Mea quidem sententia
Liberal Friend
Lightning the Lulu
Eloquent Inquisitor
18,500 Points
-
400
-
200
-
500
Arcoon Effox
Intellectual Combatant
11,225 Points
-
100
-
175
-
100
Sugarbeary
Rumblestiltskin
Omnipresent Loiterer
12,850 Points
-
100
-
200
-
100
Lightning the Lulu
Eloquent Inquisitor
18,500 Points
-
400
-
200
-
500
stealthmongoose
Dangerous Conversationalist
8,175 Points
-
0
-
0
-
0
Lightning the Lulu
Eloquent Inquisitor
18,500 Points
-
400
-
200
-
500
Arcoon Effox
Intellectual Combatant
11,225 Points
-
100
-
175
-
100
Lightning the Lulu
Eloquent Inquisitor
18,500 Points
-
400
-
200
-
500
Arcoon Effox
LoveLoud837
My friend, the 'bible contradictions' are not bible contradictions.
Unless... Do you have a special name for Biblical contradictions? Is that what you meant?
LoveLoud837
You haven't picked up a bible yourself to find these, you relied on someone else to find them for you...
I'd wager that you've visited numerous Evangelical websites; does anything you've learned and/or quoted from them "not count" because you didn't learn about whatever solely on your own...?
LoveLoud837
...and they aren't contradictions.
The Nativity
A - Jesus' genealogy
Matthew and Luke present two different genealogical lines for Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ), the former listing 26 names between David and Jesus, and the latter listing 41. The two books also are contradictory on the issue of who Joseph's father was. Matthew 1:16 tells us that "Jacob was the father of Joseph", but according to Luke 3:23, Joseph is said to be "the son of Heli."
Apologists try to counter this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though it explicitly states otherwise in Luke 3:23, and that ignores the fact that there are no lists of female genaeologies elsewhere, is because women did not count when reckoning descent in the Bible. The reason for this is because at that time it was believed that the complete human was present in the father's "seed", and that the woman's womb was just the soil in which it was "planted". Ultimately, this means that the argument that Luke was saying that Jesus could be descended from David through Mary just doesn't mesh with the source material, and that this is a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the apologists who first made and continue to perpetuate this claim.
B - The Angel's Message
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, he tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son... yet we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. Later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
C - The Time
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible, because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later... However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor". In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. (There's also the fact that Roman censuses simply didn't work the way that they're described in the narrative. More on that in a minute.)
D - The Place
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they don't agree on much else at all. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth (in Galilee) to Bethlehem (in Judea) for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Forty days and a quick trip to the local Temple later, they return to "their own city" of Nazareth.
Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that the young couple already lived in Bethlehem, and that it was only after the birth of Jesus (and a sojourn to Egypt) that Mary and Joseph came to live in Nazareth (Matthew 2:21-23). Why did they go to Egypt? Well, Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. However, ancient historians (such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes), do not mention what would have been considered one of Herod's greater atrocities. It simply didn't happen... which is probably why none of the other gospels make mention of it.
Apologists (as usual) claim that the two stories are totally congruent... but in order for that to be the case, the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight, stay, and return from Egypt all must occur within that forty day period.
Also, about that census... In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where their ancestors were born - which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.
Matthew and Luke present two different genealogical lines for Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ), the former listing 26 names between David and Jesus, and the latter listing 41. The two books also are contradictory on the issue of who Joseph's father was. Matthew 1:16 tells us that "Jacob was the father of Joseph", but according to Luke 3:23, Joseph is said to be "the son of Heli."
Apologists try to counter this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though it explicitly states otherwise in Luke 3:23, and that ignores the fact that there are no lists of female genaeologies elsewhere, is because women did not count when reckoning descent in the Bible. The reason for this is because at that time it was believed that the complete human was present in the father's "seed", and that the woman's womb was just the soil in which it was "planted". Ultimately, this means that the argument that Luke was saying that Jesus could be descended from David through Mary just doesn't mesh with the source material, and that this is a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the apologists who first made and continue to perpetuate this claim.
B - The Angel's Message
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, he tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son... yet we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. Later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
C - The Time
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible, because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later... However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor". In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. (There's also the fact that Roman censuses simply didn't work the way that they're described in the narrative. More on that in a minute.)
