tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post116618971976716821..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Discussing with an InerrantistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166918056510902052006-12-23T18:54:00.000-05:002006-12-23T18:54:00.000-05:00Conclusion (at least by me)I started this blog wit...<B>Conclusion (at least by me)</B><BR/><BR/>I started this blog with the intent to discuss the naming of the disciples (believe it or not) with a person who indicated that we would use the methodology of “more plausible.” I carefully laid out (what I thought) was a fairly complete argument.<BR/><BR/>As discussions are wont to do, we became focused solely on the circumstances around the calling of the Disciples. That is fine—that is how discussions go.<BR/><BR/>The one thing that (I think) is necessary to discuss this in light of the various gospels, is a coherent chronology, taking into account <B>all</B> the details of <B>all</B> the gospels which is more plausible than various authors giving various accounts.<BR/><BR/>I have asked and asked and asked, and apparently I am asking for too much. Until such a chronology is provided, I think further discussion on this issue is a waste of time. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I know it is difficult, but I spent a great deal of time on the blog entry. Is it too much to ask a Christian at least spend equal time on a response that actually addresses it?<BR/><BR/>We are now at more than 50 comments, and no such chronology has been proposed. (Although, to Dennis’ credit, he did attempt to frame a portion of one.)<BR/><BR/>Thanks to all who provided input. While the inerrantists may believe this was an effortless affair, I learned quite a bit and appreciate the opportunity to do so.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166917992042143772006-12-23T18:53:00.000-05:002006-12-23T18:53:00.000-05:00Dave Armstrong,If you do not want me to “casually ...Dave Armstrong,<BR/><BR/>If you do not want me to “casually blow off” Christian arguments, how about giving us one that is not casually slopped together?<BR/><BR/>I now am able to read this last link. Three problems;<BR/><BR/>1) It was a harmonization between John and Matthew ONLY. No Luke. No Mark.<BR/><BR/>2) While you claim to have a methodology of “more plausible” you only link to sites that use “any possible solution.” Every link you provided uses this methodology. Not your own. So why link to them?<BR/><BR/>3) This chronology requires that the Twelve were not at the temple cleaning of Jesus. But other disciples that Jesus picked up (in Galilee?) were. Do you find that more plausible? That the Twelve were not present?<BR/><BR/>What evidence do you use for the proposition that it is more plausible that the Twelve were not present at the temple clearing?<BR/><BR/><B>Dave Armstrong: </B> <I> Oh man! Why didn't we Christians think that we should actually read the Bible as you do? Thanks SO MUCH for reminding us to do that. What would we do without you? </I><BR/><BR/>I apologize. It becomes SO FRUSTRATING when the Christians that tell me that the Bible is unique, and special and truthful, and the divine providence of the sole God, yet cannot bother to read it as much as a skeptic. “Not enough time,” I hear. “Too hard to argue with a skeptic,” is the cry.<BR/><BR/>Every link you cited causes contradictions with other passages, not included and not dealt with in their apologetic. Every one.<BR/><BR/>In fact, they point to the strength of my argument by failing to do the one thing I request—deal with all four accounts. Deal with the entire Bible in preparing a chronology. By deliberately only using 2 out of the 4 or 3 out of the 4, they demonstrate for me the inability to provide one using 4 out of the 4<BR/><BR/>Look at what this skeptic is doing—actually daring Christians to read the Bible. Actually begging them to know it better than I do. And all I hear is whining and complaining of how it is too hard, and I set it to too high a standard, and it is too difficult, and there is not enough time, and so on and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Of course I have met Christian arguments with plausibility. There are carefully researched, framed together in an attempt to even convince the skeptic, and provide insight into the entire Bible, and not the minute immediate issue in front of their face. Rarely do I see a Christian argument with plausibility that is solely designed to reinforce the Christian’s own premises by ignoring what the skeptic says.