Why do gospel contradictions matter?

[Brakeman]

Here are a few answers to digest.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

Or if you like you can pick say, 5 and we can go over them.

I did a search on that sight for "god's magic Foo-Foo dust" and got no hits. How can it explain the bible without explaining the MAGIC WOO???

[Minimalist]

Tektonics is J P Holding's site and he is an even dumber fuck than you, drippy. Except, he makes a lot of money by telling shitheads like you what you want to hear. In that, he is far more successful than you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here are few pages of contradictions to chew on:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

Here are a few answers to digest.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

Or if you like you can pick say, 5 and we can go over them.

A few more here:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Yeah, I think they had 'a skeptics annotated bible Answered' a week after the sab came out.
http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/

It's good of you to acknowledge the incoherence of your holy book.

Looking forward to you taking the next step and beginning to ask questions.

Following that, you might even grow a pair and start looking for answers.

Okay, okay, baby steps.

---

Tektonics is J P Holding's site and he is an even dumber fuck than you, drippy. Except, he makes a lot of money by telling shitheads like you what you want to hear. In that, he is far more successful than you.

I heard that Stevie Wonder blinded himself after reading a Drich post.

Just sayin'.

[Minimalist]

Should have gone and beaten the shit out of drippy. Would have been more useful!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Should have gone and beaten the shit out of drippy. Would have been more useful!

Nah, he's a speedbag, designed to take punches, and only useful for training on the absolute basics.

[Drich]

Here are a few answers to digest.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

Or if you like you can pick say, 5 and we can go over them.

Explanations for why there are contradictions, do not cause those contradictions to cease to exist. And there are very good explanations for why there are contradictions: muddled accounts passed down through multiple story tellers; theologically driven changes and additions; made up material; language barriers between the story tellers; and so on.

The explanations attempting to explain that there are no contradictions tend to be more complex and unbelievable than the contradictions themselves.

Your citation is to a mixture of the two.

To answer a contradiction does indeed eliminate the contradiction.

In 90% of all supposed of biblical contradiction perception is the cause. Grant a more diverse understanding of the subject and the contradiction goes away. In the other 10% of supposed contradictions, simple education and a understanding of how translation works eliminates said contradiction.

[YGninja]

You got Tacitus relaying Christus the founder of the Chrsitian faith being crucified by Pontius Pilate, "great multitides" being convicted of being Christian and murdered for not relinquishing their faith. Opponents of Christianity, not denying Christ or his miracles, but rather attributing them to the works of demons, or magic tricks.

Tacitus wrote "Chrestianos," dummy, if he wrote anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_...of_MII.png


This change to "christianos" was made by an unknown 11th century scribe who probably thought he was improving the spelling.

Try again.

Are you trying to make an argument with that? What is the affect of this supposed argument?

[Cyberman]

That the word in Tacitus meaning "the good" - Chrestianos - has since been altered to Christianos - "the Christians", as this UV imaging of the original manuscript revealed:



If Tacitus had intended to use that word, surely he would have done so. There should have been no need and certainly no excuse to forge evidence.

[robvalue]

Is it just me that finds these forgeries absolutely hilarious?

[Ravenshire]

Imagine you are a policeman attending the aftermath of a supposed armed robbery of a shop. If all of the cashiers claimed the masked man entered the building at precisely 20:47, would you be more or less suspicious about their story than if they had given slightly varying times? "10 to 9", "about quarter to 9", "just before closing time at 9"...??
The differences are natural and demonstrate that there wasn't a conspiracy to invent the entire story.

The buy-bull "eye-witness" testimonies are more like this.
Witness 1: The robber came in about a quarter to nine, just before we closed last night.
Witness 2: Bullshit, it happened at 9:15, just after we opened yesterday.
Witness 3: Guys, it happened sometime last week.
Witness 4: We got robbed? Oh yeah, but that was a month ago.

Besides, even if you actually had first hand accounts, so the fuck what. Eye-witness testimony alone is worthless. Despite Wiggy's claim, no-one gets convicted on eye-witness testimony alone. If that's all the DA has, he won't even take it to trial.