Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
More contradictions between John and the Synoptics
These are great Lee. If anyone wants to help please do. I'm kinda busy at work. But we'll get through all these.
I've been thinking about these all week Lee. I haven't forgotten. Just living in my Transport truck away from a computer.I'm curious Lee: have you looked at the possible explanations for these contradictions already? Or are you just accepting them as contradictions without researching their defenses?
No, I don't see a need to research defenses, Rod, I don't see why any of them need "defending." To me, they're just contradictions, pure and simple.This is not meant in any derogatory way; not at all! Differences make the Bible more real. The Bible makes a lot more sense to me, and I can appreciate it a whole lot more, when I award each of the authors a mind of their own.
Let me get this straight:You claim to be a Christian, you are denying over a thousand years of Christian theology, you are defying Biblical teachings and traditions of centuries, you wrote a book on the Bible..........................
And you never looked at the defenses already laid down by historic Christianity?
AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLrighty then. Now that we got that clear.
When i find a supposed problem or contradiction in the Bible the first thing I do is check what the Bible teachers I trust have to say about them. That is why we have centuries of commentaries. The Bible is God's masterpiece. God is not playing by OUR rules. Just reading the Bible shows us that.
I'll poke at these contradictions later. Wow! Do you hate me yet Lee? Soon...
;) I don't doubt that it took a thousand years to come up with some of these unnecessary reconciliations, lol.Question: Can you give me a good reason why there shouldn't be any contradictions in the Bible? They're differences of opinion, not problems. Why is it so important to try to figure out ways to make all the texts compatible? What do you feel like you're defending by requiring conformity between all Bible contributors? What a dull world it would be if we all thought or believed the same way.
Wow...Lee! I didn't think you'd hit me with this. Good stuff. I'm glad neither of us appear to be emotional and insecure - that would be messy.Lee quote:
" Can you give me a good reason why there shouldn't be any contradictions in the Bible? "
If the Word of God has contradictions and serious problems: then it's either NOT the word of God - or our God is lazy, confusing, not trustworthy and not thorough enough for us to put our faith into.
Lee quote:
" What a dull world it would be if we all thought or believed the same way."
What a dull God we would have if he was not perfect and capable of keeping his Word consistent for all believer's to read.
____________________________________________________
In order for us to defend or share God's Word and Truth with people: we first have to have it. And If it ain't truth: Don't share it, and don't defend it.
This now brings us to your camp: If we are only to have simplified lovey random thoughts and possible truths of Jesus - Why bother to share them? How do we even know what sin is? If the Bible isn't clear - then neither is sin...so don't worry about it. In your view God certainly doesn't.
There will be no judgement at all if there is no truthful law. Just random likes and dislikes.
Your God is not sovereign. So why worship him or depend on him?
__________________________________________________
Having said all that: I now ask MYSELF what the specifics are to the generations that did not have the entire written word of God. But through the Old Testament you can see how God steered his truth through his chosen people and Prophets.
I'm very sure that God's basic truth is easily evident even without his Bible in someone's hands. We have and will always need a Savior.
If the Word of God has contradictions and serious problems: then it's either NOT the word of God - or our God is lazy, confusing, not trustworthy and not thorough enough for us to put our faith into.While I don't consider the contradictions "serious problems," I think you're standing on shaky ground. You are basically saying that if a contradiction exists in the Bible that it is worthless...and more than that, that God is worthless.
Question: Does anybody here besides Rod believe there are no contradictions in the Bible? No? Does that mean Rod is the only one here that believes in God?
Be careful Lee that you don't assume Rod (me!) does not think there are many problems with the Bible. Lots of problems - however, all those problems reflect man and not God. God gave us his Word in its original form. All of our translations are messy attempts at continuing that word to future generations and cultures. No translation is perfect (far as I know).
I do think that God is more than good enough to properly preserve his word (even through our messes and screwed up translations).
People can believe in God and possible contradictions - But to me it just means they haven't done their homework yet.
______________________________________________________
Lee quote:
"Question: Does anybody here besides Rod believe there are no contradictions in the Bible?"