D - The Place
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they don't agree on much else at all. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth (in Galilee) to Bethlehem (in Judea) for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Forty days and a quick trip to the local Temple later, they return to "their own city" of Nazareth.
Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that the young couple already lived in Bethlehem, and that it was only after the birth of Jesus (and a sojourn to Egypt) that Mary and Joseph came to live in Nazareth (Matthew 2:21-23). Why did they go to Egypt? Well, Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. However, ancient historians (such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes), do not mention what would have been considered one of Herod's greater atrocities. It simply didn't happen... which is probably why none of the other gospels make mention of it.
Apologists (as usual) claim that the two stories are totally congruent... but in order for that to be the case, the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight, stay, and return from Egypt all must occur within that forty day period.
Also, about that census... In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where their ancestors were born - which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.
The Trial, Death, and Resurrection
A - The Trial(s)
(Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals... but I digress.)
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54), but John (as usual) has a different version of things, saying that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Nobody seems to agree on when the various priests and scribes met to question Jesus. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested. Finally, John only mentions the high priest; no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus in his version of things.
When it comes to whether or not Jesus was brought before Herod, Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11), whereas the others do not. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies... but what do the gospels claim he was on trial for? Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder, but John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a thief.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob, which is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them into submission, often killing them. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned him over to his soldiers to be crucified, they placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus, as well as a crown of thorns. Here's where that contradiction from earlier comes into play: Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier, by Herod and his soldiers. Luke also mentions no crown of thorns.
B - Matthew's zombies
While not exactly a contradiction, this one deserves attention due to its sheer incredulity of the claim (much like his story about Herod ordering all those kids to be killed). According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus woke up three days later, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
If a bunch of people came back to life and were seen by many people, you'd think that would have created quite a stir, yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening; historians of that time certainly know nothing of it, and neither do the other gospel writers.
C - The Resurrection
So, just who all was there when the tomb was found empty? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 states "the women who had come with him out of Galilee" were all there; among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke 24:10 indicates that there were at least two others there as well. Finally, John 20:1-4 tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned with him and another disciple. So, we have four gospels, and four different versions of things.
Well, what did they see there? According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with "an appearance like lightning" was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. (The women also encounter Jesus on the way back from the tomb, in verse 9 of the same chapter.) Mark 16:5 says, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:4 indicates that there were two men in dazzling apparel, but it is not clear on whether they were inside the tomb or outside of it. Finally, John 20:4-14 tells us that Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings that were on the body. As Peter and the other disciple leave, Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to see Jesus. Huh... Again, all four writers tell a different version of things.
Lastly, who did the women tell about the empty tomb? Matthew, Luke and John all have the them telling the disciples about it, with Luke elaborating slightly by having them tell "all the rest" as well. Mark 16:8, however, says that "they said nothing to anyone."
Also, Fun Fact: The latter half of Mark's version of the resurrection story was added later, by someone other than the original author.
The Ascension
While not strictly to do with the gospels, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that according to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection, contrary to what is said in Acts 1:9-12, which says that it took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Given that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, that makes this contradiction extra special.
(Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals... but I digress.)
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54), but John (as usual) has a different version of things, saying that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Nobody seems to agree on when the various priests and scribes met to question Jesus. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested. Finally, John only mentions the high priest; no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus in his version of things.
When it comes to whether or not Jesus was brought before Herod, Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11), whereas the others do not. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies... but what do the gospels claim he was on trial for? Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder, but John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a thief.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob, which is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them into submission, often killing them. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned him over to his soldiers to be crucified, they placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus, as well as a crown of thorns. Here's where that contradiction from earlier comes into play: Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier, by Herod and his soldiers. Luke also mentions no crown of thorns.
B - Matthew's zombies
While not exactly a contradiction, this one deserves attention due to its sheer incredulity of the claim (much like his story about Herod ordering all those kids to be killed). According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus woke up three days later, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
If a bunch of people came back to life and were seen by many people, you'd think that would have created quite a stir, yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening; historians of that time certainly know nothing of it, and neither do the other gospel writers.
