Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by namine
You do not believe in the bible; therefore, what would be the point in explaining any of it? You state it as a fat the Chritstians cannot answer these
questions, that is pretty bigoted and untrue. What is the point of your thread if not to claim that Christians are foolish and don't know the answers
to these questions? The title of your thread says it all. You did not say, "Can any Christians explain these things" you just said that we could
Yes, I’m not convinced the bible is generally what it’s made out to be, but obviously a lot of people are, so there’s no harm in investigating
why that is. The title of the thread is clearly influenced by the titles of the YouTube videos, but nowhere did I "state it as fact Christians cannot
answer the questions". In fact, the first line in the OP is “Or can they?” If you want to look at the OP and interpret it as “Christians are
foolish”, that’s on you.
Anyway, a number of people offered responses to some of the questions along the lines of “who cares” or “doesn’t matter” e.t.c. But it’s
not a matter of personal relevance; or else we might as well not ask a lot of questions about life, like “what came first, chicken or the egg?”
Who cares about any of the video questions and whether Christians can answer them? It’s a curiosity.
The fact is flawed testimony and inconsistencies tend to dampen the reliability of the information presented. If these people inspired by a perfect
god can’t get the details of 100% factual accounts straight, it stands to reason there are questions to be asked of said accounts, and of said
people, so I don’t understand why anybody would be upset about scrutinizing their claims. Knowing people would look to the bible for answers and
credence, why didn’t God help them get it straight?
Some of the discrepancies can be rather telling too. For instance, the question about the stone on the tomb, each gospel offers a different account
for the same event. Mark places 3 women at the scene, Luke places at least 5 women there, and John places only 1 woman there. There are also varying
accounts on the witness identities and who and what the women/woman find when they/she gets there. Moreover, Matthew says 2 women went to the tomb,
and to confuse matters even further, went on to add that an earthquake had occurred and an angel rolled back the stone. Earthquakes and angels don’t
exactly happen every day, and not back then either, so why would the other authors not report this divine occurrence? Is it really logical to dismiss
all these diverging specifics as unimportant? It seems like we are expected to trust what the authors want us to believe (Jesus’ resurrection) and
ignore all the little details that are meant to support its historical certainty.
Moreover, according to Markan priority, which is accepted by the majority of NT scholars, Matthew borrowed a lot of content for his gospel from Mark,
sometimes verbatim, and he went through the trouble of embellishing the details in order to make Jesus appear more divine.
Mark’s gospel suggests Jesus had to try twice and had to spit in a man’s eyes in order to heal him (Mark 8 :23-25), describes an incident where it
took a day for Jesus’ curse to work on a fig tree (Mark 11:20), Jesus angry on certain occasions (e.g Mark 1:41), an incident where Jesus could not
perform miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5). Now compare that to Matthew’s copied and improved version of events in which he eliminated the spitting
and added a second blind man (Matthew 9:28-29), the fig tree was cursed immediately
instead of taking a day (Matthew 21:19), eliminated the
corresponding part including Jesus’ anger (Matthew 8:3), and where Jesus could not
perform miracles in his hometown, Jesus did not
perform miracles in his hometown(Matthew 13:58).
It would appear Matthew exercised a fair bit of embellishing in order to make Jesus appear even more wondrous and infallible. And who’s to say the
earthquake and angel at the tomb weren't added in by Matthew for the same reasons? How can we trust any testimony from Matthew with these ulterior
motives in mind? Of course, you could say a lot of this is speculative, but it’s hardly different to how Christians draw up varying interpretations
from the same material.
reply to post by MrCobb
No thanks. This thread is about the questions in the video, not your ego, or my beliefs. You are free to leave now, and take your bloodlust elsewhere.