Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels

[Mudhammam]

Nothing inherently dangerous in that rationale or anything.

Continual questioning of your ideas is always healthy I thought.

Yes, of course. But that's not what you said (nice try though). You said "faith," which by its definition does not allow for honest evaluation of the validity of faith itself. If by "continually questioning" your faith, which is your unsubstantiated or irrational convictions, it grows stronger, you have not asked yourself the proper questions. One a person might begin with is, "Why should I value faith over skepticism?" Or "Why value faith at all?"

---

Kudos to the above.

Historians look for things like divergence in details and similitude in major events. This is what you expect to find if multiple people are writing accounts of a series of events.

So actually instead of serving to discredit the gospels, incidents like the one in question serve only to substantiate it.

Now you're arguing that the Gospels are not perfect but may contain some minor (or major, in the case of Jesus' birth narratives) contradictions that help to bolster their credibility?

[discipulus]

Continual questioning of your ideas is always healthy I thought.

Yes, of course. But that's not what you said (nice try though). You said "faith," which by its definition does not allow for honest evaluation of the validity of faith itself. If by "continually questioning" your faith, which is your unsubstantiated or irrational convictions, it grows stronger, you have not asked yourself the proper questions. One a person might begin with is, "Why should I value faith over skepticism?" Or "Why value faith at all?"

---

Kudos to the above.

Historians look for things like divergence in details and similitude in major events. This is what you expect to find if multiple people are writing accounts of a series of events.

So actually instead of serving to discredit the gospels, incidents like the one in question serve only to substantiate it.

Now you're arguing that the Gospels are not perfect but may contain some minor (or major, in the case of Jesus' birth narratives) contradictions that help to bolster their credibility?

Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.

To me, when I say I have faith in God, that simply means I trust Him because He has proven on numerous occasions that He is trustworthy. Therefore my faith is rationally justifiable based on my prior observations of God's trustworthiness.

If you think faith is something different then fine.

[Mudhammam]

Yes, of course. But that's not what you said (nice try though). You said "faith," which by its definition does not allow for honest evaluation of the validity of faith itself. If by "continually questioning" your faith, which is your unsubstantiated or irrational convictions, it grows stronger, you have not asked yourself the proper questions. One a person might begin with is, "Why should I value faith over skepticism?" Or "Why value faith at all?"

---

Now you're arguing that the Gospels are not perfect but may contain some minor (or major, in the case of Jesus' birth narratives) contradictions that help to bolster their credibility?

Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.

Except that the two Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth are completely different with exception to a few basics (Jesus' parents were named Joseph and Mary, angel appeared to her).

[Bad Writer]

Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.

Oh, so that's how they do it in a court of law. Thank you for that clarification.

[discipulus]

Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.

Except that the two Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth are completely different with exception to a few basics (Jesus' parents were named Joseph and Mary, angel appeared to her).

You cannot say the gospels are "completely different and then say "except"..

The except negates the completely.

And so what if they were completely different? Different and contradictory are not the same.

Now if you have a contradiction to point out then do so. Differences in details do not necessarily equate to contradictions in details.

You want them to be contradictory so bad, but why? So you can feel justified in dismissing the gospels?

You do not need a reason to do that. Just dismiss them as rubbish and move on. Just say you do not care if they are true or not. Anything but these feeble attempts at making them contradictory when they are not.

---

Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.

Oh, so that's how they do it in a court of law. Thank you for that clarification.

Yes they do.

Congruent yet independent accounts of a crime can be seen as evidence of collusion between the eyewitnesses. That is why investigators look for divergence in details but similarity in the major points. The divergence signifies that each individual is reporting what they saw in their own words (which is not going to be exactly the same as what another records) and the similitude of reports on the major points, i.e. that a man was shot in the head by a woman gives credence to their claims as eyewitnesses.

Accept it or leave it.

[fr0d0]

Continual questioning of your ideas is always healthy I thought.

Yes, of course. But that's not what you said (nice try though). You said "faith," which by its definition does not allow for honest evaluation of the validity of faith itself. If by "continually questioning" your faith, which is your unsubstantiated or irrational convictions, it grows stronger, you have not asked yourself the proper questions. One a person might begin with is, "Why should I value faith over skepticism?" Or "Why value faith at all?"

Haha honest to you is of course downright lie to me. But I don't mind you preaching to me

One might educate oneself about what faith actually means in the Christian context before one pontificates about it.

[Esquilax]

You cannot say the gospels are "completely different and then say "except"..

The except negates the completely.

"This cup is completely filled with urine, except for the few drops of wine I added to the top."

Since "except" in sentence structures like this one "completely negate" what has come before, my question to you is: would you drink from the cup?

Or would you recognize that the word "except" has a use, and that use is to describe that the list of things following it are to be taken as an exception to the preceding statement, and not an invalidation of that statement?

[*Deidre*]

I guess the difficulty I personally have with the authenticity of the bible, other than the obvious issues with it, is that there is truly no independent evidence or verification of authorship or dating of the books included in the bible. Even historians are guessing, surmising. If you have ten "scholars" in the room, you'll get ten different answers. Even if they're subtly different.

So, that's one of the main problems I have with taking the Bible as a reliable history marker. (Putting aside the religious aspect of it for a moment)

[heathendegenerate]

i think he was just being funny.. THE CLINCHER. lol yep, that did it for me, too. to hell with christianity! this makes it all so much..so much more stupid... so much more stupid.

[discipulus]

I guess the difficulty I personally have with the authenticity of the bible, other than the obvious issues with it, is that there is truly no independent evidence or verification of authorship or dating of the books included in the bible. Even historians are guessing, surmising. If you have ten "scholars" in the room, you'll get ten different answers. Even if they're subtly different.

So, that's one of the main problems I have with taking the Bible as a reliable history marker. (Putting aside the religious aspect of it for a moment)

Then you should be a historical skeptic with regards to every piece of ancient literature, not just the Bible.