C - The Resurrection
So, just who all was there when the tomb was found empty? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 states "the women who had come with him out of Galilee" were all there; among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke 24:10 indicates that there were at least two others there as well. Finally, John 20:1-4 tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned with him and another disciple. So, we have four gospels, and four different versions of things.
Well, what did they see there? According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with "an appearance like lightning" was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. (The women also encounter Jesus on the way back from the tomb, in verse 9 of the same chapter.) Mark 16:5 says, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:4 indicates that there were two men in dazzling apparel, but it is not clear on whether they were inside the tomb or outside of it. Finally, John 20:4-14 tells us that Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings that were on the body. As Peter and the other disciple leave, Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to see Jesus. Huh... Again, all four writers tell a different version of things.
Lastly, who did the women tell about the empty tomb? Matthew, Luke and John all have the them telling the disciples about it, with Luke elaborating slightly by having them tell "all the rest" as well. Mark 16:8, however, says that "they said nothing to anyone."
Also, Fun Fact: The latter half of Mark's version of the resurrection story was added later, by someone other than the original author.
The Ascension
While not strictly to do with the gospels, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that according to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection, contrary to what is said in Acts 1:9-12, which says that it took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Given that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, that makes this contradiction extra special.
Bonus Section
(These are just some extra little things that I found while gathering info.)
The Unchangeable Law
According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.
No signs, one sign, or many signs?
At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign. In Mark 8:12, Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation". In contradiction to Mark, Matthew 12:39 has Jesus tell them that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah; Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a fish, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:
* John 2:11 gives us the Beginning (or First) Sign, when he turned water into wine.
* John 4:54 gives us the second, which is the healing at Caepernum.
* John 6:2 tells us that many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing"
That damned fig tree
After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem, he sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21). First, since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree in the first place - and seriously, what kind of d**k move is that? "Stupid tree! How dare you not have any fruit for me! Die!" ...but anyway, Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered; In Matthew, the tree withers at once, and the disciples even comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20), but in Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).
The Apostle Paul's conversion
While not one of the gospels, Acts was written by the same guy who wrote Luke, and he contradicted himself about the ascension across the two books. Well, he does it again with the story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, as Acts contains three - count 'em, three - accounts of the story, and all of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice", Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice", and Acts 26:14 says they "had all fallen to the ground".
Jesus calls the Disciples
In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.
In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.
In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.
LoveLoud837
You post them as if they are and say ha! Like that does nothing.
LoveLoud837
I'm saying that you pick up a bible and you find these yourself.
LoveLoud837
You haven't read a bible at all. You don't know the scriptures.
FYI I was raised Baptist, and spent the first 20 years of my life drinking the Kool-Aid. During that time, I studied scripture extensively, thank you very much, which is how I became aware of the contradictions within it - such as how certain things were created on different days across Genesis 1 & 2. The answers I received from my Pastor and various church leaders actually backfired on their part, and made me realize just how many instances of inconsistency there were in the Bible, which is what ultimately led to my leaving the Church.
Anyway, next time you want to say something about what someone else does or doesn't know, make sure your punk-a** claims actually can hold some water.
That was a very informative and entertaining read.
Arcoon Effox
Intellectual Combatant
11,225 Points
-
100
-
175
-
100
Arcoon Effox
LoveLoud837
My friend, the 'bible contradictions' are not bible contradictions.
Unless... Do you have a special name for Biblical contradictions? Is that what you meant?
LoveLoud837
You haven't picked up a bible yourself to find these, you relied on someone else to find them for you...
I'd wager that you've visited numerous Evangelical websites; does anything you've learned and/or quoted from them "not count" because you didn't learn about whatever solely on your own...?
LoveLoud837
...and they aren't contradictions.
The Nativity
A - Jesus' genealogy
Matthew and Luke present two different genealogical lines for Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ), the former listing 26 names between David and Jesus, and the latter listing 41. The two books also are contradictory on the issue of who Joseph's father was. Matthew 1:16 tells us that "Jacob was the father of Joseph", but according to Luke 3:23, Joseph is said to be "the son of Heli."
