Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,201,144 members, 7,977,288 topics. Date: Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 03:49 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" (15359 Views)
Women From The Tomb- Another Bible Contradiction! / Bible Contradiction In The Book Of Genesis / Christians How Would You Deny This Blatant Contradiction (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by alchemist13: 1:29pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
felixomor:John 20:18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her. Matthew 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. To be sure neither passages mention eleven disciples but that will be rather uncharacteristically pedantic. There is absolutely no reason to assume these passages do not refer to the eleven. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by dalaman: 1:29pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Harmonized perfectly with new inventions abi? Harmonized with maybes, probably, assuming, of my suppositions are correct, and other such nonsense. Anybody can harmonize anything with such stuffs. You are empty my friend. Where is any of the assumptions, maybes and if am correct written in the story? Anybody can make things up and hide them with probably, maybes and assumptions. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by dalaman: 1:31pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
alchemist13: Luke mentions the 11. But according to the gospel his apologist formed, Peter and John were in Jerusalem while the others where in Bethany. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by felixomor: 1:31pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Thank you my brother, for this resource. It simplifies it better. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by felixomor: 1:35pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
alchemist13:Time is of essence. U have left his conclusion, So no need to argue with u. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by AgentOfAllah: 1:37pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Mental blindness Ad hominems are signs of depleting counter-arguments...but what do I know? I'll just stick to the issue. Okay, wonderful! While Matthew does not say only two women were there, Matthew mentioned only two women. In fact, If you read Matthew alone, there is no indication that there were other women, so even if these "other" women were there, they are obviously not relevant to the story according to Matthew. This means according to the account of Matthew, the women that were filled with joy are the same women mentioned at the start of Matthew 28. We have no reason to assume Matthew was referring to "other" women but the two Marys when it was said that the women "were filled with joy". If I need John, Luke or Mark to understand that according to Matthew, the women filled with joy aren't the Marys mentioned at the beginning of Matthew 28, then we can say Matthew is inherently incongruent. If however, the author of Matthew presumed we should have read John, Luke or Mark, this would automatically belie the claim that the Gospels were written independently of each other; which would cast an additional aspersion relating to plagiarism on at least, Matthew's account. 6 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by felixomor: 1:38pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
At this point and once again, I would like to thank those who have contributed to this thread. Especially DoctorAlien for his priceless explanations and web links. I also wish to request more meaningful contributions. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by alchemist13: 1:42pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Well, then we agree on one contradiction. Because according to Matthew, Mary (another Mary) met an angelic being who apparently convinced both women of Jesus' resurrection. That is the reason for the women departing the tomb. Whereas in John, the same Mary flees the tomb as soon as she sees that the stone has been rolled away. 2 Likes |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by alchemist13: 1:43pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
dalaman: Oh sorry my bad! |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by felixomor: 1:51pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
Source: Copy and paste link. answersingenesis.org/jesuschrist/resurrection/christs-resurrection-four-accounts-one-reality/ |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by dalaman: 1:52pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
alchemist13: Luke mentioned the women by name and at no time did he suggest that any of them left the scene. We have NO reason what so ever to beleive he wasn't referring to all the ladies he mentioned at the begining throughout his narrative. 1 Like |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by alchemist13: 1:53pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
felixomor:Sorry, the page is 404ed. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by AgentOfAllah: 1:56pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
alchemist13:The link he's trying to share is HERE ______________________________________________________ UPDATE: I've figured out the reason the link isn't working. In the link, there is a sub-section /jesus-christ/ with small "j", but some nairaland developer has programmed every mention of 'Jesus' on Nairaland to return the first letter in upper case "J". The problem, of course, is that for URLs (and computers in general), there is a clear distinction between lower case and upper case symbols. so no URL with jesus spelled in small letter "j" will ever work on Nairaland, which is silly. I hope Seun rectifies this! |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by felixomor: 2:00pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
