Just because something is difficult, to understand or in principle, doesn't mean it is a contradiction. I think you define a contradiction as that, but it doesn't mean it is tough
He is just in denial about the bible. In the tomb story, one story had jesus showing up and spoke to the women. In the book of John story, Mary Magdalene went by herself and she saw nothing. no earthquake, stone moving, No angels or Men in shining garments, or anything the other 3 stories had. This is not a different prospective but a different story all together.
why does josephs bloodline mean anything for jesus's case tho? if bloodline is so importanl, well jesus is not the "blood" of joseph, if it's not, why list and mention it? confusing
The biggest contradiction is that the salvational belief in the trinity wasn't church doctrine for more than 100 years after the crucifixion. Jesus surely taught his followers this teaching very clearly and unambiguously. Yet none of the early believers thought it was important to make this point totally explicit for all the believers to follow? Madness.
Dear @DivineOb, It may surprise you that the idea of the Trinity has it's origin in the Biblical Documents (specifically in the New Testament Scriptures). If you look at some of the Christian Systematic Theologies, they outline the basic texts and tenets supporting the concept. The term "Trinity" and along with the concept, became much better defined at a later time when serious oppositions to the concept of a triune God emerged, and the need to elaborate on the issue was deemed a greater need. You might want to watch a video Micheal Jones made on this issue. It is titled, "The Early Church Taught The Trinity!" (ruclips.net/video/O_2iYSyus5I/видео.html) Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 Within the first 30 seconds of that video he acknowledges that the Trinity wasn't official church doctrine until the 4th century. What possible justification is there for this vital belief not to be official church doctrine?
Dear @@DivineOb , Hello ! I rewatched the first minute of the video and I did not see or hear anything like what you were describing within the first 30 seconds. Please document the point (like min. 1:10) where you heard this, so others can see/hear what you are speaking of . For clarification, the word "Trinity" is not in the Biblical Documents. The Biblical Documents do not even use the term "triune". Of course the absence of a specific term does not in any way mean the concept in not supported by the text. For example the text does not used the term "incarnation", but the text describes that concept (John 1:1, 14. Philip. 2:6-8). Nor does the text use the term "homosexual", but the text describes the concept (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Rom. 1:26-27. Many more examples could be given, but I think you get the point, right ? The primary, foundational ideas of the Trinity is conceptually described in the Biblical texts. (these points are so strongly affirmed in Christian beliefs that I am not going to give references. Probably every introduction to Christianity includes them in a basic introduction class). The Biblical Text affirms there is only, one, true, divine, supreme being by essence of nature; (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν - the only true God). The Biblical Text also affirms that the "Father" is God, The "Son" is God, and the "Holy Spirit" is God. So the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all divine beings, YET There is only one true God. We also see that each of these three are spoken of as a separate entity, so the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc. So the Scriptures are describing the basic concept of a triune God. That fits the basic concept of the "Trinity". Later in church history, heresies and deviant teachings began to appear which required the Christian church to elaborate and more specifically define and describe the concept of a triune God, in order to clarify the Christian position, from the other deviant teachings that were being promoted and spread. Here is a list of some of the heresies attacking the Biblical concept of God: Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism), Tritheism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionitism, Macedonianism, Adoptionism, Partialism. (www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html) There were councils where Christian theologians got together to clarify and better describe the issues (much like what happened in Acts 15 to clarify the issue of Judaizers). It would be theologically naive to think that the concept of the "Trinity" was "created" at these councils. Christians believed in a triune God long before the councils. The councils just clarified and when into more depth describing the concept of a triune God that Christian believed in the first century. Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 At 0:22 he says exactly what I said -- it wasn't official church doctrine until the 4th century. I'm not claiming that there is nothing in the bible you can interpret to point to the trinity, I'm talking about the fact that it was not treated as the salvational belief that it has assumed today. Why wouldn't the trinity have been rightly treated as such a core belief from day 1, given that Jesus would have described it in totally unambiguous language to the twelve and how one could only understand Jesus's sacrifice in light of the teaching?
At my church, the discrepancy in the genealogies of Jesus was explained as one being Mary's and one being Joseph's. When I asked our elders and preacher where that idea came from, they didn't have an answer. I know there may be people poping in to complain about my lack of understanding, so I just wanted to throw it out to folks to explain it to me like I'm a child who just learned about this.
I think this website can provide some insight into these explanations: zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-are-jesus-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different
No one should complain about the lack of understanding of someone who is honestly questioning if they actually do have good reasons and sufficient evidence to justify their god beliefs and is prepared to accept that they might be mistaken. I wish you well on your journey, but please remember that your wellbeing and safety is far more important than telling others of your doubts. Just because true to yourself, you owe nothing to those who might harm you.
Dear @aarondeimund6898, Hello ! I would use the term "alleged discrepancy" concerning the genealogies in the two books. The idea that it is an actual logical contradiction is a misunderstanding of what a contradiction actually is according the philosophy and logic. There are at least two very viable plausible reasonable explanations for this "alleged discrepancy" in the two genealogies. If there are reasonable explanations that resolve the "alleged discrepancy" then It cannot be considered a logical contradiction. Those who consider this issue a contradiction apparently have failed to follow sound principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. Specifically, they have failed to consider the issue in it's historical cultural context of the first century, in the Jewish cultural context. They naively interpret the text in the context of their own contemporary cultural understandings. This is not a scholarly approach to understanding the meaning of ancient texts. This is a universally accepted aspect of sound historiography. You might want to watch a video Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" made on this issue. It is titled, "Different Genealogies ?" (ruclips.net/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/видео.html) Michael presents two viable, reasonable explanations for the alleged discrepancy in the two genealogies, within the context of the first century Jewish culture. We do not know which of these explanations is correct, but with two viable explanations, it is not reasonable or scholarly to hastly conclude that there is necessarily a logical contradiction in this issue. To do so is intellectually dishonest (or intellectually naive). Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 "Intellectually dishonest", lmao. What is "intellectually dishonest" is to pretend that it's even remotely possible for anyone in first century to be able to trace their lineage back to a mythical Adam and Eve, let alone an illerate carpenter and a nobody woman.
We have in the greek-roman literature collection five distinctive different stories about "Iesous". Paul, then Marc who uses Paul and a lot of tropes from greek authors like Homer and common greek elements like elevation to godhhod shown themrough missing bones empty graves. We have four different endings of Marc in various manuscripts, Then Mathew copies largely Marc and edits, changes and adds what he sees wrong in Marc. The Lucas takes stuff from Marc and Mathew and makes up his version. Then we have John who steals about everything from the greek world and we find Dionysosmiracles, Poseidon miracles, Asclepios miracles and all the various titles of other gods attached to "Iesous". To sum it all up everyone of the five authors considers his work alonethe true story and all others as inferior or outright wrong. So putting five stories in a collection shows only that the collectors did not understand the original authors and their message.
