Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels (2) by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels (2) by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels (2) by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Speaking of the private conversation between Jesus and Pilate, who recorded those?
ReplyDeleteWho said that there wasn't anyone else in the room? Well, at least you seemed to make an effort to listen to Dr McGrew's lecture.
ReplyDeleteIf you are content with non-answers, that's fine.
ReplyDeleteI am content with the fact that scripture does not tell us. Why aren't you? Why are you continually trying to argue from silence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing "arguing from silence" with believing what you want to be true as long as the bible doesn't explicitly say you cannot.
ReplyDeleteWe have fundamentally different epistemologies and it's my belief that yours is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
We have fundamentally different epistemologies and it's my belief that yours is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's examine epistemologies. You want to doubt that the Gospels are reliable because they do not say who was in the room with Pilate and Jesus during Jesus' trial so to your mind there is no way to know what was said and who said it. The problem is that there is no reason to assume that they were alone and neither Gospel tells us the were alone. Trying to raise that point is arguing from silence. I think it's fine to speculate how the authors of the Gospels knew what was said, but it's not okay to throw out their accounts because they don't provide the information that you think they should have. That is arguing from silence. You could just try honesty and admit that you would like to know but don't have that information. You know...like what I did.
Marcus, does the Pilate/Jesus conversation, as it is, raise or lower (however small) the probability that at least that part of the account is fictional (or even just an educated guess)?
ReplyDeleteAt first you were raising a red flag because you did not think there was any reason to think that the content of Jesus conversations with Pilate was recorded accurately because you assumed that it was private and no one else was there. And then countered with the fact that you don't know enough to assume no one else was there, are you now questioning the content of that conversation? What is it that would make you think "at least that part of the account is fictional (or even just an educated guess)"?
ReplyDeleteAnd then countered with the fact that you don't know enough to assume no one else was there...
ReplyDeleteWhen did this happen?
But I guess you aren't going to answer my question (as per normal...)
I cannot answer your question until you answer mine about what do you mean: what is it about the recorded conversation between Jesus and Pilate that makes suspect that at least part of it is fictional? It cannot be that they were alone because you do not know that they were alone.
ReplyDeleteConsidering who else would have possibly been in the room, who do you think would have reported the event to the gospel authors?
ReplyDeleteIf I were to guess: guards (I would not think Pilate would be unprotected at any time in Jerusalem) and/or scribes who watched and recorded the business Pilate conducted. Or even better, Jesus was with His disciples for 40 days after the Resurrection, He could have told John and the others what happened during the trial while they were not around. It could also be inspiration of the Holy Spirit who of course would have also known what was said and by whom. There are several possibilities - maybe all of these and some I haven't even broached. No need to conclude that it's all, or in part, a fiction...unless that is what you want to do.
ReplyDeleteThere are several possibilities...
ReplyDeleteYou realize you are merely rationalizing what you want to believe. You will always find a "reason" to justify a belief in whatever it is you already believe. Your last post was a great illustration of that.
Given that you would like to default that the conversation is mostly fictitious, how do you know that you are not rationalizing what you want to disbelieve? It's a great illustration that you immediately went to assume that the Gospel writers fabricated Jesus' conversation with Pilate although you have no reason to think that there was no one else there with them. it was a trial remember Pilate was evaluating the charges against Jesus. It is way more reasonable to think that there would at least be scribes recording the event or at least guard(s) at their posts in earshot. Way more reasonable than assuming no one else there than just the two of them. Quit reading your imagination into the text without historical context.
ReplyDelete...how do you know that you are not rationalizing what you want to disbelieve?
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't but it's about what is more likely when you have a dearth of information.
It is way more reasonable to think that there would at least be scribes recording the event or at least guard(s)...
That's not unreasonable at all. And certainly there would have been guards. What is not likely, is that the John author or early Christians would have access to these.
For the record, yours is the only website in the whole internet that I'm aware of that makes Pandora pause...
ReplyDeleteWhat is not likely, is that the John author or early Christians would have access to these.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know that. Demonstrate that is true or admit that you are just rationalizing.
For the record, yours is the only website in the whole internet that I'm aware of that makes Pandora pause...
Show how much you don't know.
You don't know that.
ReplyDeleteI know it's not likely, not that it's true. Care to rephrase your demand?
Show how much you don't know.
It really doesn't. I access some industry specific hogs that have a helluva lot more data and functionality than yours multiple times per day.
Nope, I don't need to rephrase it: If you don't know your hypothesis is true then why would you argue for it?
ReplyDeleteI access some industry specific hogs that have a helluva lot more data and functionality than yours multiple times per day.
hogs? lol. If you can find better blogs than mine, good for you. It doesn't improve your arguments.
If you don't know your hypothesis is true then why would you argue for it?
ReplyDeleteWow, simply WOW. Reread your comment, several times if necessary and get back to me.
You truly missed it. If you can't defend a hypothesis and don't think it's true then you are wasting time even raising it. I know a hypothesis doesn't have to iron clad but it must be solid enough to discuss. You should have some evidence to back it up. Your "industry specific hogs that have a helluva lot more data and functionality than" mine that you check "multiple times per day" should have been able to help you with that. Perhaps you should continue to try "to google" what you need.