Apologists try to counter this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though it explicitly states otherwise in Luke 3:23, and that ignores the fact that there are no lists of female genaeologies elsewhere, is because women did not count when reckoning descent in the Bible. The reason for this is because at that time it was believed that the complete human was present in the father's "seed", and that the woman's womb was just the soil in which it was "planted". Ultimately, this means that the argument that Luke was saying that Jesus could be descended from David through Mary just doesn't mesh with the source material, and that this is a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the apologists who first made and continue to perpetuate this claim.
B - The Angel's Message
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, he tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son... yet we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. Later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
C - The Time
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible, because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later... However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor". In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. (There's also the fact that Roman censuses simply didn't work the way that they're described in the narrative. More on that in a minute.)
D - The Place
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they don't agree on much else at all. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth (in Galilee) to Bethlehem (in Judea) for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Forty days and a quick trip to the local Temple later, they return to "their own city" of Nazareth.
Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that the young couple already lived in Bethlehem, and that it was only after the birth of Jesus (and a sojourn to Egypt) that Mary and Joseph came to live in Nazareth (Matthew 2:21-23). Why did they go to Egypt? Well, Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. However, ancient historians (such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes), do not mention what would have been considered one of Herod's greater atrocities. It simply didn't happen... which is probably why none of the other gospels make mention of it.
Apologists (as usual) claim that the two stories are totally congruent... but in order for that to be the case, the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight, stay, and return from Egypt all must occur within that forty day period.
Also, about that census... In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where their ancestors were born - which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.
Matthew and Luke present two different genealogical lines for Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ), the former listing 26 names between David and Jesus, and the latter listing 41. The two books also are contradictory on the issue of who Joseph's father was. Matthew 1:16 tells us that "Jacob was the father of Joseph", but according to Luke 3:23, Joseph is said to be "the son of Heli."
Apologists try to counter this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though it explicitly states otherwise in Luke 3:23, and that ignores the fact that there are no lists of female genaeologies elsewhere, is because women did not count when reckoning descent in the Bible. The reason for this is because at that time it was believed that the complete human was present in the father's "seed", and that the woman's womb was just the soil in which it was "planted". Ultimately, this means that the argument that Luke was saying that Jesus could be descended from David through Mary just doesn't mesh with the source material, and that this is a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the apologists who first made and continue to perpetuate this claim.
B - The Angel's Message
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, he tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son... yet we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. Later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
C - The Time
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible, because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later... However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor". In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. (There's also the fact that Roman censuses simply didn't work the way that they're described in the narrative. More on that in a minute.)
D - The Place
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they don't agree on much else at all. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth (in Galilee) to Bethlehem (in Judea) for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Forty days and a quick trip to the local Temple later, they return to "their own city" of Nazareth.
Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that the young couple already lived in Bethlehem, and that it was only after the birth of Jesus (and a sojourn to Egypt) that Mary and Joseph came to live in Nazareth (Matthew 2:21-23). Why did they go to Egypt? Well, Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. However, ancient historians (such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes), do not mention what would have been considered one of Herod's greater atrocities. It simply didn't happen... which is probably why none of the other gospels make mention of it.
Apologists (as usual) claim that the two stories are totally congruent... but in order for that to be the case, the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight, stay, and return from Egypt all must occur within that forty day period.
Also, about that census... In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where their ancestors were born - which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.
The Trial, Death, and Resurrection
A - The Trial(s)
(Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals... but I digress.)
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54), but John (as usual) has a different version of things, saying that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Nobody seems to agree on when the various priests and scribes met to question Jesus. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested. Finally, John only mentions the high priest; no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus in his version of things.
When it comes to whether or not Jesus was brought before Herod, Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11), whereas the others do not. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies... but what do the gospels claim he was on trial for? Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder, but John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a thief.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob, which is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them into submission, often killing them. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned him over to his soldiers to be crucified, they placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus, as well as a crown of thorns. Here's where that contradiction from earlier comes into play: Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier, by Herod and his soldiers. Luke also mentions no crown of thorns.
B - Matthew's zombies
While not exactly a contradiction, this one deserves attention due to its sheer incredulity of the claim (much like his story about Herod ordering all those kids to be killed). According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus woke up three days later, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
If a bunch of people came back to life and were seen by many people, you'd think that would have created quite a stir, yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening; historians of that time certainly know nothing of it, and neither do the other gospel writers.
