Tis_Bearself
Patron
No, it is not based upon data. I will pray for you to obtain a deeper understanding of these matters.
God bless.
- Status
God bless.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Didn’t Luke become a Christian only later on? He wrote his account after interviewing eyewitnesses. He doesn’t claim to have been one.BartholomewB:
It is almost as if the authors weren’t there at the scene.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Yes the decision to believe is based upon the information (data) that is available. It is a active choice on your end. Check the catechism paragraph 26, 142, 146, 150, 155, 176.Michaelangelo:
No, it is not based upon data. I will pray for you to obtain a deeper understanding of these matters.
God bless.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
I make no assertions to be smarter than anyone else. I just don’t make the same conclusions in many cases which more often than not is beacuse I think there is a lack of empirical support.
po18guy
Well-known member
If you are prayerful, consider paying for increased understanding. The Christian faith is guaranteed to be handed on without error. The New Testament scriptures were written, for the most part, while all were yet alive. If contradictions were noted by the eyewitnesses, they would have been corrected.
It is good to remember that the bible has history in it, but is not a history book. It has some mathematics yet is not a math book; poetry and prose but it is not simply a collection of poems and insightful writing. It is intended to be all things to all people, at all time and in every location on earth.
It is a teaching on faith and morals, as well as an exposition of God’s covenants with man. It is not complete, or else Abraham, Moses, King David, the prophets and apostles would not have been sent forth, or even needed.
It is a collection of books which often (not always) needs explanation by someone in authority, as it was written over perhaps 3500 years in various cultures and languages, describing things that are normally incomprehensible to man.
Bottom line: If it seems contradictory, things are not always as they seem.
It is good to remember that the bible has history in it, but is not a history book. It has some mathematics yet is not a math book; poetry and prose but it is not simply a collection of poems and insightful writing. It is intended to be all things to all people, at all time and in every location on earth.
It is a teaching on faith and morals, as well as an exposition of God’s covenants with man. It is not complete, or else Abraham, Moses, King David, the prophets and apostles would not have been sent forth, or even needed.
It is a collection of books which often (not always) needs explanation by someone in authority, as it was written over perhaps 3500 years in various cultures and languages, describing things that are normally incomprehensible to man.
Bottom line: If it seems contradictory, things are not always as they seem.
E
EndTimes
Guest
What undermines all anti-Christian attempts to sow Doubt is
A) When via Faith - God’s Guiding Spirit enters into Followers of Jesus
B) All that’s going down today - including that - can be found within Scriptural Prophecy
A) When via Faith - God’s Guiding Spirit enters into Followers of Jesus
B) All that’s going down today - including that - can be found within Scriptural Prophecy
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Vaguely written phrophecies ain’t that much of a prophecy. A very precise prophecy on the other hand, would be impressive.
J
JGD
Guest
Three of them - Matthew, Mark and Luke - weren’t at the scene! Only John was present.BartholomewB:
It is almost as if the authors weren’t there at the scene.
The 3 who were not present may have gotten their information from several different people. Luke 1:1-4 speaks of accounts being “delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,”. In regards to what Jesus said on Calvary, we know the names of only 3 sources for certain who would have been near enough to hear - Mary, Mary Magdalen, and John.
When it came to the writing of the Gospels, I think the Holy Spirit was the hidden writer & controller! Some words Jesus spoke to the apostles at the Last Supper come to mind:
John 14:25-26 “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
So, if one of them missed including something, the Holy Spirit inspired one of the other evangelists to include it!
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I agree that the based only on the accounts, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an impartial juror to determine the facts of what happened. But I don’t think that is what the authors were trying to communicate. None of the authors of the Gospels were at the foot of the cross (I know some say the author of John was there, but that seems unlikely to me). But the Gospels are theological works, not historical works. In my view, whether one accepts the theology presented is somewhat independent of whether one accepts the facts as historical.
E
EndTimes
Guest
H
Henry4
Guest
HI Eve,
For what it’s worth, I just thought I would point out that Samuel Beckett (the Irish writer and Nobel prize winner) makes the same point that you make in “En attendant Godot”. The character, Vladimir, asks: “How is it that of the 4 evangelists, only 1 presents things in this way? All 4 were there, however or not far”. Vladimir goes on to say that according to one evangelist, one of the thieves was saved whereas it could be concluded from one of the other accounts that both were damned. Estragon says “They were not in agreement”. Vladimir points out that everybody believes St. Luke’s account.