<BR/><BR/>Further, Dave Armstrong, why complain about me holding something as plausible? Our history is clear. I have asked, begged and pleaded with you to provide me with the identification of the people we should use to make the determination of “more plausible to whom?” And you have skirted the issue every time.<BR/><BR/>I propose we do NOT use me. No sirree. I propose we use a completely neutral person. You claim no such entity exists. Am I back to begging to know who we are to use to make the determination of “more plausible”? You don’t like me using me—who do you propose I use?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166915955192014252006-12-23T18:19:00.000-05:002006-12-23T18:19:00.000-05:00The Bible is SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED folks - stop re...The Bible is SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED folks - stop reading it like a wooden, crime-report [where facts are recorded to be presented in court]. The Bible is not designed/written to be interpreted this way.<BR/><BR/>The Gospels are not an overwhelming logical construct that is designed to bamboozle you into intellectual submission and cajole you into believing in Christ.<BR/><BR/>But I do not suppose any of these will get through to you sir.<BR/><BR/>Is it not always the case that Blog-OWNERS [especially those that would educate us on the "error" of our faith-based ways] are the true INERRANTISTS?<BR/><BR/>This sentence summarises perfectly my experience of debating them on this particular platform: "You and you alone judge what is plausible and what isn't, and so you always win, because in your judgment, your judgment is always the most plausible!"<BR/><BR/>Then again; is it not great to have someone putting us Christians on our toes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166843585423674212006-12-22T22:13:00.000-05:002006-12-22T22:13:00.000-05:00Oh man! Why didn't we Christians think that we sho...Oh man! Why didn't we Christians think that we should actually read the Bible as you do? Thanks SO MUCH for reminding us to do that. What would we do without you?<BR/><BR/>The answering Islam argument was the best one (the most in-depth). Here it is again, just in case it works for your this time:<BR/><BR/>http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Abualrub/disciples_chrono.htm<BR/><BR/>If not, here is an alternative from the Google cache:<BR/><BR/>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:P_JmVkFHyJsJ:answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Abualrub/disciples_chrono.htm+John+and+Matthew+on+the+calling+of+the+first+disciples&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1<BR/><BR/>I look forward to more entertainment: your casually blowing this off just as you do all Christian arguments. Apparently you never met one that you think is rational or has any plausibility, at any rate.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166843187654970362006-12-22T22:06:00.000-05:002006-12-22T22:06:00.000-05:00LOL You're very clever. I'll give you that. One wo...LOL You're very clever. I'll give you that. One would expect no less of a lawyer. Goes with the job. But cleverness can easily mutate into sophistry.<BR/><BR/>As predicted, you would blithely dismiss everything. So there is no point in continuing. I was simply providing some links for your perusal. Think of them what you will. It ain't like I was holding my breath to observe your spectacular reversal of opinion. <BR/><BR/>You and you alone judge what is plausible and what isn't, and so you always win, because in your judgment, your judgment is always the most plausible!<BR/><BR/>A flawless system for unvanquishability in argument if ever there was one . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166830361336877392006-12-22T18:32:00.000-05:002006-12-22T18:32:00.000-05:00Dave Armstrong, Well, color me confused. First yo...Dave Armstrong, <BR/><BR/>Well, color me confused. First you claim to be interested in my opinion, then you say you do not necessarily want to continue this conversation. Do you want me to respond or not?<BR/><BR/>I did think it was interesting that you switched methodologies on me. Did you notice? All of the links you provided (with one exception) fell back to the “any possible solution” rather than “what is more plausible.” Did you have to reduce your methodology to maintain inerrancy?