C - The Resurrection
So, just who all was there when the tomb was found empty? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 states "the women who had come with him out of Galilee" were all there; among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke 24:10 indicates that there were at least two others there as well. Finally, John 20:1-4 tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned with him and another disciple. So, we have four gospels, and four different versions of things.
Well, what did they see there? According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with "an appearance like lightning" was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. (The women also encounter Jesus on the way back from the tomb, in verse 9 of the same chapter.) Mark 16:5 says, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:4 indicates that there were two men in dazzling apparel, but it is not clear on whether they were inside the tomb or outside of it. Finally, John 20:4-14 tells us that Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings that were on the body. As Peter and the other disciple leave, Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to see Jesus. Huh... Again, all four writers tell a different version of things.
Lastly, who did the women tell about the empty tomb? Matthew, Luke and John all have the them telling the disciples about it, with Luke elaborating slightly by having them tell "all the rest" as well. Mark 16:8, however, says that "they said nothing to anyone."
Also, Fun Fact: The latter half of Mark's version of the resurrection story was added later, by someone other than the original author.
The Ascension
While not strictly to do with the gospels, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that according to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection, contrary to what is said in Acts 1:9-12, which says that it took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Given that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, that makes this contradiction extra special.
(Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals... but I digress.)
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54), but John (as usual) has a different version of things, saying that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Nobody seems to agree on when the various priests and scribes met to question Jesus. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested. Finally, John only mentions the high priest; no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus in his version of things.
When it comes to whether or not Jesus was brought before Herod, Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11), whereas the others do not. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies... but what do the gospels claim he was on trial for? Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder, but John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a thief.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob, which is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them into submission, often killing them. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned him over to his soldiers to be crucified, they placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus, as well as a crown of thorns. Here's where that contradiction from earlier comes into play: Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier, by Herod and his soldiers. Luke also mentions no crown of thorns.
B - Matthew's zombies
While not exactly a contradiction, this one deserves attention due to its sheer incredulity of the claim (much like his story about Herod ordering all those kids to be killed). According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus woke up three days later, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
If a bunch of people came back to life and were seen by many people, you'd think that would have created quite a stir, yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening; historians of that time certainly know nothing of it, and neither do the other gospel writers.
C - The Resurrection
So, just who all was there when the tomb was found empty? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 states "the women who had come with him out of Galilee" were all there; among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke 24:10 indicates that there were at least two others there as well. Finally, John 20:1-4 tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned with him and another disciple. So, we have four gospels, and four different versions of things.
Well, what did they see there? According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with "an appearance like lightning" was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. (The women also encounter Jesus on the way back from the tomb, in verse 9 of the same chapter.) Mark 16:5 says, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:4 indicates that there were two men in dazzling apparel, but it is not clear on whether they were inside the tomb or outside of it. Finally, John 20:4-14 tells us that Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings that were on the body. As Peter and the other disciple leave, Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to see Jesus. Huh... Again, all four writers tell a different version of things.
Lastly, who did the women tell about the empty tomb? Matthew, Luke and John all have the them telling the disciples about it, with Luke elaborating slightly by having them tell "all the rest" as well. Mark 16:8, however, says that "they said nothing to anyone."
Also, Fun Fact: The latter half of Mark's version of the resurrection story was added later, by someone other than the original author.
The Ascension
While not strictly to do with the gospels, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that according to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection, contrary to what is said in Acts 1:9-12, which says that it took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Given that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, that makes this contradiction extra special.
Bonus Section
(These are just some extra little things that I found while gathering info.)
The Unchangeable Law
According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.
No signs, one sign, or many signs?
At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign. In Mark 8:12, Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation". In contradiction to Mark, Matthew 12:39 has Jesus tell them that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah; Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a fish, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:
* John 2:11 gives us the Beginning (or First) Sign, when he turned water into wine.
* John 4:54 gives us the second, which is the healing at Caepernum.
* John 6:2 tells us that many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing"
That damned fig tree
After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem, he sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21). First, since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree in the first place - and seriously, what kind of d**k move is that? "Stupid tree! How dare you not have any fruit for me! Die!" ...but anyway, Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered; In Matthew, the tree withers at once, and the disciples even comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20), but in Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).