Let me make it even harder:
"How many people here think so little of God that they doubt he is capable of giving us absolutely truthful Words to build our hope and faith upon?"
(we'll get to these contradictions soon Lee - this is fun though!)
God seems to allow a lot, Rod. Who is to say what He should and should not allow?How many here think so little of God that they doubt he is capable of stopping cancer?
I vote we start with the facts, and work from there. Cancer exists in the world. Contradictions exist in the Bible. Like good apologists, we should perhaps be offering explanations for this, instead of burying our heads and pretending cancer and contradictions don't exist.
I am with Rod in thinking that the Bible does not have any contradictions from beginning to the end. I see the change in style across the writers of the Bible, but I believe it is necessary to believe the Bible is without fault. Different writers will stress different events, but the collection of all the events (as spread across all four gospels concerning Jesus' ministry on earth) must provide us a picture that is useful, not necessarily faultless on the first read. The Bible does say that the nature cannot understand the things of the Spirit - which is to say that thinking is not enough.As opposed to Rod, I will probably be of little use to make the contradictions go away.
Pavlo, you doubt even simple and obvious ones like the above about what day Jesus was anointed?Maybe they need to be more obvious. I would assume this contradiction is of the "undeniable" sort:
http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/1...
Okay, hopefully i have some time today to chat about these. (if they don't call me into work?!)Lee quote:
"I vote we start with the facts, and work from there. Cancer exists in the world. Contradictions exist in the Bible. Like good apologists, we should perhaps be offering explanations for this"
Fair enough. Except you are being too specific: we should say that sickness exists in the world and language problems exist in the Bible.
Not all sickness is cancer/not all problems are contradictions. So we need to allow for possibilities.
I enjoy worst case scenarios: so...
The Bible is not trustworthy - worst case. Neither is God then, not when it comes to his written word. This affects all of the meanings in the entire Bible. Why trust any of it specifically? Which makes us all like LEE. Very sad and frustrating.
OR the Bible is absolute Truth and we have hope in our God to be perfect and responsible. Very trustworthy in all areas that give God glory.
So lets begin.
The temple incidents of Mark and Matthew are interesting. Be careful not to read something that isn't there. All 4 Gospels mention temple attacks. Matthew, Mark and Luke mention it in the Holy Week.
John and Matthew have an interesting problem: Are they telling the story in order?
Who says they have to? Mark seems to be very concerned with timing. But John and Matthew are just getting details and events.
If all 4 Gospels told day by day events then we would have an order problem. But they all have different concerns.
Be careful not to read what isn't there Lee. I've read many biographies that tell accounts based on importance rather than timelines. Whatever truthfully gets the points across.
___________________________________________________
Quote from E.S.V. study Bible:
"Mark gives the probable chronological order, while Matthew gives a literary compression of the account (fig tree). Thus the tree was cursed most likely on Monday morning on the way into the city, and on Tuesday morning the disciples react to the withering on their way back to Jerusalem."
Lee quote:"God seems to allow a lot, Rod. Who is to say what He should and should not allow?"
The Bible - that's what!
God's word tells us exactly what we need to know about God's character and plan.
re: the timing of the temple attack: Alright, so we agree that a contradiction exists in the Bible, and we move on to the next step: trying to analyze and understand why it's there. Like the quote from the E.S.V. Is that fair enough? It is a contradiction with a valid reason.
This is exactly the same scenario I brought up with John's Gospel. In John, Jesus dies before the passover; in the Synoptics, Jesus dies after.
Why? Perhaps the Synoptics are concerned with chronological order, and John is concerned with theological meaning (relating Jesus to the Passover lamb).
I feel inspired to tell a parable! :)Suppose little Tommy and Tammy are talking about Christmas last year, and Tommy says Santa came after midnight. Tammy insists Santa came before midnight.
Is this a contradiction? Well, of course it is, on the face of it. We could make up all sorts of ways to try to align the two accounts...maybe Santa came before midnight and stayed until morning...maybe Santa came twice (some Bible readers think there were two Temple attacks)...but that would be silliness.