Hey this is unrelated but can you do a video about explaining philosophies that you believe in? I have been getting more into philosophies and want to know others opinions about the controversial few.
The amount of bible errors and contradictions number in the 1000's - Why wouldn't there be? The bible is a collection of books of mostly unknown authorship. Though an extremely important collection from antiquity, it is clearly not of "divine" origin and neither is the deity represented in its pages anymore real than Zeus.
Agreed. And there is always some kind of excuse or "justification" for these contradictions from apologists, some of which are valid and genuinely fix the contradiction, but many of which are post hoc rationalizations that make little to no sense. The core issue with these contradictions is that they shouldn't even BE there. at all. If this god is NOT the author of confusion and he is able to communicate his message clearly then there should be easy-to-understand texts which don't appear as contradictions. It's always so funny to me how humans always have to come to the rescue of god on his own scripture and explain away the obvious errors, and god never seems to speak for himself on these things. It's almost like humans are making rationalizations for other fallible humans, not god. Thanks for commenting and watching!
1st Contradiction, the flaw is in the English not the Bible. In Matthew's account you have to do math. Note the number 14, count the generations. The last generation list has only 13.... unless you realize in the Hebrew and the Aramaic versions. Joseph the HUSBAND on Mary is actually Joseph the FATHER of Mary, 14 generations are counted again, Mary just married a guy with the same name as her father. I don't think that's any stretch at all. It removes the contradiction, Mary's lineage, as flesh and blood mother and Luke tells Joseph's lineage as Jesus's step father. Both are valid.
Holy cow... the eye witnesses accounts are exactly that. What each witness remembers based on what impacted them more deeply. I've been a professional investigator since 1988. Eye witnesses accounts never line up 100% of the time. Just because a memory of an event happens in a certain order, does not mean it happens at the same time as another eye witnesses account. Doesn't make either of them wrong. You have to look at time identifying statements, before the sun rose, it was early in the day.... these are at different times, from different witnesses. The most accurate assessment of all these event that takes these ti.e statements in order is The Chronological Gospels, the Life and Seventy Week Ministry of the Messiah, by Michael Rood. You would be way better off reading this book than using RUclips to attempt to "fix" theology, especially when you consider most professors, couldn't actually get a real job in their field.
That doesn't make sense, if the evangelist was trying to trace Mary's lineage he should arrive in Mary at some point, he should explicitly cite her. It's a stretch because the way it's written makes you inferere is Joseph lineage in the two gospel, if we didn't have Luke gospel no way one would argue Matthew's author was tracing Mary lineage, you say so because there are two accounts that don't match and you're trying to fix it
I am willing to bet these flaws are in any translation of the bible no matter the language. On that line of thinking, who is responsible for humanity having so many languages? If God wanted to would God not be able to give humans the language to accurately represent his word?
Dear @@BFpro156 , Hello ! Makes good sense when you consider the text within it historical/cultural context following sound principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. It is inappropriate to force the text to conform into one's own cultural/historical context when the events occurred in another. Two possible viable feasible explanations presented by Micheal Jones in his video titled "Different Genealogies?" (ruclips.net/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/видео.html) As long as there are plausible, viable explanations, then it cannot be considered a legitimate logical contradiction. To be considered a legitimate logical contradiction one would need to provide objective, definitive evidences concluding that the possible explanations are completely untenable. That is what is required by logic and what is required sound scholarship. Be Well, DZ
Yes. It is a collection of works by MANY different authors that were compiled and curated by oral traditions. The book of Enoch, for example, presents a problem as the church deemed it to be fraudulent, but it is quoted and referenced in the New Testament.
Dear @funkatron101, Hello ! Is it possible that a "fraudulent" book can contain a quote from an authentic source ? There are many pseudepigraphal works that are falsely attributed to significant people (probably to make people think they are authentic), that contain some content that is true and or authentic. That does not mean the whole work is creditable or that it is written by who it claims the author is. I don't know how that presents a problem. DZ
@@Silverheart1956 It questions the claim of the inerrancy of the Bible when the church determines the Book of Enoch to be false, while characters in the New Testament use the Book of Enoch as a source of legitimacy. Once you poke holes in the premise of inerrancy, you can look at many other claims in the Bible with a more critical eye.
One thing to suggest. Never use the NIV version to cite or critique the Bible. It is one of these worst translations. For example, in the NIV, Numbers 5:11-31 explicitly endorses abortion if a woman is pregnant as the result of an affair. This is VERY problematic for pro-lifers. All other versions imply it but have enough "wiggle room" for the apologist to deny that this is about abortion. I think many scholars recommend New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.
Dear @funkatron101, Hello ! Generally the NIV is a fairly good translation, but one must understand its limitations. It used the "Dynamic Equivalence" method of translation, were the goal is to translate thought for through from the text. This can be very helpful when translating idioms were a word for word translation may be confusing the actual meaning due to a failure of understanding the historical, cultural context of how the literal words are used. The weakness in this method is that the translator has to have a strong understanding of the culture context to properly interpret the meaning as he translates the text. The "Formal Equivalence" method of translation (literal word for word) also has weaknesses and strengths. It is best to use a combination of multiple translations to research the text, or even far better study the text from the original languages. You are correct that The NIV has some unreliable translations of some words in Num. 5:11-31 where it has lead some people to misunderstand the actual meaning of the text in the original language (Hebrew). In verse 22 the NIV says "your womb miscarries”. The relevant words used here is "וְלַנְפִּ֣ל. יָרֵ֑ךְ" (yā·rêḵ; wə·lan·pil). These words do not in any way mean or implies "miscarries". That is a definite mistranslation that misleads people to misunderstand the actual meaning of the text. There is nothing in the text that even describes the woman as being pregnant. The whole section described in Num. 5:11-31 has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or miscarriage from a sound hermeneutical and exegetical perspective. There is nothing having to do with any "wiggle room". The Hebrew text is simply is NOT saying anything about abortion, period. Simple concise explanation for the layman - "Is Numbers 5:11-31 referring to God causing an abortion?" (www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html) More in depth discussion from Oxford Academic - "Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail" (academic.oup.com/cb/article/29/1/11/7103199) Even IF (hypothetically) it did mean miscarry, even that understanding of the text would not "endorse abortion if a woman is pregnant as the result of an affair".