For what it’s worth, I just thought I would point out that Samuel Beckett (the Irish writer and Nobel prize winner) makes the same point that you make in “En attendant Godot”. The character, Vladimir, asks: “How is it that of the 4 evangelists, only 1 presents things in this way? All 4 were there, however or not far”. Vladimir goes on to say that according to one evangelist, one of the thieves was saved whereas it could be concluded from one of the other accounts that both were damned. Estragon says “They were not in agreement”. Vladimir points out that everybody believes St. Luke’s account.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
The thology will suffer, in my eyes, if the historical data presented doesn’t agree between “inspired” authors.Michaelangelo:
I agree that the based only on the accounts, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an impartial juror to determine the facts of what happened. But I don’t think that is what the authors were trying to communicate. None of the authors of the Gospels were at the foot of the cross (I know some say the author of John was there, but that seems unlikely to me). But the Gospels are theological works, not historical works. In my view, whether one accepts the theology presented is somewhat independent of whether one accepts the facts as historical.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
It will rain on this planet tomorrow, is a very vague prophecy. When this propehcy has been fulfilled tomorrow will that be evidence for me being a prophet of god?Michaelangelo:
prophecies are only vague to those who know them not at all.
J
JGD
Guest
Why not? The Catholic Church teaches that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture”. See CCC 105-108JGD:
I do not buy that as an explanation for the discrepancies between the stories. But I’m one of those stubborn scepticsSo, if one of them missed including something, the Holy Spirit inspired one of the other evangelists to include it!
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
That depends on one’s theology, I suppose.
There are many theologians and scholars that do not believe in the historical accuracy of Scripture but are nonetheless very religious. I haven’t taken a survey, but I would wager that the vast majority of scholars acknowledge inaccuracies. How could they not? As you point out, some of the contradictions are very hard to “harmonize” (although some will try). But does it really matter whether when Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs he told the to take a staff ( as in Mark) or expressly told them not to take a staff (as in Matthew)? Does it really matter whether Peter denied Christ before the first cock crow (as in Matthew) or the second (as in Mark)? These are not the kinds of details that faith is built upon, at least to me.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Thank you for your honsty in this matter. It means a lot to me, really. Because I seldom talk to believers who approach it the way you do. I was born a scientist and rely on empirical data, by nature. If the data doesn’t match up, it doesn’t. And the way I operate when it comes to any hypotheses is not to prove them but actively try to falsify them. This is a vastly different approach from we usually operate as humans. Which is why it took quite a long time for mankind to develop this methodology as a tool to investigate our world.Michaelangelo:
That depends on one’s theology, I suppose.
There are many theologians and scholars that do not believe in the historical accuracy of Scripture but are nonetheless very religious. I haven’t taken a survey, but I would wager that the vast majority of scholars acknowledge inaccuracies. How could they not? As you point out, some of the contradictions are very hard to “harmonize” (although some will try). But does it really matter whether when Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs he told the to take a staff ( as in Mark) or expressly told them not to take a staff (as in Matthew)? Does it really matter whether Peter denied Christ before the first cock crow (as in Matthew) or the second (as in Mark)? These are not the kinds of details that faith is built upon, at least to me.
F
Fill1sHeart
Guest
Hi I found this article helpful…
To enable us to objectively verify the truthfulness of their accounts.
The Bible, from earliest times, states that judgment in a court of law was not to be made against a person based on the testimony of a single eyewitness but that two or three as a minimum number were required ([Deuteronomy 19:15] . Even so, having different accounts of the person and earthly ministry of Jesus Christ enables us to assess the accuracy of the information we have concerning Him.
Simon Greenleaf, a well-known and accepted authority on what constitutes reliable evidence in a court of law, examined the four Gospels from a legal perspective. He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence. Had the Gospels contained exactly the same information with the same details written from the same perspective, it would indicate collusion, i.e., of there having been a time when the writers got together beforehand to “get their stories straight” in order to make their writings seem credible. The differences between the Gospels, even the apparent contradictions of details upon first examination, speak to the independent nature of the writings. Thus, the independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ’s life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable.
To enable us to objectively verify the truthfulness of their accounts.
The Bible, from earliest times, states that judgment in a court of law was not to be made against a person based on the testimony of a single eyewitness but that two or three as a minimum number were required ([Deuteronomy 19:15] . Even so, having different accounts of the person and earthly ministry of Jesus Christ enables us to assess the accuracy of the information we have concerning Him.
Simon Greenleaf, a well-known and accepted authority on what constitutes reliable evidence in a court of law, examined the four Gospels from a legal perspective. He noted that the type of eyewitness accounts given in the four Gospels—accounts which agree, but with each writer choosing to omit or add details different from the others—is typical of reliable, independent sources that would be accepted in a court of law as strong evidence. Had the Gospels contained exactly the same information with the same details written from the same perspective, it would indicate collusion, i.e., of there having been a time when the writers got together beforehand to “get their stories straight” in order to make their writings seem credible. The differences between the Gospels, even the apparent contradictions of details upon first examination, speak to the independent nature of the writings. Thus, the independent nature of the four Gospel accounts, agreeing in their information but differing in perspective, amount of detail, and which events were recorded, indicate that the record that we have of Christ’s life and ministry as presented in the Gospels is factual and reliable.
- Status