Suppose, however, that we dig deeper and we learn something interesting. Tradition says Santa brings the fun presents first, and they're all gone by midnight. The boring presents are delivered after midnight.
Suddenly, this isn't about what time Santa came anymore, right? Tammy got fun presents, and Tommy got boring prsents.
While the story still contains a contradiction, we don't care anymore. We understand what they're talking about. Just like we shouldn't care about whether Jesus died before or after Passover. John's understanding of Jesus (no other Gospel mentions Jesus as a "lamb") entices him to tell the story in a way that lends theological meaning: Jesus died as the Passover lambs are being killed. This theology never crossed the minds of the other authors.
I don't remember saying there's a contradiction. All I see is you claiming all accounts must be chronologically correct and to your liking. But only one Gospel is claiming a specific time. The other Gospel just says (And...)
If they both claimed specific times then we would have a contradiction.
In your Christmas parable they both made time statements: that would be a contradiction.
I have heard that there may be a time contradiction in the Gospels. But I haven't researched them all yet.
Another issue is that some translators get very excited and force the Gospel's to declare things that aren't officially said in the originals. So we do the best we can with what we got.
Lets go on to another one: Your choice!
Or we could do this one:Lee quote:
"This is exactly the same scenario I brought up with John's Gospel. In John, Jesus dies before the passover; in the Synoptics, Jesus dies after."
I'm having trouble understanding your stance, Rod. Are you saying that contradictions exist now, but they didn't used to, because the Bible was changed by copyists?By the way, I definitely do not claim "all accounts must be chronologically correct." I claim just the opposite: that we shouldn't get up in arms about the Bible's contradictions. Meaning transcends the reporting of boring facts like what day Jesus died.
Once again, in the Synoptics, Jesus eats the Passover with the Twelve. In John, Jesus is dead before Passover. See John 18:28; that's probably where it's most clear (Jesus is crucified that very afternoon). It's a meaningless contradiction, because the writers were less concerned about mundane facts like what day Jesus died, but for fundamentalists it is still an issue that deserves "researching." ;)
Rod wrote: I enjoy worst case scenarios: so...The Bible is not trustworthy - worst case. Neither is God then, not when it comes to his written word. This affects all of the meanings in the entire Bible. Why trust any of it specifically? Which makes us all like LEE. Very sad and frustrating.
OR the Bible is absolute Truth and we have hope in our God to be perfect and responsible. Very trustworthy in all areas that give God glory.
So lets begin.
I understand where you're coming from, but my preference is first to discuss the facts without emotional or spiritual baggage (words like "trustworthy" and "God"), and then, if it turns out to be necessary, draw new religious conclusions from the facts.
Lee question:"I'm having trouble understanding your stance, Rod. Are you saying that contradictions exist now, but they didn't used to, because the Bible was changed by copyists?"
The Bible is always changed in translations. Language adjusts and moves on. This is always a concern. The more I learn about Greek the more difficult i assume the art of translating is.
My claim has always been: The original Word of God is inerrant.
No translator can fully comprehend everything that God intends with Scripture. Biases can always crop up. For instance:
If a translator is a Calvinist? That may show up.
If a translator is NOT a Calvinist? that may show up.
But God still gets the job done. Not everyone reading the Bible has issues with Calvinism. But if you do - then your translation will begin to show possible signs of bias.
Lets look at this Passover issue.
Why does all this matter Lee?Because if the Bible is not inerrant then we have thousands of problems that prove our religion an untrustworthy mess (like Mormonism is).If the God of the universe if thorough then we can trust him in all his Spoken accounts.
That is why liberal Christianity is so dangerous - because everything is acceptable...eventually all sin is adjustable. Nothing God said really matters. And we all end up:
Judges 21:25
In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
And we know how much apostasy came out of that.
Lee contradiction:" in the Synoptics, Jesus eats the Passover with the Twelve. In John, Jesus is dead before Passover. See John 18:28; that's probably where it's most clear (Jesus is crucified that very afternoon)."