This is a really good video and all the contradictions pointed out have answers. I would recommend watching the RUclips channel testify. He has lots of videos on the subject, especially the historiography of the new testament
Dear Shared Philosophy, Hello !! So, Matthew & Luke - contradicting genealogies ??? If that is so, then I suppose at least one theologian in all of church history has noticed this issue. I noticed you avoided mentioning how some Christian theologians explained this paradox. In such a video, don't you think for the sake of objective intellectual fairness, you would mention both side os the issue ? Please tell me what flaw do you find in the explanation offered by Eusebius. He has offered a reasonable, plausible possible explanation. Why have you ruled it out or ignored the legitimacy of what he thought could have happened. many theologians favor another explanation that is very plausible, By what reason would you reject the legitimacy of that explanation ?? Is it possible that you failed to conduct your due diligence in research to the point you are completely unaware of these explanations. I am very certain that if you have adequately researched the issue, then you would be very aware of the explanations I am speaking of. This seems to leave me with two thoughts. Perhaps you did not research the issue much at all, to which I would ask, why are you making a video on something you have not researched. OR You are aware of these explanations and you are selecting to omit information about plausible explanations which would make one question, why hide such relevant information if one wants to be intellectually objective ? A Logical Contradiction - "A" cannot be "non-A", at the same time, in the same context. If there is a plausible, viable explanation that harmonizes the accounts, then it cannot be regarded as an authentic logical contradiction. When it come to historical events, far too many people are willing to hastily form a conclusion without adequately understanding the relevant historical issues, and without applying sound principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. I think this is evident in your conclusion. While watching a play a man entered the stage and shot one of the actors. The detective was questioning witnesses about the incident. The first witness said I say the man enter onto the stage from the right and shot the actor standing in the center of the stage. However, witness number two, claimed to the be very close to the incident and told the detective the man enter the stage from the left and shot the actor who was standing in the center of the stage. The detective told the prosecuting attorney that one witnesses said he entered from the left and the other the right. The attorney said the defense will use this contradiction to defend his client. An old experienced, senior detective, overhearing the issue, interrupted and asked the younger detective, where were your witnesses ? After a discussion the young detective realized one witness was in the audience and saw the man enter from the right. The other witness was coming through the back curtain onto the stage when the incident occurred and saw the man enter the stage from the left. It was no actual, legitimate contradiction; just an inexperienced detective that jumped to a conclusion without knowing and understanding all the issues and ramifications of the issue. So, dear "Shared Philosophy", is it possible that you are taking a very superficial perspective of the issue without having really conducted your due diligence in researching the issue, resulting in a hasty conclusion of labeling this a contradiction ? Perhaps so !! Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" gives a good, little, concise explanation of why this issue is not really a legitimate contradiction, in the context of philosophy, logic, and an understanding of relevant historical information, by presenting two very viable and plausible explanations, of what could explain this "alleged" contradiction. The video is titled, .......... "Different Genealogies? - Bible Contradiction #1" ........... and can be found on this website - (ruclips.net/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/видео.html). Personally, I see no compelling, rational reason to assert that this issue is in any way, a legitimate contradiction. Be Well DZ
"I noticed you avoided mentioning how some Christian theologians explained this paradox. In such a video, don't you think for the sake of objective intellectual fairness, you would mention both side os the issue ?" Nope, and I specifically in the video said that I'm just showing that these contradictions exist. Never said that they don't have any answers, just said that these exist and I'm showing them in this video. If anyone wanted to research them, themselves they could do that. This video was entirely about just mentioning that these things exist. Thats all. There was no intention of giving a remedy for these problems within the same video. Also, I don't really care for explanations from apologists, because the big issue that this video is pointing out is that god cannot create a foolproof method of communicating his message to the world. Contradictions (even if they have answers) shouldn't exist if a perfect god can communicate his message well. It is completely on god's responsibility that this message about our eternal salvation or damnation should be communicated clearly and without error. These apparent contradictions just show how human-made this text is. It is so absolutely irresponsible of god to create such a flawed and incoherent book that apologists and theologians need to come to the rescue of god in order to justify HIS holy book. It's so interesting how god can never speak for himself on these issues. It's always humans having to come to his rescue. Almost seems like humans making up for the errors of other humans from the past. If there is a perfect god, I have so much more respect for him, than everyone who says that this book is the best he could come up with. Such an insult to a perfect being who'd be able to communicate perfectly, to have created such a fallible and problematic book.
@@SharedPhilosophy From the perspective of philosophy and logic, the discrepancies you are describing concerning the two genealogies are not to be classified as authentic contradictions. Apparently you are using a much looser, more personal definition of the term "contradiction" than used in philosophy and logic. As I said, if there is any reasonable, plausible explanation that adequately explains the discrepancy, then is cannot be considered to be an authentic contradiction. Contradictions are rarer than most people using a superficial perspective of investigating the facts, imagine they are. If you want to definitively prove that the Matt. genealogy and the Luke genealogy are actual legitimate contradictions, then it is necessary that you provide definitive evidence negating the veracity of each of the proposed explanations. You have NOT done this ! You have not even addressed any of these or even mentioned the possible explanations, so you cannot definitively claim they are a contradiction. This principle would be upheld in any scholarly 101 logic class in any reputable college or university ! Your perspective of "apologists" is a personal issue unrelated to the issue. The essence of the issue is not the presenters, but the content of the evidence and the essence of the original authentic meaning. Yes, Michael Jones is presenting an apologetic defending the rational understanding of the two genealogies. You are defending the opposite assertion. BOTH OF YOU ARE ASSUMING THE POSITION OF A "APOLOGIST" !!! Some people defend the cultural-historical understanding of the text concerning these discrepancies, that appear to be a contradiction when casually looked at from a superficial perspective, and I suppose you label them "(Christian) "apologists" (in a derogatory manner). However when scholarly research is objectively conducted, one realizes that these discrepancies can not legitimately be considered a technical, logical "contradiction"because it does not fit the conditions of the definition. While on the other hand, some people (like you) defend a proposition that the discrepancies must necessarily be considered a contradiction and refuse to study the issue on a more deeper, more scholarly manner resulting in a superficial understanding of the issue. So they defend the position that have decided to chose based on a hasty conclusion without due diligence in cultural-historical research. You are an "apologist" for the position you are diligently defending. To bad you didn't spend as much diligence in objective cultural-historical research to arrive at a more scholarly conclusion. I strongly suspect that you have never taken a 101 class in hermeneutics and exegesis, because some of the misunderstandings you reveal in your explanation exhibits a poor application of those principles. The documents chronicling the life of Jesus are written within a specific cultural historical context and it is essential to understand what is written within that specific context. It is interesting that fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Christians share the same mistaken perspective of the Biblical Documents. Be Well, DZ
@Silverheart1956 Yes indeed, one can come up with "how it coulda been" ideas to explain the discrepant genealogies for Jesus, as Eusebius and so many others have done. But this ignores the bigger picture: each genealogy is embedded within a birth narrative. The birth narratives within Matthew and Luke contain many other inconsistencies and contradictions besides the genealogies, as our host SP points out. Matthew knew nothing about any census, trip to Bethlehem, or temple sacrifices for the birth. Luke knew nothing about a slaughter, trip to Egypt, or star-guided Magi. The stories don't even agree on which was the family's hometown. Luke specifically says it was Nazareth, while Matthew plainly implies it was Bethlehem, that only later did they settle in Nazareth. So the genealogies are simply part of the pattern. Historians see the birth narratives as legends that developed in two different Christian communities, meant to explain how Jesus, who was commonly known to be a Galilean from Nazareth, was actually a descendant of David born in Bethlehem.