The Apostle Paul's conversion
While not one of the gospels, Acts was written by the same guy who wrote Luke, and he contradicted himself about the ascension across the two books. Well, he does it again with the story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, as Acts contains three - count 'em, three - accounts of the story, and all of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice", Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice", and Acts 26:14 says they "had all fallen to the ground".
Jesus calls the Disciples
In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.
In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.
In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.
LoveLoud837
You post them as if they are and say ha! Like that does nothing.
LoveLoud837
I'm saying that you pick up a bible and you find these yourself.
LoveLoud837
You haven't read a bible at all. You don't know the scriptures.
FYI I was raised Baptist, and spent the first 20 years of my life drinking the Kool-Aid. During that time, I studied scripture extensively, thank you very much, which is how I became aware of the contradictions within it - such as how certain things were created on different days across Genesis 1 & 2. The answers I received from my Pastor and various church leaders actually backfired on their part, and made me realize just how many instances of inconsistency there were in the Bible, which is what ultimately led to my leaving the Church.
Anyway, next time you want to say something about what someone else does or doesn't know, make sure your punk-a** claims actually can hold some water.
The Legendary Guest
That was a very informative and entertaining read.
Aw, thanks... Naturally, the intended recipient will just reject it out of hand without even really looking at it, but it's nice to know that someone read it.
Lightning the Lulu
Eloquent Inquisitor
18,500 Points
-
400
-
200
-
500
Arcoon Effox
Arcoon Effox
LoveLoud837
My friend, the 'bible contradictions' are not bible contradictions.
Unless... Do you have a special name for Biblical contradictions? Is that what you meant?
LoveLoud837
You haven't picked up a bible yourself to find these, you relied on someone else to find them for you...
I'd wager that you've visited numerous Evangelical websites; does anything you've learned and/or quoted from them "not count" because you didn't learn about whatever solely on your own...?
LoveLoud837
...and they aren't contradictions.
The Nativity
A - Jesus' genealogy
Matthew and Luke present two different genealogical lines for Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ), the former listing 26 names between David and Jesus, and the latter listing 41. The two books also are contradictory on the issue of who Joseph's father was. Matthew 1:16 tells us that "Jacob was the father of Joseph", but according to Luke 3:23, Joseph is said to be "the son of Heli."
Apologists try to counter this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though it explicitly states otherwise in Luke 3:23, and that ignores the fact that there are no lists of female genaeologies elsewhere, is because women did not count when reckoning descent in the Bible. The reason for this is because at that time it was believed that the complete human was present in the father's "seed", and that the woman's womb was just the soil in which it was "planted". Ultimately, this means that the argument that Luke was saying that Jesus could be descended from David through Mary just doesn't mesh with the source material, and that this is a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the apologists who first made and continue to perpetuate this claim.
B - The Angel's Message
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, he tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son... yet we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. Later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
C - The Time
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible, because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later... However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor". In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. (There's also the fact that Roman censuses simply didn't work the way that they're described in the narrative. More on that in a minute.)
D - The Place
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they don't agree on much else at all. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth (in Galilee) to Bethlehem (in Judea) for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Forty days and a quick trip to the local Temple later, they return to "their own city" of Nazareth.
Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that the young couple already lived in Bethlehem, and that it was only after the birth of Jesus (and a sojourn to Egypt) that Mary and Joseph came to live in Nazareth (Matthew 2:21-23). Why did they go to Egypt? Well, Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. However, ancient historians (such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes), do not mention what would have been considered one of Herod's greater atrocities. It simply didn't happen... which is probably why none of the other gospels make mention of it.
Apologists (as usual) claim that the two stories are totally congruent... but in order for that to be the case, the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight, stay, and return from Egypt all must occur within that forty day period.
Also, about that census... In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where their ancestors were born - which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.
Matthew and Luke present two different genealogical lines for Jesus (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 ), the former listing 26 names between David and Jesus, and the latter listing 41. The two books also are contradictory on the issue of who Joseph's father was. Matthew 1:16 tells us that "Jacob was the father of Joseph", but according to Luke 3:23, Joseph is said to be "the son of Heli."