The problem then is: What exactly is THE passover? The meal, the feast, the 7 day feast of unleavened bread in Luke 22:1
"Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called THE PASSOVER.
The feast spanned the 15th to the 21st of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish calendar.
Matthew 26:17
"Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying..."
Exodus 12:18
In the first month, from the 14th day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the 21st day of the month at evening. For seven days...
So do we not have a 7 day window of opportunity for this meal?
Because if the Bible is not inerrant then we have thousands of problems that prove our religion an untrustworthy mess (like Mormonism is) I disagree. Whether a word like "inerrant" is useful is up for debate and millions upon millions of Christians have done just fine without any belief in inerrancy. They belief the Bible is true or reliable or trustworthy, which is not the same as inerrant.
We'd still have the resurrection of Jesus, the indwelling of the Spirit in the community and the sovereignty of God. I think we'd do fine without inerrancy.
Who says we have the resurrection of Jesus? Many liberal Christians say we don't.Who says we have the indwelling of the spirit? Many liberal Christians say we don't.
Who says we have the sovereignty of God? Blah blah blah...
Eventually Christianity can be reduced to: just be nice to each other and maybe we'll go to a heaven...but we can't trust the Bible so maybe there isn't a Heaven.
Who says we have a Heaven? Some liberal Christians say we don't.
If the Bible is TRUE and RELIABLE then it is inerrant. Awesome eh? :D
Rod wrote: "So do we not have a 7 day window of opportunity for this meal? "Not from a practical standpoint. Not if you take Jewish first-century custom into consideration.
THE passover meal begins THE evening after literally thousands of lambs are slain in THE temple.
The Passover celebratory meal is huge; it is very carefully calculated each year, and everyone celebrates together. Moreover, John refers to this day as a "high sabbath." There was not a high sabbath each day of the feast of unleavened bread.
Okay, i'll look into it.So John 19:14
Now it was the day of PREPARATION of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. (Jesus in custody.)
Throw some verses at me Lee. What justifies your view?
First, Rod, it is not just "my" view. It is the opinion of studied Bible scholars.Passover begins at about 6pm (the Jewish day begins and ends at sunset). The day of preparation is the day everyone has their lamb slaughtered in the Temple. This occurs all afternoon, in three waves, as people bring lambs for the priests to kill.
The sixth hour is about noon. Jesus will die that afternoon, as the lambs are dying.
That's John's version.
Everything I say (also) is not just "my" view. It is the opinion of studied Bible scholars.Thanks for the challenge Lee. This is fun. :D
So which verse is officially the problem or contradiction?
Um, I can't say there is a single verse. I personally think 18:28 is the most obvious. It's just the whole story.Your verse is good too: 19:14. And 19:31 refers to the next day as a "high Sabbath" (a special day of rest, like the Passover, as opposed to just a Saturday).
It was the day of preparation, and the Jewish leaders didn't want the bodies hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath, because it was the Passover). So they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. --NLT
Not my area of expertise Lee. But it is fascinating as to whether there is a problem here. Some scholars say there is: and some others say there isn't. I'll keep reading.John 18:28
It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.
John 19:14
Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
John 19:31
Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
Okay.
:) It's not a problem, unless you treat the Bible like an inerrant history book instead of theological writings.One way people try to reconcile is to say Jesus ate an early Passover meal with the disciples. They treat John's "foot washing" event as the Last Supper, and call it an early Passover meal.
Here is a footnote in my book about John's Gospel:
There is, however, hope for those determined to harmonize the Gospel accounts of the last supper. There is a Christian tradition for the Last Supper on Tuesday, before the regular Passover. The Didascalia Apostolorum, a late second-century or early third-century document preserved in Syriac and Ethiopic tells how Christ shared an early Passover on Tuesday evening and was arrested in the garden on Wednesday morning. Readers are told to fast on Wednesday and Friday, because on Wednesday Jesus was arrested and on Friday he was crucified. This scenario neatly blends the two Gospel timelines together.