Dear @@PekoeBrew-gr4cr , Hello ! I have not studied and researched this issue of the genealogies in depth, and certainly not to the level that I would know enough about it to write a dissertation on the issue, but I am aware of at lease two viable, plausible explanations that resolve the questions about the issue. There may be even more explanations that I am not aware of Please provide an outline of at least two plausible explanations that have been offered, and provide definitive, evidential support that these two explanations could necessarily NOT be viable, legitimate resolutions of the issue. Rationally speaking, one must eliminate the possibility that the explanations are legitimate resolutions, in order to make the claim that it is an actual legitimate logical contradiction. I make this challenge in the light of the fact that most people who are critical of historical events, particularly of the Biblical Documents, appear to make such critical assertions on the basis of repeating (parroting) something that have heard in the rumor mill, and not on the basis of actual, individual, objective, scholarly research on the issue. They like to make the claim, but have not conducted the due diligence in research on the issue. So for in order for you to legitimately make the claim of a definitive, logical contradiction, you must have at least possess a minimal understanding of the relevant content of the subject matter. I realize that some in academic don't even do it the right way. Example: Dr. Bart Ehrman, who has made the claim that this issue of the alleged discrepancy in the genealogies, is an actual logical contradiction. No it is not !! Ehrman is a good textual critic and teacher, but he has a poor understanding of what an actual logical contradiction is. Perhaps he could benefit from a 101 class in Logic. From a superficial perspective there may appear to be a discrepancy between the two genealogies. However, there are very plausible explanations that resolve the issue, that some think they may see. If there is just one plausible explanation that resolved the discrepancy, then one cannot assume the alleged discrepancy is a necessary logical contradiction. Those who make that assumption, do so in a manner not according to logical reasoning. In the case of the alleged discrepancy between the two genealogies, there are two viable, plausible explanations. If one desires to claim a legitimate logical contradiction actually exists in this case, then they must provide definitive, objective, evidential, support that the two plausible explanations could not have happened. This is the way rational historiography works. Those who make hasty conclusions, without eliminating the viable, plausible explanations, exhibit a bias in their approach to historiography. There are many alleged discrepancies that have been postulated over the centuries and there have been books written about these issues. There is a great mountain of literature written about these issues from even the early centuries. Most people do not conduct the due diligence in adequately researching the background material before constructing a viable thesis. That is a indicator of a lack of reasonable scholarship. I look forward to reading your explanation of why the two major proposed explanations of the differences in the genealogies can not be actual, legitimate, viable, plausible resolutions to the alleged discrepancy. Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 You didn't seem to read my comment. I already said that one can play the "how it coulda been" game for the genealogies issue, but that ignores the context of the larger problem. The genealogies are embedded within the two birth narratives, which also have many other discrepancies besides the two genealogies. If the two stories are read side by side, it can be seen they are completely distinct accounts, hardly agreeing about anything except the theological points they set out to prove. They relate a completely different set of events, and disagree about locations, people, times, to the point where harmonizing them is practically impossible. When this is realized, it should not be surprising that the genealogies also do not match up. Think about it... if little was actually known of Jesus' early life, we might expect to see the development of stories to fill in the gaps. And lo and behold, the NT has two completely different stories of Jesus' birth, stories which were unknown to Mark, John, Paul, and which never get referred to again, even in the gospels in which they appear. That's why to a historian, they look like tacked-on legends.
Firstly, do witnesses contradict to the point where they forget to mention an earthquake or completely exclude 3-4 people who were also witnesses from their story? Secondly, is this story not supposed to be the inspired word of god? Shouldn't it be a little more convincing than just any other witness story we hear? If god's goal is really to get this info out to everyone in the world you'd think he would provide us with a proper story which could not be denied. What an inefficient way to communicate the path to our salvation through ancient, fallible, humans who knew nothing about the world.
I dunno, if the dead rose and started marching on a city, not mentioning that or contradicting that event happening seems a bit unlikely unless someone was just outright fabricating something. Same with an earthquake, to ancient people that was a huge deal (same with eclipses) so it would be documented in sources outside the bible by more or all people in the region it happened in.
@@SharedPhilosophy They forget to mention an earthquake but they told you Peter's shadow cured the sick. They told you Thomas believed after touching the wounds. They had many things to tell you, an earthquake was not a headline grabber. The NT is the most documented of it's time. It is number one on its race. But you've given it unfairly high bar so you could say it has failed. Inspired word of God is just a tag associated with these texts because the authors were well versed after they were with Jesus and apostles. You even have to argue from silence so you can say they failed, you would have a better argument if they truly are failed in doing what they were intended to do.
@@kurtfrederiksen5538 Lazarus had just been raised before Jesus. Jesus predicted his death. What you think should have grabbed the headlines is not what they thought was amazing.
@@koppite9600 that is curious as all we have for that event is something written decades after the fact by anonymous writers. If the event was mundane as you claim it would be easy for someone to mis-remember or exaggerate something after so long.
Somebody is going to be struck by lightning today. However, you would imagine that the supreme creator of the universe would manage to oversee the correct information is relayed to the people.
@@johnharrison6745 Do you not think it would be best to get Jesus words on the cross in 1 book written well and preserved in case books became lost or destroyed? Why have different sayings across different gospels when the supposed god of perfect truth could've communicated this message clearly through all the books. A close examination of the gospels and how they portray jesus shows us a clear change in the character of jesus over time as he became more legendary as stories circulated.
Just because something is difficult, to understand or in principle, doesn't mean it is a contradiction. I think you define a contradiction as that, but it doesn't mean it is tough
He is just in denial about the bible. In the tomb story, one story had jesus showing up and spoke to the women. In the book of John story, Mary Magdalene went by herself and she saw nothing. no earthquake, stone moving, No angels or Men in shining garments, or anything the other 3 stories had.
This is not a different prospective but a different story all together.
why does josephs bloodline mean anything for jesus's case tho? if bloodline is so importanl, well jesus is not the "blood" of joseph, if it's not, why list and mention it? confusing
There are no conclusive evidence for the truth of any of the stories in the bible. It all comes down to blind faith
The biggest contradiction is that the salvational belief in the trinity wasn't church doctrine for more than 100 years after the crucifixion. Jesus surely taught his followers this teaching very clearly and unambiguously. Yet none of the early believers thought it was important to make this point totally explicit for all the believers to follow? Madness.