alchemist13: I would get it soon. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by alchemist13: 2:01pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
By the way the insistence of the definition of "contradiction" to mean only "opposite" and not include "inconsistent" is rather disingenuous. One cannot insist on simple opposite statements in different accounts of an event. One only has to show that the accounts are inconsistent enough to be irreconcilable. 3 Likes |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by DoctorAlien(m): 2:03pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
AgentOfAllah, Matthew summarized the events from the resurrection morning to the ascension(40 days later) in just one chapter. That chapter spans all the appearances of Jesus to all the different people, and their different meetings with themselves. Matthew obviously didn't go into details. The news of Jesus' resurrection must have caused serious frenzied movements and cross-movements in Jerusalem and its environs that Sunday. Matthew summarized the events like that because the schedule of movements on that resurrection morning isn't really all that important to the Christian's Salvation. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by jimmyjenseng(m): 2:09pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Yea, maybe I lack the knowledge of God's character but His infallible Word shows the inconsistency in His person. If you say God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, why is he ever ready to destroy the sinner? In Psalm 7:11-13: ...God is angry with the wicked every day. If he turns not his way, He will whet His sword; He hath bent His bow and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; He ordaineth His arrow against the persecutor. How do you explain this? P.S I'm keen to learning. Mind you, I'm not goalpost shifting from the subject of discuss. Just addressing your post. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by DoctorAlien(m): 2:14pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
jimmyjenseng: Very simple. That GOD has no pleasure in the death of a sinner does not mean that He is happy with sinner's way of life. If the sinner would not repent, GOD will destroy him. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by Nobody: 2:29pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien and felixomor you know last night on another thread i had a similar debate with PastorAIO and LiberaDeus and they were also hammering on Bible contradictions and even though i trashed both of them combined Somehow at about 12.30am while they were still haggling i switched my dstv over to channel 186 which is the history Channel (which is one of my favourite channels on dstv) and right there was an amazing documentary titled THE BIBLE RULES! It was all about 12 highly qualified and esteemed Historians and archaeologists who were brought together to explore the historical reality lying behind all of the Bible's commands, delving into a their unknown origins and backstories and what people term as contradictions found in it. These were modern historians who could speak the ancient languages dating back to 500BC and they spoke and gave verbatim interpretation right there on the program as the tore the Bible to shreds and put it back together and all 12 unanimously declared that the Bible held no contradiction and worse still 2 of these Historians were Muslim. Arguing with these atheists who know little or nothing about Bible history, culture, traditions or indeed anything at all is tantamount to giving yourselves a migraine. I urge them to go and first of all do deep research like these practical historians and archaeologists did yesterday in that 2hr documentary. Unless they wish to say they somehow know more than 12 actual world respected historians and archaeologists do from their face value knowledge of the scriptures. That documentary was a ground breaking documentary which DSTV had been announcing since the 5th of December so everyone would be on it and i was opportune d to be on when they aired it and i was deeply blessed seeing men prove the scriptures are what they are. Divine, inspired and absolutely correct! 4 Likes 5 Shares |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by felixomor: 2:37pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
4everGod: I would surely find and get the tape... |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by DoctorAlien(m): 2:39pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
4everGod, Except the ones that have no modicum of intelligence, the "atheists" here know that the Bible contains no contradiction, if that word is defined correctly, as the erudite felixomor defined it on the first page of this thread. Thumbs up bro! 2 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by alchemist13: 2:43pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
@4everGod All that one na story. Do you have anything to contribute to this topic? |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by jimmyjenseng(m): 2:47pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Thank you. Back to the thread's topic on inconsistency, Matthew's account informs the reader that Jesus was clothed in a scarlet robe - Matt 27:28 - which is a sign of infamy whilst Mark's and John's account tell us that Jesus was clothed in purple robe which is significant to royalty. The differences in robe colour and the their significance contradicts themselves. |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by Nobody: 2:49pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
