dartagnan wrote:That isn't what I said, so how can I be right?
I was speaking of your example of eyewitness accounts consistently being flawed.
dartagnan wrote:But there are some minor details that vary in the accounts. These are expected if these are accounts of true events. If someone masterminded the whole legend of Jesus, one wouldn't expect any discrepancies.
What about the discrepancies with the Joseph Smith story? Does the many discrepancies in his story lend credence to it?
dartagnan wrote:
If this were a court of law, there would be more than enough reasonable doubt regarding the Jesus myth.
I was speaking of your example of eyewitness accounts consistently being flawed.
And I was simply noting how variation is a natural feature of eyewitness accounts of real events.
What about the discrepancies with the Joseph Smith story? Does the many discrepancies in his story lend credence to it?
No. The gospel accounts are accounts from different people who were writing accounts they had heard. The Joseph Smith story is a first hand account by a single person, given in various forms. If a person arrested for a crime gives five different stories for his alibi, he would be under further suspicion.
See the difference?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Of course I do. I know that the books of the Bible were written by different authors. I was responding to
dartagnan wrote:If someone masterminded the whole legend of Jesus, one wouldn't expect any discrepancies.
I think that Joseph Smith did mastermind the whole legend of the golden plates, yet even his accounts were riddled with discrepancies. Even if someone did mastermind the whole Jesus myth, I doubt they would be able to keep their story straight.
Was it Aristotle who said that the more we speak the more the truth comes out?
Ok I see what you're saying. But the problem with Smith is that he gave his accounts at different intervals too far apart that he couldn't keep up with the details of what he had said before. He didn't write it all down and then make copies of the original story, as would be the case with the Christ-myther theory regarding the New Testament. His accounts were recorded by scribes who heard him tell the tale on different occasions throughout his life.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Jersey Girl wrote: Are you saying that Mark 3rd hour and John 6th hour for crucifixion?
If that is so, Christ isn't crucified in John at the 6th hour.
Really? When does John say he is crucified if not at the 6th hour? Mark clearly says he was crucified at the third hour - 9:00 AM. John says at about the 6th hour he was delivered to be crucified. Earlier you said that John was using Roman time. If that is true, Jesus must have been chillin' for about three hours before he was delivered to be crucified-- if both passages are not in disagreement.
No, it doesn't, GoodK. This is why I ask you to post the references. When John makes mention of the 6th hour, Jesus is still on "trial" and being mocked by Pilate.
If you're going to discuss portions of scripture, please post those portions to which you refer instead of ad libbing them.
Of course I do. I know that the books of the Bible were written by different authors. I was responding to
dartagnan wrote:If someone masterminded the whole legend of Jesus, one wouldn't expect any discrepancies.
I think that Joseph Smith did mastermind the whole legend of the golden plates, yet even his accounts were riddled with discrepancies. Even if someone did mastermind the whole Jesus myth, I doubt they would be able to keep their story straight.
Was it Aristotle who said that the more we speak the more the truth comes out?
Aristotle? The evidence for Jesus is nearer in proximity to the events in question regarding him and the extant copies of translations far more abundant than the writings attributed to Aristotle.
Why would you quote someone for whom there is far less evidence than Jesus?
The overwhelming evidence is in favor of "Jesus said" rather than "Aristotle said".
It’s common understanding that people continue to re-invent the wheel.
Biblical contradictions are well established and exist from biblical translation to other translations. One can attempt to prop up the notion of no contradictions and evade by saying things like: That’s just a different interpretation or some other protectionism.
Debate on as you like, but a different interpretation is a contradiction of a former interpretation.
GoodK wrote:You know enough about time to know John was using Roman time, but you don't know what 3rd hour means? I have a hard time believing this, Jersey Girl. Google can work wonders...
Well, I thought I knew that John was using Roman time, but I'm not sure now if it's at all applicable to the contradiction that you raised. It doesn't seem to make logical sense, for even using the Roman (12 hours:12 hours and watches) vs the sunrise/sunset in Jewish reckoning of time, there is still the possibility of the 3 hour discrepancy that you raised. I don't see that there IS a 3 hour discrepancy for in the sequence of which John 19:14 is embedded, it presents a Jesus who is in the process of being on trial/mocked by Pilate.
It doesn't make literal sense to me that in the 6th hour, this process is taking place and the transfer of Jesus to the actual location of being nailed to the cross, carrying the cross to Golgotha isn't mentioned which could account for the approx. 3 hour gap. I'll have to go back and look at it again. The scripture isn't specific, you see, it states "about the 6th hour". But I'm going from memory right now and will check it.
Of course I do. I know that the books of the Bible were written by different authors. I was responding to
dartagnan wrote:If someone masterminded the whole legend of Jesus, one wouldn't expect any discrepancies.
I think that Joseph Smith did mastermind the whole legend of the golden plates, yet even his accounts were riddled with discrepancies. Even if someone did mastermind the whole Jesus myth, I doubt they would be able to keep their story straight.
Was it Aristotle who said that the more we speak the more the truth comes out?
Aristotle? The evidence for Jesus is nearer in proximity to the events in question regarding him and the extant copies of translations far more abundant than the writings attributed to Aristotle.
Why would you quote someone for whom there is far less evidence than Jesus?
The overwhelming evidence is in favor of "Jesus said" rather than "Aristotle said".
What the heck are you talking about? The Aristotle quote was in reference to what me and Kevin were talking about. Are you constructing straw men or just confused?
Please take some time to re-read the posts.
Last edited by _GoodK on Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.