Exactly, god seemingly doesn't care enough to make sure his message to humanity about their eternal salvation is correct and consistent.
Dear @DivineOb,
It may surprise you that the idea of the Trinity has it's origin in the Biblical Documents (specifically in the New Testament Scriptures). If you look at some of the Christian Systematic Theologies, they outline the basic texts and tenets supporting the concept.
The term "Trinity" and along with the concept, became much better defined at a later time when serious oppositions to the concept of a triune God emerged, and the need to elaborate on the issue was deemed a greater need.
You might want to watch a video Micheal Jones made on this issue. It is titled, "The Early Church Taught The Trinity!" (ruclips.net/video/O_2iYSyus5I/видео.html)
Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 Within the first 30 seconds of that video he acknowledges that the Trinity wasn't official church doctrine until the 4th century. What possible justification is there for this vital belief not to be official church doctrine?
Dear @@DivineOb , Hello !
I rewatched the first minute of the video and I did not see or hear anything like what you were describing within the first 30 seconds.
Please document the point (like min. 1:10) where you heard this, so others can see/hear what you are speaking of .
For clarification, the word "Trinity" is not in the Biblical Documents. The Biblical Documents do not even use the term "triune".
Of course the absence of a specific term does not in any way mean the concept in not supported by the text.
For example the text does not used the term "incarnation", but the text describes that concept (John 1:1, 14. Philip. 2:6-8).
Nor does the text use the term "homosexual", but the text describes the concept (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Rom. 1:26-27.
Many more examples could be given, but I think you get the point, right ?
The primary, foundational ideas of the Trinity is conceptually described in the Biblical texts. (these points are so strongly affirmed in Christian beliefs that I am not going to give references. Probably every introduction to Christianity includes them in a basic introduction class).
The Biblical Text affirms there is only, one, true, divine, supreme being by essence of nature; (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν - the only true God).
The Biblical Text also affirms that the "Father" is God, The "Son" is God, and the "Holy Spirit" is God. So the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are all divine beings, YET There is only one true God.
We also see that each of these three are spoken of as a separate entity, so the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.
So the Scriptures are describing the basic concept of a triune God. That fits the basic concept of the "Trinity".
Later in church history, heresies and deviant teachings began to appear which required the Christian church to elaborate and more specifically define and describe the concept of a triune God, in order to clarify the Christian position, from the other deviant teachings that were being promoted and spread.
Here is a list of some of the heresies attacking the Biblical concept of God: Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism), Tritheism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionitism, Macedonianism, Adoptionism, Partialism. (www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.html)
There were councils where Christian theologians got together to clarify and better describe the issues (much like what happened in Acts 15 to clarify the issue of Judaizers).
It would be theologically naive to think that the concept of the "Trinity" was "created" at these councils. Christians believed in a triune God long before the councils. The councils just clarified and when into more depth describing the concept of a triune God that Christian believed in the first century.
Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 At 0:22 he says exactly what I said -- it wasn't official church doctrine until the 4th century. I'm not claiming that there is nothing in the bible you can interpret to point to the trinity, I'm talking about the fact that it was not treated as the salvational belief that it has assumed today. Why wouldn't the trinity have been rightly treated as such a core belief from day 1, given that Jesus would have described it in totally unambiguous language to the twelve and how one could only understand Jesus's sacrifice in light of the teaching?
Yes, there are.
I think you might have misspelled 'misinterpretations'
@@fruitZzed That’s a separate issue.
Have you ever compared “The Last Words of Jesus”, between the four Gospels?..
At my church, the discrepancy in the genealogies of Jesus was explained as one being Mary's and one being Joseph's. When I asked our elders and preacher where that idea came from, they didn't have an answer. I know there may be people poping in to complain about my lack of understanding, so I just wanted to throw it out to folks to explain it to me like I'm a child who just learned about this.
I think this website can provide some insight into these explanations:
zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-are-jesus-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different
@@SharedPhilosophy Thanks!
No one should complain about the lack of understanding of someone who is honestly questioning if they actually do have good reasons and sufficient evidence to justify their god beliefs and is prepared to accept that they might be mistaken. I wish you well on your journey, but please remember that your wellbeing and safety is far more important than telling others of your doubts. Just because true to yourself, you owe nothing to those who might harm you.
Dear @aarondeimund6898, Hello !
I would use the term "alleged discrepancy" concerning the genealogies in the two books. The idea that it is an actual logical contradiction is a misunderstanding of what a contradiction actually is according the philosophy and logic.
There are at least two very viable plausible reasonable explanations for this "alleged discrepancy" in the two genealogies.
If there are reasonable explanations that resolve the "alleged discrepancy" then It cannot be considered a logical contradiction.
Those who consider this issue a contradiction apparently have failed to follow sound principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. Specifically, they have failed to consider the issue in it's historical cultural context of the first century, in the Jewish cultural context. They naively interpret the text in the context of their own contemporary cultural understandings. This is not a scholarly approach to understanding the meaning of ancient texts. This is a universally accepted aspect of sound historiography.
You might want to watch a video Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" made on this issue. It is titled, "Different Genealogies ?" (ruclips.net/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/видео.html)
Michael presents two viable, reasonable explanations for the alleged discrepancy in the two genealogies, within the context of the first century Jewish culture. We do not know which of these explanations is correct, but with two viable explanations, it is not reasonable or scholarly to hastly conclude that there is necessarily a logical contradiction in this issue. To do so is intellectually dishonest (or intellectually naive).
Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 "Intellectually dishonest", lmao. What is "intellectually dishonest" is to pretend that it's even remotely possible for anyone in first century to be able to trace their lineage back to a mythical Adam and Eve, let alone an illerate carpenter and a nobody woman.
We have in the greek-roman literature collection five distinctive different stories about "Iesous". Paul, then Marc who uses Paul and a lot of tropes from greek authors like Homer and common greek elements like elevation to godhhod shown themrough missing bones empty graves. We have four different endings of Marc in various manuscripts, Then Mathew copies largely Marc and edits, changes and adds what he sees wrong in Marc. The Lucas takes stuff from Marc and Mathew and makes up his version. Then we have John who steals about everything from the greek world and we find Dionysosmiracles, Poseidon miracles, Asclepios miracles and all the various titles of other gods attached to "Iesous". To sum it all up everyone of the five authors considers his work alonethe true story and all others as inferior or outright wrong. So putting five stories in a collection shows only that the collectors did not understand the original authors and their message.
Hey this is unrelated but can you do a video about explaining philosophies that you believe in? I have been getting more into philosophies and want to know others opinions about the controversial few.