<BR/><BR/>In essence, these links provided indicate two things to be addressed:<BR/><BR/>1) That some of the disciples were hanging around Jesus for awhile prior to becoming disciples; and<BR/><BR/>2) John the Baptist was arrested during this time they were just hanging around, but prior to Jesus calling them as disciples.<BR/><BR/>Let’s deal with the first one. How long, exactly, were these disciples hanging around Jesus prior to their calling? John gives us two (2) <B>days</B> at the most! I notice none of these links dealt with that problem at all. Frankly, the timing is reduced to Dennis’ chronology. <BR/><BR/>Since you intimated you have done some “very intense, close analysis of the texts,” I assume you are familiar with John 1:19, 1:43 and 2:1. This indicates:<BR/><BR/>Day One: Andrew and other spend day with Jesus<BR/>Day Two: Jesus leaves for Galilee, and calls Philip (and probably Nathanael)<BR/>Day Three: Jesus is in Cana of Galilee for his first miracle <B> with his disciples. </B><BR/><BR/>Peter is introduced at the end of Day One, and is with Jesus in Cana as a Disciple on Day Three. If he was first, as Matthew states, and Philip was called on Day Two…well Peter couldn’t have “hung around” Jesus very long. Further, between Day One and Day Two, Peter has to get back to Galilee and spend a night fishing.<BR/><BR/>Dennis’ chronology, for all its faults, was really the best chronology one can offer between Luke, Matthew and John.<BR/><BR/>The second issue presented by your links is even worse. First of all, Mark 1:14 says John was arrested prior to Jesus preaching in Galilee. Luke 5 has him preaching in Galilee. Under this chronology, the <B>best</B> one can offer is that John the Baptist would have to be arrested on the night of Day One.<BR/><BR/>(Anyone with any history will note that I indicated that in a proposed chronology long, long ago. I wonder if I actually <I>thought</I> about this prior to posting it? hmmmm.)<BR/><BR/>Further, I assume within your implied “very intense, close analysis of the texts,” you came across John 3:22 – 4:2. This is a passage between a Jew and John about baptizing. (Notice in particular vs 24 that emphasize this happened before John was imprisoned.) They were comparing John’s baptism with Jesus’. Only 4:2 indicated it was Jesus’ disciples that were baptizing. <BR/><BR/>Now, can you explain YOUR links’ claims, when this section makes it clear that Jesus had disciples baptizing <B>prior</B> to John being put in prison? How could the Disciples be called after John was put in prison, but be Jesus’ disciples baptizing before he was put in Prison?<BR/><BR/>Now, I looked up your links. <BR/><BR/>The one exception was The first link (answering Islam) I couldn’t get the site to come up, so I don’t know what it said, or what its methodology was. Hence the one exception.<BR/><BR/>The next link(s) (harambeechurch) failed to address John 3:22 – 4:2. In fact, the author either did not know of the passage or deliberately did not address it. Charity would have me prefer the former.<BR/><BR/>The next link (thirdmill)) also failed to address John 3:22-4:2<BR/><BR/>The next link (lookinguntoJesus) assumes Andrew was present in Luke 5. Further, it fails to deal with the mending of the nets, nor Matthew saying Peter was first, nor the different names, nor where the Disciples were from, nor getting Peter and Andrew from outside Galilee to Capernaum overnight, etc.<BR/><BR/>Sure, it tackled this objection. Then the objection got up and beat it to death.<BR/><BR/>The last link (xenos) was a harmonization of the Synoptics. You DO realize the problem with that, right? Which Gospel is missing from the harmonization?<BR/><BR/>Of course I am going to raise objections. Unlike your links, <B>I have actually read the Bible itself!</B> Can I emphasize that enough? Unlike your links, I look for a chronology that actually fits with <B>ALL</B> of the Biblical accounts, not merely the limited area the inerrantist wants to focus on, hoping we skeptics will not actually have the audacity to go out and read the rest of the Bible.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166830312896256322006-12-22T18:31:00.000-05:002006-12-22T18:31:00.000-05:00Lurker,What an excellent post. I appreciate someo...Lurker,<BR/><BR/>What an excellent post. I appreciate someone that says what I want to, only better than I can.<BR/><BR/>It is people like you (and rich) that make we wish we could interact with the…ah…more liberal side of Christianity more.<BR/><BR/>Thank you.