ReplyDeleteNice fighting withdrawal.
ReplyDeleteNope..I'm expecting you to put up or shut up: How do you know that it was unlikely for John to have access to knowing what happened when Pilate was interrogating Jesus?
ReplyDeleteWell, if you want to talk about likelihood, you have to commit to a scenario. You are saying that 1) either Pilate's household guards or a scribe or some unknown other present but not mentioned understood Greek well enough (likeliest language Jesus and Pilate would have used) and related the conversation to a christian after the fact or 2) the scribe recorded the conversation, and this document was used by the John author even though it's never been referenced by anyone else and is now apparently lost?
ReplyDeleteWell, if you want to talk about likelihood, you have to commit to a scenario
ReplyDeleteYou first. You are saying that John would not have been able to find out what happened during Pilate's interrogation of Jesus. Yet, you have not explained how you know this nor have your explained why you think that the recorded Text is not true. If you are saying that you don't know it to be false, then you should explain why you don't believe it.
My scenario is that the gospel authors made it up, since there was no one friendly in the room to later relay the information to the authors. Not sure what you want beyond that.
ReplyDeleteCan you now go back and answer my original question or are you too scared?
My scenario is that the gospel authors made it up, since there was no one friendly in the room to later relay the information to the authors.
ReplyDeleteYou have no way to even remotely demonstrate that as being true. How do you even know that one of those who had been there in the room would have remained unfriendly? One or more them could have become Christians themselves later. You don't know either way.
Not sure what you want beyond that.
Honesty and common sense would be a start.
Can you now go back and answer my original question or are you too scared?
I don't have to pick a scenario. My position is not that I know how the Gospel writers knew what happened during Jesus' interrogation. You claim that it's unreasonable that John or any of the Gospel writers knew what happened and you can't demonstrate that. My position is that scripture does not tell us and that you are wrong for assuming the text is wrong because it does not tell you what you think it should tell you.
...and you can't demonstrate that.
ReplyDeleteThat cuts both ways you know? I can't demonstrate that any number of improbable things didn't happen. You can't demonstratte they did. We are left with assumptions. I believe mine are based on a higher likelihood of being true than yours.
Admit it, if this was the Quran or book of Mormon, you'd likely be taking this very position.
That cuts both ways you know? I can't demonstrate that any number of improbable things didn't happen. You can't demonstratte they did. We are left with assumptions.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed to know that improbable things did happen. I have stated that I don't know. You are one drawing conclusions on assumptions and claiming to be honest.
I believe mine are based on a higher likelihood of being true than yours.
Can you demonstrate that your assumptions are better (or more true)? No. You cannot.
Admit it, if this was the Quran or book of Mormon, you'd likely be taking this very position.
I can demonstrate that the Quran and the Book of Mormon is false. All you can do is assume that the Bible is wrong (as you already admitted).
I never claimed to know that improbable things did happen.
ReplyDeleteYour position requires it.
No it does not. Again you have to demonstrate that it is improbable John knew because you have concluded that he did not and you can't. I reject the improbability that he knew. The problem is your epistemology not mine.
ReplyDeleteI can demonstrate that the Quran and the Book of Mormon is [sic] false.
ReplyDeleteBut you can't. Not to a Muslim or a Mormon. Not any more than I can demonstrate the Bible is false (whatever that means) to you.
Its all comes down to your priors and a strong desire to believe something as true.
But you can't. Not to a Muslim or a Mormon. Not any more than I can demonstrate the Bible is false (whatever that means) to you.
ReplyDeleteYou have not been able to demonstrate that the Bible is false. You've tried and failed and not because I am hard headed but because your arguments are wanting. "False" means the same things as it does anywhere else. Either what the Bible says is true or it isn't - no matter what I want to think. or feel. Same thing for you.
Its all comes down to your priors and a strong desire to believe something as true.
Ever looked in the mirror?
Sure, true is true and false is false, but our (including your) ability to aprehend it is not so cut and dry.
ReplyDeleteAd yes, you are extremely hard headed.
Re-Read what you said
ReplyDeleteSure, true is true and false is false, but our (including your) ability to aprehend it is not so cut and dry.
You agree that don't always know what is true and what is false.
Ad yes, you are extremely hard headed.
Yet you think I'm hard headed because I disagree with you that the Bible is indeed true although you are incapable of apprehending that.
You are not just hard headed but hard hearted. That is why you can't see the truth of God. Because of our shared inability to fully understand what is true and false - we need the grace of God to help us. And you don't have it. That is your problem...But fortunately for us God is loving and merciful and will fix you if you go to Him.
Instead of questioning my ability to apprehend truth, I think you should be asking yourself how do you know you understand the truth? Do you included yourself when you say that our ability to apprehend truth is flawed? IF YOU DO HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BIBLE IS WRONG?! You need it to be to go on living however you want - but that's not real honest is it?
ReplyDeleteYet you think I'm hard headed because I disagree with you...
ReplyDeleteThat's not why at all. I know lots of Christians whom I would not describe as pig headed.
Do they think that you are an unrepentant unregenerate sinner? That is what the Bible says you are. If they don't know that, they might not Christians.
ReplyDelete