But doesn’t it sound a bit disrespectful of Jesus to eat the Passover on a different day than the rest of the Jewish world? One suggestion here is that Jesus followed the Jubilees calendar, a solar calendar described in the Qumran texts, using a 364-day year. The introduction of a lunar calendar into the Temple may have sparked the withdrawal of the Essenes from Jerusalem into the desert at Qumran. With the Jubilees calendar, because its 364 days divides neatly by seven, a certain date falls on the same weekday every year. Passover, which occurs on 15th Nisan, falls always on Tuesday evening.
Did you just answer your question for me? So is there a chance that it is NOT a contradiction? that is all i'm interested in.
Could you imagine God in Heaven going: "Oh NO! Everyone, everyone, we have a huge problem. I was inspiring scripture and I was having a blond moment and totally got the facts wrong - I'm such a retard. Maybe no-one will notice. Whew! Hope I don't do that again. AS long as they get the general idea RIGHT? That's all that matters. Now what are we gonna do about that Flood myth? These morons will believe anything if its written on fancy paper."
(God in no way endorses the above comical account of Heavenly dialogue.):D
Yes, there is a chance. ;)I put the odds at pretty slim, but people ignore me when I advise them to quit buying lottery tickets, too. Anything is possible with God's help, right?
I'm proud of you Lee for attempting to impact lottery ticket sales. But a fool and his money are soon parted!God does alot of Biblical things by a slim chance. He's impressive that way.
I'm glad you guys took it on yourselves and left me alone :). I was going to research the matter and think it through and all that jazz. But Lee, you should've added the footnote along with the contradiction to be fair. I would have had more courage then.
I gather that if a person can think of some remote solution to reconcile the contradiction, that the contradiction may therefore be ignored? Yeah, I see how that works, lol. The question I keep coming back to is ... how many of these remote possibilities do you entertain before you accept that the Bible might have contradictions?
Frankly, I can't think of anything reconciling the timing of the temple attack above (Matthew different from Mark). Failing any "fix", Rod's solution seems to be that we should ignore it, and chalk it up to theological liberties.
What I don't get is why we don't do the same thing with the timing of Jesus' death between Synoptics and John? Isn't that one even more obvious as a theological liberty?
I think Rod's point is that only one of the gospels is strict on timing - noting the events by week day while the others relate some events that occurred. Or at the end it may just be a translation fault.I'm not a well studied Christian. I am part of this group to get ideas of books I should take on next to grow in knowledge; but even unlearned I feel very strong emotions against anyone who claims the Bible has faults (I think a smiley-face would be nice here, to ease your mind concerning me haunting you now). I don't think it can be, by virtue of the One the Bible is all about. At present the Bible serves to me as the guide and I don't want to begin scrutinizing it. Then I become its master and not the student.
I may sound closed-minded, but what part of my mind could ever be opened to anything beyond my tiny circle by my own deeds?
I understand completely, Pavlo. Not wanting to scrutinize the Bible to the point where it would not serve you as a guide.People change, though. I did, and I now find much more comfort in my current understanding of the Bible. One thing I have learned is not to pretend I have all the answers, for when I am ready for my next "religious enlightening," I'll look foolish for being so sure of everything before.
By the way, I can't wait for that to happen!
When I find a problem in the bible that I can't answer: the first thing I do is give God the benefit of the doubt. Then i go searching for understanding.I agree with you Lee that we should not fool ourselves. If the Bible is really a mess we need to consider that. But we also need to allow God room to do the weird and seemingly impossible.
The best thing about contradictions is:
They prove to atheists that we have not rewritten or edited our scriptures in 1800 years. The same problems and possible contradictions are still there - warts and all.
Which is funny cause I've argued with 100's of atheists who swear our Bible has been adjusted endlessly...but somehow we forgot to fix all the small problems?! Strange eh? :p
Rod wrote: "When I find a problem in the bible that I can't answer: the first thing I do is give God the benefit of the doubt. Then i go searching for understanding.I believe that attitude is not conducive to learning. It does, however, make for strong religion. You have choosen between the two.
It's nice that God can do anything, but that makes for a wonderful "out." Science proves that the Adam and Eve story didn't happen? Don't believe it, cuz God can do anything.