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166819269347655022006-12-22T15:27:00.000-05:002006-12-22T15:27:00.000-05:00And yet another site that tackles this objection:h...And yet another site that tackles this objection:<BR/><BR/>http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20031102.htm<BR/><BR/>Finally, here is an extremely in-depth treatment of synoptic Gospel chronology in general:<BR/><BR/><I>The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions<BR/>in the Synoptics</I><BR/><BR/>http://www.xenos.org/MINISTRIES/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/synoprob.htm<BR/><BR/>-----------------------<BR/><BR/>In light of all this material I found today, I must retract an earlier statemnent of mine:<BR/><BR/>"At this point I think it would require a Bible scholar with far more knowledge than I have . . . I still don't have the energy or technical historical / linguistic knowledge I think is required to continue this discussion and take it to yet another round."<BR/><BR/>Now I don't think it "requires" a Bible scholar or great technical knowledge to resolve the alleged "problem." It just took some very intense, close analysis of the different texts. It takes a lot of work, but it can be done by a layman like myself.<BR/><BR/>So I wanted to clarify this. At the same time, I do not necessarily want to continue the discussion myself. Knowing you, you would raise about 1,427 further objections and take it in even more directions. Nothing will ever satisfy you in this regard. Even if this is "solved" to your satisfaction, so what? You'll just move on to 3,803 more supposed "contradictions" that you enjoy mulling over. <BR/><BR/>We Christians are under no illusions that you'll be swayed by any of our arguments. But we think that a person who is open to hearing both sides of an argument (note: this is different from a "neutral" person, as you like to posit) can be, and we are confident that Christians can see that there is no difficulty here that should cause anyone to lose faith or cease beliving in biblical inspiration.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166818397291410922006-12-22T15:13:00.000-05:002006-12-22T15:13:00.000-05:00And another crack at a reply (hooray for Google!):...And another crack at a reply (hooray for Google!):<BR/><BR/>-------------<BR/><BR/><B>Contradictions in Jesus' Early Ministry?</B><BR/><BR/><I>Question</I><BR/><BR/>In John 1, Jesus begins his ministry immediately after his baptism, but in the other accounts he begins his ministry after a period of forty days in the wilderness immediately following his baptism. Is there a way to reconcile these texts? Another apparent contradiction is the manner in which Andrew and Peter were called.<BR/><BR/><I>Answer</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, John the Evangelist doesn't record Jesus' baptism. He does record, however, that John the Baptist spoke of Jesus' baptism as a past event at the time of the interaction regarding John the Baptist and Jesus recorded in John 1. Thus, while the other gospels record Jesus' baptism and subsequent temptation, John picks up the story some time after that period. In other words, John the Evangelist does not claim that the first things he records regarding Jesus' public ministry were actually the first things Jesus did in his public ministry (though clearly they were early).<BR/><BR/>Matthew 4:12-18 and Mark 1:14-16 indicate that this particular call of Andrew and Peter took place after Jesus had begun his public ministry, after he had returned to Galilee, and after John the Baptist had been taken into custody. The events in John 1:40ff. took place while Jesus was still in Judea (i.e. before he returned to Galilee) and before John the Baptist had been taken into custody. John 3:22ff. confirms John 1:40ff. by telling us that Jesus already had some disciples (including presumably Andrew and Peter) before John the Baptist was arrested. The best explanation seems to be that prior to the call in Matthew 4 // Mark 1, Jesus' disciples were not dedicated full-time to the task of studying under Jesus. After their time with Jesus in Judea, they returned to their fishing careers. Then sometime after John's arrest, Jesus called them to full-time discipleship, which is the account we read in Matthew 4 // Mark 1 (which also explains why they apparently followed him immediately and without question).<BR/><BR/>http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99801.