Yep I can do that!
The amount of bible errors and contradictions number in the 1000's - Why wouldn't there be? The bible is a collection of books of mostly unknown authorship. Though an extremely important collection from antiquity, it is clearly not of "divine" origin and neither is the deity represented in its pages anymore real than Zeus.
Agreed. And there is always some kind of excuse or "justification" for these contradictions from apologists, some of which are valid and genuinely fix the contradiction, but many of which are post hoc rationalizations that make little to no sense.
The core issue with these contradictions is that they shouldn't even BE there. at all. If this god is NOT the author of confusion and he is able to communicate his message clearly then there should be easy-to-understand texts which don't appear as contradictions. It's always so funny to me how humans always have to come to the rescue of god on his own scripture and explain away the obvious errors, and god never seems to speak for himself on these things. It's almost like humans are making rationalizations for other fallible humans, not god.
Thanks for commenting and watching!
1st Contradiction, the flaw is in the English not the Bible. In Matthew's account you have to do math. Note the number 14, count the generations. The last generation list has only 13.... unless you realize in the Hebrew and the Aramaic versions. Joseph the HUSBAND on Mary is actually Joseph the FATHER of Mary, 14 generations are counted again, Mary just married a guy with the same name as her father. I don't think that's any stretch at all. It removes the contradiction, Mary's lineage, as flesh and blood mother and Luke tells Joseph's lineage as Jesus's step father. Both are valid.
Holy cow... the eye witnesses accounts are exactly that. What each witness remembers based on what impacted them more deeply. I've been a professional investigator since 1988. Eye witnesses accounts never line up 100% of the time. Just because a memory of an event happens in a certain order, does not mean it happens at the same time as another eye witnesses account. Doesn't make either of them wrong. You have to look at time identifying statements, before the sun rose, it was early in the day.... these are at different times, from different witnesses. The most accurate assessment of all these event that takes these ti.e statements in order is The Chronological Gospels, the Life and Seventy Week Ministry of the Messiah, by Michael Rood. You would be way better off reading this book than using RUclips to attempt to "fix" theology, especially when you consider most professors, couldn't actually get a real job in their field.
That doesn't make sense, if the evangelist was trying to trace Mary's lineage he should arrive in Mary at some point, he should explicitly cite her. It's a stretch because the way it's written makes you inferere is Joseph lineage in the two gospel, if we didn't have Luke gospel no way one would argue Matthew's author was tracing Mary lineage, you say so because there are two accounts that don't match and you're trying to fix it
I am willing to bet these flaws are in any translation of the bible no matter the language. On that line of thinking, who is responsible for humanity having so many languages? If God wanted to would God not be able to give humans the language to accurately represent his word?
Dear @@BFpro156 , Hello !
Makes good sense when you consider the text within it historical/cultural context following sound principles of hermeneutics and exegesis.
It is inappropriate to force the text to conform into one's own cultural/historical context when the events occurred in another.
Two possible viable feasible explanations presented by Micheal Jones in his video titled "Different Genealogies?" (ruclips.net/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/видео.html)
As long as there are plausible, viable explanations, then it cannot be considered a legitimate logical contradiction.
To be considered a legitimate logical contradiction one would need to provide objective, definitive evidences concluding that the possible explanations are completely untenable. That is what is required by logic and what is required sound scholarship. Be Well, DZ
Yes. It is a collection of works by MANY different authors that were compiled and curated by oral traditions. The book of Enoch, for example, presents a problem as the church deemed it to be fraudulent, but it is quoted and referenced in the New Testament.
Dear @funkatron101, Hello !
Is it possible that a "fraudulent" book can contain a quote from an authentic source ?
There are many pseudepigraphal works that are falsely attributed to significant people (probably to make people think they are authentic), that contain some content that is true and or authentic. That does not mean the whole work is creditable or that it is written by who it claims the author is.
I don't know how that presents a problem. DZ
@@Silverheart1956 It questions the claim of the inerrancy of the Bible when the church determines the Book of Enoch to be false, while characters in the New Testament use the Book of Enoch as a source of legitimacy.
Once you poke holes in the premise of inerrancy, you can look at many other claims in the Bible with a more critical eye.
7:01 the message was the same throughout both passages and it really isn’t much of a contradiction.
could you elaborate a little bit? I'm having trouble understanding
One thing to suggest. Never use the NIV version to cite or critique the Bible. It is one of these worst translations. For example, in the NIV, Numbers 5:11-31 explicitly endorses abortion if a woman is pregnant as the result of an affair. This is VERY problematic for pro-lifers. All other versions imply it but have enough "wiggle room" for the apologist to deny that this is about abortion.
I think many scholars recommend New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.
Dear @funkatron101, Hello !
Generally the NIV is a fairly good translation, but one must understand its limitations. It used the "Dynamic Equivalence" method of translation, were the goal is to translate thought for through from the text. This can be very helpful when translating idioms were a word for word translation may be confusing the actual meaning due to a failure of understanding the historical, cultural context of how the literal words are used.
The weakness in this method is that the translator has to have a strong understanding of the culture context to properly interpret the meaning as he translates the text.
The "Formal Equivalence" method of translation (literal word for word) also has weaknesses and strengths.
It is best to use a combination of multiple translations to research the text, or even far better study the text from the original languages.
You are correct that The NIV has some unreliable translations of some words in Num. 5:11-31 where it has lead some people to misunderstand the actual meaning of the text in the original language (Hebrew). In verse 22 the NIV says "your womb miscarries”. The relevant words used here is "וְלַנְפִּ֣ל. יָרֵ֑ךְ" (yā·rêḵ; wə·lan·pil). These words do not in any way mean or implies "miscarries". That is a definite mistranslation that misleads people to misunderstand the actual meaning of the text. There is nothing in the text that even describes the woman as being pregnant. The whole section described in Num. 5:11-31 has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or miscarriage from a sound hermeneutical and exegetical perspective. There is nothing having to do with any "wiggle room". The Hebrew text is simply is NOT saying anything about abortion, period.
Simple concise explanation for the layman - "Is Numbers 5:11-31 referring to God causing an abortion?" (www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html)
More in depth discussion from Oxford Academic - "Why Biblical Arguments for Abortion Fail" (academic.oup.com/cb/article/29/1/11/7103199)
Even IF (hypothetically) it did mean miscarry, even that understanding of the text would not "endorse abortion if a woman is pregnant as the result of an affair".
All of these arguments from Bart Erhman have been debunked.
Dr. Brant Pitre has good objections toward these.
This is a really good video and all the contradictions pointed out have answers. I would recommend watching the RUclips channel testify. He has lots of videos on the subject, especially the historiography of the new testament
Thanks, will do!