For me, it sounds just like every other religion: start with what you know is the truth, and then find a way to bend the facts to fit your truth. Now, that's fine, Rod, but I think it's important for you to understand what you're doing, and therefore you should NEVER criticize any other religions when their beliefs differ from what you understand to be the facts. Give every god the same benefit of the doubt that you claim for your god.
I'm not saying you should choose somebody else's god! I'm merely saying you look foolish criticizing somebody else's beliefs, when your foundation is exactly the same as theirs.
That is the trick. You must add up all the variables and possible facts at the core of every religion (even atheism). I agree with you Lee: if someone has the time they should apply this method to all belief systems fairly. (that has been my passion for many years.) I do try to be fair in my evaluation of all belief systems.
We must differentiate between judging a religions scripture and judging the Truth of a religion. Everything has to add up.
The real problem is when science becomes just another religion. A boys club where truth is sold and handed down to the masses as Divine. But that's another topic.
We've opened a huge can of worms here Lee. I could go on for days. But I'll let you comment on what I wrote first. Comparative religions is my favourite game. Endlessly fun.Sometimes you just have to pick a team and start playing in-order to see if the game works. :D
Nothing to comment on, Rod! I am in full agreement!I love your comment about "pick a team and start playing." Good on you; that's what Jesus wanted all along.
Ummmh?My thought also applies to Hinduism and Islam etc...
Even if someone is born into a false religion they should be able to challenge everything it stands for and find their way out. Is that what Jesus wanted?
I'm not by nature a loyal person: I would drop Christianity in a minute if I thought it was inconsistent and broke its own rules. That is the main reason I am non-denominational and just stick with the Bible. (I do see the need to be closely involved in the local churches though.)
Jesus said, "he who is not against me is with me." Others were doing kindnesses in precisely the same manner as Jesus; when the disciples felt like the monopoly was slipping, Jesus set them straight, that the works were the main thing. "Pick a team and start playing." You'll learn by doing.
I've already discussed the major contradictions...the ones that really matter:
1. John's Christology. In John, the Son is part of the Godhead. He pre-exists. In the Synoptics, there is no hint of a Godhead (except, perhaps the baptismal creed), and Jesus comes to us through a miracle birth, not pre-existence.
2. John's "lamb" theology. You won't find "Jesus the Lamb" anywhere in the other Gospels, but it is so important to John, that he actually moves the date of the crucifixion up to before the Passover, so that Jesus dies on the same afternoon as the lambs are dying in the Temple. In the others, Jesus doesn't eat the Passover meal with the disciples.
3. John's eschatology. In John, the end times have arrived. John constantly says blah blah "and now is" when referring to the final age...what Johannine scholars call "realized eschatology," meaning that whatever God has planned for the new age, it has begun.
I think I've also mentioned a couple of other interesting contradictions:
1. The timing of the Temple attack. It is during the final week in the Synoptics, but at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus in John.
2. The anointing in John occurs precisely six days before the crucifixion. In Mark, it's two days. Both are very adamant about this.
Here are two blatant contradictions, which can only be read as an attempt by John to correct the Gospel of Mark:
1. The Synoptics portray John the Baptist as the second coming of Elijah, presumably because Elijah's coming is expected to precede that of the Messiah. But John directly contradicts this...he has the Jews ask John if he is Elijah, and John replies that he is not.
2. The Synoptics tell of Jesus praying in the Garden, asking for the cup to be removed. John's Jesus directly contradicts this, saying, "Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour."
A few more...These are all just off the top of my head:
1. The first disciples in the Synoptics are called in Galilee. In John, they are lured away from John the Baptist at the Jordan River.
2. In John, the resurrected Jesus appears to his followers in Jerusalem. In the Synoptic story, it happens in Galilee.
3. In John, Jesus' ministry appears to last three years or more. In the Synoptics, it seems to be less than a year.
If you want more, my book about John's Gospel will be coming out soon...and for anyone willing to read and review, I have a few Advance Reader Copies available! I promise, it's not about contradictions, ha, it's about John's unique theology, told in story like my book about Revelation.