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiimDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166818029405463642006-12-22T15:07:00.000-05:002006-12-22T15:07:00.000-05:00Here is another "nutshell" examination of the chro...Here is another "nutshell" examination of the chronology of the calling of discples, from a sermon:<BR/><BR/>---------<BR/><BR/>There are many that see a huge contradiction between John’s account of the disciple’s calling and that of the synoptics (Matthew-Luke, see esp. Matthew 4:18-22; 9:9; Mark 1:16-20; 2:13-14; Luke 5:1-11, 27-21). The gospels, first of all, are not necessarily written in chronological order, but even so, the accounts in John regarding Jesus and His disciples can harmonize with the other gospels when we realize that John is an earlier account that doesn’t include a calling as much as it is an initial revealing of Himself to some of the disciples. While many of His disciples hung out with Jesus, it wasn’t until after John the Baptist was in prison that they actually, “Dropped their nets and followed Him.” <BR/><BR/>Even with Christ walking in their midst, it can take unbelieving minds quite a while to grow in their faith. John the Baptist himself struggled to really know who Jesus was even as he proclaimed Him to be the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:31, 33 cf. Matthew 11:1-6). He struggled when he was in prison to believe that Jesus was the Christ, even though God had clearly revealed that to Him. <BR/><BR/>His disciples didn’t fully understand who or what He was (Mark 6:52; 8:23). All of us who believe in Christ as our savior work from the premise of “come and see” to the calling of “come and follow” Jesus. In John, the disciples are being introduced to Jesus to “Come and see.” They are reluctantly splitting off from their mentor (John the Baptist) and taking his word that this is the Christ.<BR/><BR/>---------------<BR/><BR/>http://harambeechurch2.org/downloads/sermons/john/John_1-35-51_gunn_11-0-10-06.doc<BR/><BR/>HTML:<BR/><BR/>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:vh7mI-Va2A8J:harambeechurch2.org/downloads/sermons/john/John_1-35-51_gunn_11-0-10-06.doc+calling+of+disciples+contradiction+john+the+baptist&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166816483698972212006-12-22T14:41:00.000-05:002006-12-22T14:41:00.000-05:00Hi DagoodS,Now I see why you didn't want to meet f...Hi DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>Now I see why you didn't want to meet for lunch: your personal situation, as explained in your introductory post. Of course, your anonymity would be safe with me (I have less than no desire to promote domestic discord), but I understand your concerns. If you ever change your mind, the invitation remains open.<BR/><BR/>I ran across an attempt to harmonize Matthew and John with regard to the calling of disciples, from a Reformed Protestant friend of mine, Sam Shamoun:<BR/><BR/>http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Abualrub/disciples_chrono.htm<BR/><BR/>I'd be interested in hearing your opinion. I think it is at least as well-argued ("plausible"?) as your scenario.<BR/><BR/>This is answering a Muslim argument; showing once again that liberal Christians, Muslims, atheists, and cultists like Jehovahs Witnesses all utilize the same sorts of arguments. <BR/><BR/>I once replied, e.g., to a Muslim concerning the Trinity. I could just as well have been replying to a Jehovah's Witness, an atheist, or Unitarian. The arguments are interchangeable, like Legos in different sets. Falsehood has a droning sameness and many false belief-systems use the same timeworn arguments.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166778682354126072006-12-22T04:11:00.000-05:002006-12-22T04:11:00.000-05:00"I really struggle with the idea of someone callin..."I really struggle with the idea of someone calling themselves a Christian and believing the Bible contains errors. Doesn't the term "Christian" imply being a follower of Christ? When we look at how Jesus handled the Old Testament..."<BR/><BR/>As you may know Dennis, much of C20th theology is rooted in a grappling with this very question, and there are many answers a good deal more plausible than inerrancy. Try Karl Barth, for instance.<BR/><BR/>However, I'm not interested (in this case) in talking theology, because that's to dance to your tune. I think I can paraphrase some of DagoodS' most recent post by saying that he argues "bottom up", while you argue "top down". And the prevalent mode of argument in our scientific times is: bottom up.