@@SharedPhilosophy this guy is an atheist. I doubt he will
Dear Shared Philosophy, Hello !!
So, Matthew & Luke - contradicting genealogies ??? If that is so, then I suppose at least one theologian in all of church history has noticed this issue.
I noticed you avoided mentioning how some Christian theologians explained this paradox. In such a video, don't you think for the sake of objective intellectual fairness, you would mention both side os the issue ?
Please tell me what flaw do you find in the explanation offered by Eusebius. He has offered a reasonable, plausible possible explanation. Why have you ruled it out or ignored the legitimacy of what he thought could have happened. many theologians favor another explanation that is very plausible, By what reason would you reject the legitimacy of that explanation ??
Is it possible that you failed to conduct your due diligence in research to the point you are completely unaware of these explanations. I am very certain that if you have adequately researched the issue, then you would be very aware of the explanations I am speaking of.
This seems to leave me with two thoughts. Perhaps you did not research the issue much at all, to which I would ask, why are you making a video on something you have not researched. OR You are aware of these explanations and you are selecting to omit information about plausible explanations which would make one question, why hide such relevant information if one wants to be intellectually objective ?
A Logical Contradiction - "A" cannot be "non-A", at the same time, in the same context.
If there is a plausible, viable explanation that harmonizes the accounts, then it cannot be regarded as an authentic logical contradiction.
When it come to historical events, far too many people are willing to hastily form a conclusion without adequately understanding the relevant historical issues, and without applying sound principles of hermeneutics and exegesis. I think this is evident in your conclusion.
While watching a play a man entered the stage and shot one of the actors. The detective was questioning witnesses about the incident.
The first witness said I say the man enter onto the stage from the right and shot the actor standing in the center of the stage.
However, witness number two, claimed to the be very close to the incident and told the detective the man enter the stage from the left and shot the actor who was standing in the center of the stage.
The detective told the prosecuting attorney that one witnesses said he entered from the left and the other the right. The attorney said the defense will use this contradiction to defend his client.
An old experienced, senior detective, overhearing the issue, interrupted and asked the younger detective, where were your witnesses ? After a discussion the young detective realized one witness was in the audience and saw the man enter from the right. The other witness was coming through the back curtain onto the stage when the incident occurred and saw the man enter the stage from the left. It was no actual, legitimate contradiction; just an inexperienced detective that jumped to a conclusion without knowing and understanding all the issues and ramifications of the issue.
So, dear "Shared Philosophy", is it possible that you are taking a very superficial perspective of the issue without having really conducted your due diligence in researching the issue, resulting in a hasty conclusion of labeling this a contradiction ? Perhaps so !!
Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" gives a good, little, concise explanation of why this issue is not really a legitimate contradiction, in the context of philosophy, logic, and an understanding of relevant historical information, by presenting two very viable and plausible explanations, of what could explain this "alleged" contradiction.
The video is titled, .......... "Different Genealogies? - Bible Contradiction #1" ........... and can be found on this website - (ruclips.net/video/UWq3fVQuSuA/видео.html).
Personally, I see no compelling, rational reason to assert that this issue is in any way, a legitimate contradiction. Be Well DZ
"I noticed you avoided mentioning how some Christian theologians explained this paradox. In such a video, don't you think for the sake of objective intellectual fairness, you would mention both side os the issue ?"
Nope, and I specifically in the video said that I'm just showing that these contradictions exist. Never said that they don't have any answers, just said that these exist and I'm showing them in this video. If anyone wanted to research them, themselves they could do that. This video was entirely about just mentioning that these things exist. Thats all. There was no intention of giving a remedy for these problems within the same video.
Also, I don't really care for explanations from apologists, because the big issue that this video is pointing out is that god cannot create a foolproof method of communicating his message to the world. Contradictions (even if they have answers) shouldn't exist if a perfect god can communicate his message well. It is completely on god's responsibility that this message about our eternal salvation or damnation should be communicated clearly and without error. These apparent contradictions just show how human-made this text is. It is so absolutely irresponsible of god to create such a flawed and incoherent book that apologists and theologians need to come to the rescue of god in order to justify HIS holy book. It's so interesting how god can never speak for himself on these issues. It's always humans having to come to his rescue. Almost seems like humans making up for the errors of other humans from the past.
If there is a perfect god, I have so much more respect for him, than everyone who says that this book is the best he could come up with. Such an insult to a perfect being who'd be able to communicate perfectly, to have created such a fallible and problematic book.
@@SharedPhilosophy
From the perspective of philosophy and logic, the discrepancies you are describing concerning the two genealogies are not to be classified as authentic contradictions. Apparently you are using a much looser, more personal definition of the term "contradiction" than used in philosophy and logic.
As I said, if there is any reasonable, plausible explanation that adequately explains the discrepancy, then is cannot be considered to be an authentic contradiction. Contradictions are rarer than most people using a superficial perspective of investigating the facts, imagine they are.
If you want to definitively prove that the Matt. genealogy and the Luke genealogy are actual legitimate contradictions, then it is necessary that you provide definitive evidence negating the veracity of each of the proposed explanations. You have NOT done this ! You have not even addressed any of these or even mentioned the possible explanations, so you cannot definitively claim they are a contradiction.
This principle would be upheld in any scholarly 101 logic class in any reputable college or university !
Your perspective of "apologists" is a personal issue unrelated to the issue. The essence of the issue is not the presenters, but the content of the evidence and the essence of the original authentic meaning.
Yes, Michael Jones is presenting an apologetic defending the rational understanding of the two genealogies. You are defending the opposite assertion. BOTH OF YOU ARE ASSUMING THE POSITION OF A "APOLOGIST" !!!
Some people defend the cultural-historical understanding of the text concerning these discrepancies, that appear to be a contradiction when casually looked at from a superficial perspective, and I suppose you label them "(Christian) "apologists" (in a derogatory manner). However when scholarly research is objectively conducted, one realizes that these discrepancies can not legitimately be considered a technical, logical "contradiction"because it does not fit the conditions of the definition.
While on the other hand, some people (like you) defend a proposition that the discrepancies must necessarily be considered a contradiction and refuse to study the issue on a more deeper, more scholarly manner resulting in a superficial understanding of the issue. So they defend the position that have decided to chose based on a hasty conclusion without due diligence in cultural-historical research. You are an "apologist" for the position you are diligently defending. To bad you didn't spend as much diligence in objective cultural-historical research to arrive at a more scholarly conclusion.
I strongly suspect that you have never taken a 101 class in hermeneutics and exegesis, because some of the misunderstandings you reveal in your explanation exhibits a poor application of those principles.
The documents chronicling the life of Jesus are written within a specific cultural historical context and it is essential to understand what is written within that specific context. It is interesting that fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Christians share the same mistaken perspective of the Biblical Documents.