alchemist13: Already did last night on another thread which was where i invited PastorAIO and LiberaDeus to switch their DSTV to channel 186 so their confusion could be quenched, This was my Invitation to them Religion / Re: Hell Exists Because God Loves You by 4everGod: 12:34am You are actually the one spilling "stories" everywhere. Yesterday 12 historians and archeologists dropped solid truth. Enjoy your delusion |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by ElectGINeer(m): 2:50pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
randomperson:I swear, you wan kill me ☺☺☺☺ 1 Like |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by DoctorAlien(m): 2:54pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
jimmyjenseng: Purple is a color intermediate between blue and red. In other words, purple has a shade of red in it. Scarlet is a brilliant red color with a tinge of orange. Again, scarlet has a shade of red in it. The evangelists agree whatever they put on Jesus, it had a shade of red in it. 1 Like |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by Ranchhoddas: 2:57pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien:This is actually very silly. You are yet to see AgentOfAllah's queries to a logical conclusion and you are declaring victory. Quite pathetic. 1 Like |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by AgentOfAllah: 3:00pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien:This is not an excuse to give a misleading/inaccurate account
I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous excuse of a response! Not going into detail is not the same as providing misleading detail. The facts in Matthew are as follows: 1) Matthew mentioned only two women, "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary". 2) Matthew never indicated that they had company, which could only mean two things: either they didn't have company, or they had, but the company wasn't in any way relevant to Matthew's version of events. 3) Matthew went on to say "the women" encountered angels who gave them some form of good news that made them joyful. In your excuse, it is as if you completely ignore the meaning of the word "the". "The" is a definite article that is used as a placeholder for a particular member of group or class or something uniquely specified (as was the case here). To state that this misleading omission which failed to mention the presence of other women, let alone distinguish between the woman (Magdalene) who wasn't an eye-witness to the angels and the women who were, is due to some frenetic summarisation effort is utterly ridiculous, and a fine demonstration of disingenuity! By your excuse, you are inadvertently admitting that the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did a terrible job of recording the events accurately due to frenzy; and now, the resurrection accounts - even after a body of fabrications long enough to form a separate chapter in the Bible - are irredeemably inconsistent. 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by DoctorAlien(m): 3:06pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
AgentOfAllah, If you refuse to accept that Matthew didn't mention all the women that went to the sepulchre, I think it's pointless quoting me. John wrote that if all that Jesus did were to be recorded, the Bible would be too big. The gospel writers did their best to summarize a host of events their own way. Comparing the 4 accounts gives a more complete picture of Jesus' life. Thank you. 1 Like |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by Nobody: 3:14pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
Ranchhoddas: He does not need to see anything to a logical conclussion. We have been down this road too many times and tomorrow another atheists will rehash the same argument as if we theists have nothing better to do with our time. This is why i urge you DoctorAlien to stop arguing with these guys. If they really seek Knowledge then they know where to find it and certainly not on the pages of Nairaland which is always all argument with no admittance to ignorance. Your assumption that anyone would ever arrive at any Logically conclusive position here on NL is actually what is pathetic |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by DoctorAlien(m): 3:19pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
4everGod, It's hard enough dealing with ignorance, but I think becomes nearly impossible to cure when dishonesty is mixed with it. For somebody who claims that he is rational to pretend as if he doesn't know(maybe he really doesn't know) that "Mary and Martha went to market" is not the same thing as "only Mary and Martha went to market" is baffling. 1 Like |
Re: Bible "Contradiction" For Dummies: A Correction For Internet "Atheists" by AgentOfAllah: 3:26pm On Jan 03, 2017 |
DoctorAlien: Yes, I admitted before that it is possible that Matthew didn't mention all the women, but this is not the only possibility. The other possibility is that Matthew's author believed only these two women were present. I understand why it is important to you that the first possibility is elevated to fact, but unless you can you show where Matthew indicated that not all the women were mentioned, your preference for the former possibility is based only on your own fabrications. You see though, whether or not Matthew mentioned all the women is irrelevant to his story, the key point is that he mentioned the two that were central to the story (or shall we say legend?) he told. The conclusion we can draw from that story, therefore, is that both Marys left the tomb in a joyful state; and this is inconsistent with the account in John, where Mary (came back a second time according to Felixomor and) was crying that the body of Jesus was missing. 3 Likes |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
3 Ways We Misunderstand Being Born Again / Former Herbalist Is Confronted, Renounces Fetish Practices, Surrenders To Jesus. / Catholic Bishops Invite Pope To Visit Nigeria Over Herdsmen Killings
Viewing this topic: 1 guest(s)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 69 |