Why do gospel contradictions matter?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is it just me that finds these forgeries absolutely hilarious?

Nothing says "universal truth" quite like erasures.

[Norman Humann]

Nothing says "universal truth" quite like erasures.

And on the third day, god made a typo.

[Cyberman]

Wouldn't be the last time either. Go and sin on more.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wouldn't be the last time either. Go and sin on more.

... and those were the innocent mistakes.

[Cyberman]

Nah, it was Santa Stan Satan.

[robvalue]

When you think of those few relatively recent typos which utterly change the meaning of the text, can you imagine how warped the text became in the years where every new copy had to be written out by hand?

[downbeatplumb]

When you think of those few relatively recent typos which utterly change the meaning of the text, can you imagine how warped the text became in the years where every new copy had to be written out by hand?

Even the printed ones sometimes had errors.

My favourite is the "wicked bible" which missed out the word "not" in thou shalt not commit adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

[robvalue]

Awesome! Well, if you get ahold of one of those, you're golden.

---

Wow, on that same website there's some figures. Not sure how current they are, but it says about 60% of american adults believe in the creation story and Noah's ark as fact. Small sample size though.

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/ft.../holybible

[goodwithoutgod]

Isn't the three F's of religion fun? Fiction, forgery and fantasy.

The top 10 verses that were not originally in the New Testament


It seems that some of the most familiar verses of the New Testament were not originally part of the text, but were added by later scribes. The scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of earlier centuries. Some of the best-known English editions of the New Testament, such as the King James Bible, were based not on early manuscripts, but later ones, these verses became part of the Bible tradition in English speaking lands.

1 John 5:7 - there are three that bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

John 8:7 – let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.

John 8:11 – neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

Luke 22:44 – in his anguish Jesus began to pray more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.

Luke 22:20 – and in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

Mark 16:17 – these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.

Mark 16:18 – and they will take up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any poison it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.

John 5:4 – for an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool and disturbed the waters; and whoever was the first to step in when the water was disturbed was healed of whatever disease he had.

Luke 24:12 – but Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.

Luke 24:51 – and when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.

Speaking of Mark; All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Work Cited:

Ehrman, Bart. Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why. New York, Harper Collins. 2005. Print.


To the OP: A couple of thoughts guide me to dismiss the fairy tale....one, no one who wrote of jesus, knew him...two, the synoptic gospels were not written by whom, or even when xtian tradition teaches, three, as you said, the anonymous authors of mark wrote their fairy tale first, the anonymous authors who wrote Matthew and Luke based their delusions from Mark, and the johannine community that wrote john were drinking some different kool aid...none of which match, or were written by actual witnesses, thus all hearsay...and you know how people LOVE to tell a good story, and embellish one with each telling...


Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

 

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...



The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

 

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

 

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

 

 

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay.  

 

Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

[dyresand]

Nah, it was Santa Stan Satan.