Be Well, DZ
@Silverheart1956
Yes indeed, one can come up with "how it coulda been" ideas to explain the discrepant genealogies for Jesus, as Eusebius and so many others have done. But this ignores the bigger picture: each genealogy is embedded within a birth narrative. The birth narratives within Matthew and Luke contain many other inconsistencies and contradictions besides the genealogies, as our host SP points out. Matthew knew nothing about any census, trip to Bethlehem, or temple sacrifices for the birth. Luke knew nothing about a slaughter, trip to Egypt, or star-guided Magi. The stories don't even agree on which was the family's hometown. Luke specifically says it was Nazareth, while Matthew plainly implies it was Bethlehem, that only later did they settle in Nazareth.
So the genealogies are simply part of the pattern. Historians see the birth narratives as legends that developed in two different Christian communities, meant to explain how Jesus, who was commonly known to be a Galilean from Nazareth, was actually a descendant of David born in Bethlehem.
Dear @@PekoeBrew-gr4cr , Hello !
I have not studied and researched this issue of the genealogies in depth, and certainly not to the level that I would know enough about it to write a dissertation on the issue, but I am aware of at lease two viable, plausible explanations that resolve the questions about the issue. There may be even more explanations that I am not aware of
Please provide an outline of at least two plausible explanations that have been offered, and provide definitive, evidential support that these two explanations could necessarily NOT be viable, legitimate resolutions of the issue.
Rationally speaking, one must eliminate the possibility that the explanations are legitimate resolutions, in order to make the claim that it is an actual legitimate logical contradiction.
I make this challenge in the light of the fact that most people who are critical of historical events, particularly of the Biblical Documents, appear to make such critical assertions on the basis of repeating (parroting) something that have heard in the rumor mill, and not on the basis of actual, individual, objective, scholarly research on the issue. They like to make the claim, but have not conducted the due diligence in research on the issue.
So for in order for you to legitimately make the claim of a definitive, logical contradiction, you must have at least possess a minimal understanding of the relevant content of the subject matter.
I realize that some in academic don't even do it the right way. Example: Dr. Bart Ehrman, who has made the claim that this issue of the alleged discrepancy in the genealogies, is an actual logical contradiction. No it is not !! Ehrman is a good textual critic and teacher, but he has a poor understanding of what an actual logical contradiction is. Perhaps he could benefit from a 101 class in Logic.
From a superficial perspective there may appear to be a discrepancy between the two genealogies. However, there are very plausible explanations that resolve the issue, that some think they may see. If there is just one plausible explanation that resolved the discrepancy, then one cannot assume the alleged discrepancy is a necessary logical contradiction. Those who make that assumption, do so in a manner not according to logical reasoning.
In the case of the alleged discrepancy between the two genealogies, there are two viable, plausible explanations.
If one desires to claim a legitimate logical contradiction actually exists in this case, then they must provide definitive, objective, evidential, support that the two plausible explanations could not have happened. This is the way rational historiography works. Those who make hasty conclusions, without eliminating the viable, plausible explanations, exhibit a bias in their approach to historiography.
There are many alleged discrepancies that have been postulated over the centuries and there have been books written about these issues. There is a great mountain of literature written about these issues from even the early centuries. Most people do not conduct the due diligence in adequately researching the background material before constructing a viable thesis. That is a indicator of a lack of reasonable scholarship.
I look forward to reading your explanation of why the two major proposed explanations of the differences in the genealogies can not be actual, legitimate, viable, plausible resolutions to the alleged discrepancy.
Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 You didn't seem to read my comment. I already said that one can play the "how it coulda been" game for the genealogies issue, but that ignores the context of the larger problem. The genealogies are embedded within the two birth narratives, which also have many other discrepancies besides the two genealogies. If the two stories are read side by side, it can be seen they are completely distinct accounts, hardly agreeing about anything except the theological points they set out to prove. They relate a completely different set of events, and disagree about locations, people, times, to the point where harmonizing them is practically impossible. When this is realized, it should not be surprising that the genealogies also do not match up.
Think about it... if little was actually known of Jesus' early life, we might expect to see the development of stories to fill in the gaps. And lo and behold, the NT has two completely different stories of Jesus' birth, stories which were unknown to Mark, John, Paul, and which never get referred to again, even in the gospels in which they appear. That's why to a historian, they look like tacked-on legends.
Do witnesses contradict?
They do. Almost always.
Means nothing.
Firstly, do witnesses contradict to the point where they forget to mention an earthquake or completely exclude 3-4 people who were also witnesses from their story?
Secondly, is this story not supposed to be the inspired word of god? Shouldn't it be a little more convincing than just any other witness story we hear? If god's goal is really to get this info out to everyone in the world you'd think he would provide us with a proper story which could not be denied. What an inefficient way to communicate the path to our salvation through ancient, fallible, humans who knew nothing about the world.
I dunno, if the dead rose and started marching on a city, not mentioning that or contradicting that event happening seems a bit unlikely unless someone was just outright fabricating something. Same with an earthquake, to ancient people that was a huge deal (same with eclipses) so it would be documented in sources outside the bible by more or all people in the region it happened in.
@@SharedPhilosophy
They forget to mention an earthquake but they told you Peter's shadow cured the sick. They told you Thomas believed after touching the wounds. They had many things to tell you, an earthquake was not a headline grabber.
The NT is the most documented of it's time. It is number one on its race. But you've given it unfairly high bar so you could say it has failed.
Inspired word of God is just a tag associated with these texts because the authors were well versed after they were with Jesus and apostles.
You even have to argue from silence so you can say they failed, you would have a better argument if they truly are failed in doing what they were intended to do.
@@kurtfrederiksen5538
Lazarus had just been raised before Jesus.
Jesus predicted his death.
What you think should have grabbed the headlines is not what they thought was amazing.
@@koppite9600 that is curious as all we have for that event is something written decades after the fact by anonymous writers. If the event was mundane as you claim it would be easy for someone to mis-remember or exaggerate something after so long.
It's not so much the contradictions.....more importantly, just like all other religious books, it's utter doggy doo-doo
Somebody is going to be struck by lightning today. However, you would imagine that the supreme creator of the universe would manage to oversee the correct information is relayed to the people.
Yes. What did Jesus say on the Cross?
@@johnharrison6745 I'm lost for words. These are two completely different accounts - what? Did John not think forgiveness was important. Seriously!
@@johnharrison6745 Do you not think it would be best to get Jesus words on the cross in 1 book written well and preserved in case books became lost or destroyed? Why have different sayings across different gospels when the supposed god of perfect truth could've communicated this message clearly through all the books.
A close examination of the gospels and how they portray jesus shows us a clear change in the character of jesus over time as he became more legendary as stories circulated.