Apologists try to counter this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though it explicitly states otherwise in Luke 3:23, and that ignores the fact that there are no lists of female genaeologies elsewhere, is because women did not count when reckoning descent in the Bible. The reason for this is because at that time it was believed that the complete human was present in the father's "seed", and that the woman's womb was just the soil in which it was "planted". Ultimately, this means that the argument that Luke was saying that Jesus could be descended from David through Mary just doesn't mesh with the source material, and that this is a blatant piece of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the apologists who first made and continue to perpetuate this claim.
B - The Angel's Message
In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, he tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son... yet we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. Later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household.
C - The Time
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible, because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later... However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor". In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. (There's also the fact that Roman censuses simply didn't work the way that they're described in the narrative. More on that in a minute.)
D - The Place
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but they don't agree on much else at all. Luke has Mary and Joseph traveling from their home in Nazareth (in Galilee) to Bethlehem (in Judea) for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Forty days and a quick trip to the local Temple later, they return to "their own city" of Nazareth.
Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that the young couple already lived in Bethlehem, and that it was only after the birth of Jesus (and a sojourn to Egypt) that Mary and Joseph came to live in Nazareth (Matthew 2:21-23). Why did they go to Egypt? Well, Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs. However, ancient historians (such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes), do not mention what would have been considered one of Herod's greater atrocities. It simply didn't happen... which is probably why none of the other gospels make mention of it.
Apologists (as usual) claim that the two stories are totally congruent... but in order for that to be the case, the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight, stay, and return from Egypt all must occur within that forty day period.
Also, about that census... In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where their ancestors were born - which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel.
The Trial, Death, and Resurrection
A - The Trial(s)
(Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals... but I digress.)
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54), but John (as usual) has a different version of things, saying that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Nobody seems to agree on when the various priests and scribes met to question Jesus. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested. Finally, John only mentions the high priest; no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus in his version of things.
When it comes to whether or not Jesus was brought before Herod, Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11), whereas the others do not. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies... but what do the gospels claim he was on trial for? Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder, but John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a thief.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob, which is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them into submission, often killing them. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned him over to his soldiers to be crucified, they placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus, as well as a crown of thorns. Here's where that contradiction from earlier comes into play: Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier, by Herod and his soldiers. Luke also mentions no crown of thorns.
B - Matthew's zombies
While not exactly a contradiction, this one deserves attention due to its sheer incredulity of the claim (much like his story about Herod ordering all those kids to be killed). According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus woke up three days later, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
If a bunch of people came back to life and were seen by many people, you'd think that would have created quite a stir, yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening; historians of that time certainly know nothing of it, and neither do the other gospel writers.
C - The Resurrection
So, just who all was there when the tomb was found empty? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 states "the women who had come with him out of Galilee" were all there; among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke 24:10 indicates that there were at least two others there as well. Finally, John 20:1-4 tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned with him and another disciple. So, we have four gospels, and four different versions of things.
Well, what did they see there? According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with "an appearance like lightning" was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. (The women also encounter Jesus on the way back from the tomb, in verse 9 of the same chapter.) Mark 16:5 says, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:4 indicates that there were two men in dazzling apparel, but it is not clear on whether they were inside the tomb or outside of it. Finally, John 20:4-14 tells us that Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings that were on the body. As Peter and the other disciple leave, Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to see Jesus. Huh... Again, all four writers tell a different version of things.
Lastly, who did the women tell about the empty tomb? Matthew, Luke and John all have the them telling the disciples about it, with Luke elaborating slightly by having them tell "all the rest" as well. Mark 16:8, however, says that "they said nothing to anyone."
Also, Fun Fact: The latter half of Mark's version of the resurrection story was added later, by someone other than the original author.
The Ascension
While not strictly to do with the gospels, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that according to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection, contrary to what is said in Acts 1:9-12, which says that it took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Given that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, that makes this contradiction extra special.
(Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals... but I digress.)
Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54), but John (as usual) has a different version of things, saying that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
Nobody seems to agree on when the various priests and scribes met to question Jesus. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested. Finally, John only mentions the high priest; no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus in his version of things.
When it comes to whether or not Jesus was brought before Herod, Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11), whereas the others do not. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies... but what do the gospels claim he was on trial for? Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder, but John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a thief.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob, which is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them into submission, often killing them. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.
Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned him over to his soldiers to be crucified, they placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus, as well as a crown of thorns. Here's where that contradiction from earlier comes into play: Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier, by Herod and his soldiers. Luke also mentions no crown of thorns.
B - Matthew's zombies
While not exactly a contradiction, this one deserves attention due to its sheer incredulity of the claim (much like his story about Herod ordering all those kids to be killed). According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus woke up three days later, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.
If a bunch of people came back to life and were seen by many people, you'd think that would have created quite a stir, yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening; historians of that time certainly know nothing of it, and neither do the other gospel writers.
C - The Resurrection
So, just who all was there when the tomb was found empty? According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10 states "the women who had come with him out of Galilee" were all there; among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke 24:10 indicates that there were at least two others there as well. Finally, John 20:1-4 tells us that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned with him and another disciple. So, we have four gospels, and four different versions of things.
Well, what did they see there? According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with "an appearance like lightning" was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. (The women also encounter Jesus on the way back from the tomb, in verse 9 of the same chapter.) Mark 16:5 says, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb. Luke 24:4 indicates that there were two men in dazzling apparel, but it is not clear on whether they were inside the tomb or outside of it. Finally, John 20:4-14 tells us that Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings that were on the body. As Peter and the other disciple leave, Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to see Jesus. Huh... Again, all four writers tell a different version of things.
Lastly, who did the women tell about the empty tomb? Matthew, Luke and John all have the them telling the disciples about it, with Luke elaborating slightly by having them tell "all the rest" as well. Mark 16:8, however, says that "they said nothing to anyone."
Also, Fun Fact: The latter half of Mark's version of the resurrection story was added later, by someone other than the original author.
The Ascension
While not strictly to do with the gospels, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that according to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection, contrary to what is said in Acts 1:9-12, which says that it took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection. Given that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, that makes this contradiction extra special.
Bonus Section
(These are just some extra little things that I found while gathering info.)
The Unchangeable Law
According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.
No signs, one sign, or many signs?
At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign. In Mark 8:12, Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation". In contradiction to Mark, Matthew 12:39 has Jesus tell them that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah; Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a fish, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:
* John 2:11 gives us the Beginning (or First) Sign, when he turned water into wine.
* John 4:54 gives us the second, which is the healing at Caepernum.
* John 6:2 tells us that many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing"
That damned fig tree
After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem, he sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21). First, since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree in the first place - and seriously, what kind of d**k move is that? "Stupid tree! How dare you not have any fruit for me! Die!" ...but anyway, Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered; In Matthew, the tree withers at once, and the disciples even comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20), but in Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).
The Apostle Paul's conversion
While not one of the gospels, Acts was written by the same guy who wrote Luke, and he contradicted himself about the ascension across the two books. Well, he does it again with the story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, as Acts contains three - count 'em, three - accounts of the story, and all of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice", Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice", and Acts 26:14 says they "had all fallen to the ground".
Jesus calls the Disciples
In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.
In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.
In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.
LoveLoud837
You post them as if they are and say ha! Like that does nothing.
LoveLoud837
I'm saying that you pick up a bible and you find these yourself.
LoveLoud837
You haven't read a bible at all. You don't know the scriptures.
FYI I was raised Baptist, and spent the first 20 years of my life drinking the Kool-Aid. During that time, I studied scripture extensively, thank you very much, which is how I became aware of the contradictions within it - such as how certain things were created on different days across Genesis 1 & 2. The answers I received from my Pastor and various church leaders actually backfired on their part, and made me realize just how many instances of inconsistency there were in the Bible, which is what ultimately led to my leaving the Church.
Anyway, next time you want to say something about what someone else does or doesn't know, make sure your punk-a** claims actually can hold some water.
The Legendary Guest
That was a very informative and entertaining read.
Aw, thanks... Naturally, the intended recipient will just reject it out of hand without even really looking at it, but it's nice to know that someone read it.
I'm under the impression that he doesn't actually read what any of us post for comprehension to begin with. I realize he thinks he's "defending his faith" (whatever the ******** that actually means) but then you already knew that too.
Arcoon Effox
Intellectual Combatant
11,225 Points
-
100
-
175
-
100
Lightning the Lulu
Eloquent Inquisitor
18,500 Points
-
400
-
200
-
500