts?

    Mark:
    • Jesus before Pilate.
    • Pilate: Are you the king of the Jews?
    • Jesus: You say so.
    • Accused by Chief Priests.
    • No answer by Jesus
    • Pilate astonished.

    Matthew as Mark, except that Pilate was “greatly” astonished.

    Luke:
    • Chief Priests charge Jesus.
    • Pilate: I find no crime in him.
    • Chief Priests: Trouble maker from Galilee to Jerusalem.

    John:
    • Before Pilate early on the eve of Passover (not after Passover as in the Synoptics).
    • Pilate: What is the charge?
    • Pilate: You judge him.
    • Jews: We cannot execute.
    • Pilate: Are you king of the Jews?
    • Jesus: A kingdom not of the world

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Not Jewish peasants from a Galilean village.

    There would certainly have had to be a translator yet not one gospel account mentions that individual.
    So what? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...


    We do not even know if Pilate was married. And more to the point, why would his wife be with him?
    Well that is what the Gospel of Matthew tells us. Do you have any other source to back up your claims?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    You floated this nonsense before. You don't think there were those around who were fluid in both languages?
    Not Jewish peasants from a Galilean village.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Translators?
    There would certainly have had to be a translator yet not one gospel account mentions that individual.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    It is not possible for anyone in Pilate's circle (like his wife) who were sympathetic to the early Christians who could have shared the exchange?
    We do not even know if Pilate was married. And more to the point, why would his wife be with him?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    You floated this nonsense before. You don't think there were those around who were fluid in both languages? Translators? It is not possible for anyone in Pilate's circle (like his wife) who were sympathetic to the early Christians who could have shared the exchange?
    The most obvious source for the details about Jesus' conversation with Pilate is Jesus is himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    No it isn't.
    Yes it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    That's not an answer, it's a deflection.
    No it isn't.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    You're basically saying, "I will accept those things that I am predisposed to accept, and will reject those things that I am predisposed to reject
    In point of fact I am actually stating that real places existed and many continue to exist, e.g. Jerusalem, Caesarea Maritima, Bethlehem. And real historical figures existed e.g. Augustus, Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Quirinius. However, the internal narratives of the four gospels and many of the other figures are questionable. Fiction often uses real places and real people, and indeed real events [War and Peace or Les Miserables for example] but it does not follow that Pyotr Bezukhov or Jean Valjean were real people

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Should read: You can also explain how they managed to get into the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic.
    You floated this nonsense before. You don't think there were those around who were fluid in both languages? Translators? It is not possible for anyone in Pilate's circle (like his wife) who were sympathetic to the early Christians who could have shared the exchange?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    And at post #8 I gave my answer "Insofar as the texts mention real places and real historical figures, in that respect the texts may be considered correct. Everything else is questionable."
    That's not an answer, it's a deflection. You're basically saying, "I will accept those things that I am predisposed to accept, and will reject those things that I am predisposed to reject." It has nothing to do with any supposed "contradictions", you're just looking for excuses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    A nice try but now tell us all how many young men/angels were present and why each supposed eye-witness account of this encounter is different?[/SIZE]
    • Matthew tells us Mary Magdalen and the “other Mary” went to the tomb, an earthquake occurs, then one angel descends from heaven, this entity rolls away the stone, and then proceeds to sit on it.
    • Mark tells us that three women {Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, and Salome] look up to see the stone has been moved, enter the tomb to find one young man in it
    • Luke just writes about “the women” who also find that the stone had been moved. They also go inside the tomb to find it empty and suddenly TWO young men appear beside them.
    • John has Mary Magdalene finding the stone has been moved running back to tell Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb. The other disciple gets there first. Simon Peter comes into the tomb to see the wrappings rolled up in a corner of the tomb [a place by itself]. The two disciples then go home. Meanwhile Mary stays outside the tomb weeping when she sees two angels sitting where the body should have been

    How many young men/angels were there? And why do the Synoptics not mention Simon Peter and the other disciple's presence?

    Kindly also explain why these four [alleged] eye-witnesses could not agree on when the interrogation by Pilate took place. You can also explain how they managed to get into the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic

    You can also explain the [at least] ten year discrepancy between Matthew’s birth narrative and that of Luke.
    Should read: You can also explain how they managed to get into the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
145 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X