<BR/><BR/>What I mean is, you proceed from a first principle which is theological: namely that the Bible is without error. It must be so, because of the theology you develop from the NT's descriptions of Jesus and your interpretation of them. Once that ("top") principle is established, you proceed ("top down") to demonstrate how it is *possible* that no contradictions exist within the Bible. <BR/><BR/>However as we've seen, your explanations do not have probability on their side. When challenged by a sceptic like DagoodS, you are in the uncomfortable position of having to defend them (hence the complaints about tactics, etc). But it's easier for you when *I* challenge you; because I'm a Christian, so you can sidestep the issues of detail and pull theological rank: i.e. surely, Lurker, if you believe the Bible contains errors, you are not a Christian!<BR/><BR/>That's why I'm refusing to dance to such a theological tune. Instead, I'm returning to the more objective question of possibility / probability which DagoodS introduced.<BR/><BR/>His method, in contrast to yours, is scientific. It is "bottom up". He looks at the facts and seeks to determine, and I think reasonably objectively, what is the most probable conclusion: namely that inerrancy is not sustainable. His refutation of inerrancy is not based upon sinful motives, lifestyle, etc: because, with most C20th theologians (as opposed to apologists), he accepts that one can still be a believer with all that this implies, while rejecting inerrancy.<BR/><BR/>As for my supposed infatuation with being "mainstream": far from it. I'm trying to be honest in my reading of Scripture. An honest reader is one who engages the brain; who respects the text by sifting what is actually there, without trying to explain it away on the ground of some prior principle. (For as DagoodS observes, the text actually gains in richness as a result.) On that basis, such a reader forms a view of how Scripture can and should be read, and what other influences - e.g. reason, tradition, experience - should form his or her spiritual life. Such a reader will not be dominated by the very understandable and human, but hardly "objective", wish for certainty and for black and white answers in everything.<BR/><BR/>This reader's method is better. The top down approach you espouse will end by landing you in some intellectual calamities, and you will never convince anyone unwilling to let their mind sleep. If as a matter of principle the Bible never contradicts itself... Jesus must have scourged the temple TWICE (How odd they didn't warn him off the second time!); there were feedings of both 5,000 and 4,000; the cock crowed six times. These are all genuine apologetic arguments; the last courtesy of Harold Lindsell, I believe in "The Battle for The Bible".<BR/><BR/>Needless to say, the worst offender of all is creationism. Proceeding from the "top" principle of inerrancy, its advocates argue top down for all kinds of strange things which a bottom up analysis thoroughly refutes.<BR/><BR/>For more on all this, take a look at James Barr's marvellous book Fundamentalism (SCM, 1977).<BR/><BR/>I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on these two contrasting ways of reading. But remember: no theological ad hominems. I'm not interested in your view of whether I'm a Christian or not.<BR/><BR/>Oh and DagoodS - no problem. Yes, it seems you and I are to be consigned to the same camp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166732254488753982006-12-21T15:17:00.000-05:002006-12-21T15:17:00.000-05:00Lurker,Thank you for your kind words. Personally,...Lurker,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your kind words. Personally, I feel the Bible becomes richer and more interesting upon eliminating archaically imposed dogmas such as inerrancy. <BR/><BR/>Wouldn’t surprise me if inerrancy disappeared within the next 100 years, and becomes a footnote of a forgotten anachronism. <BR/><BR/>As you can see, however, by saying such “apostasy,” you will quickly be lumped with me. Have people really reached the point that one must hold to inerrancy to be a Christian?<BR/><BR/>For fun, we could ask Dennis how the author of Luke interpreted this passage (odd he removed the references to “you do not know the scriptures.”) Or better yet, where Christ demanded inerrancy in the Tanakh. Or even more fun, what passage of the Tanakh was Christ referring to regarding marriage post-resurrection.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166732218918131522006-12-21T15:16:00.000-05:002006-12-21T15:16:00.000-05:00Dennis, If you will permit me, the reason we seem ...Dennis, <BR/><BR/>If you will permit me, the reason we seem to be talking past each other, is the differences in our methodologies.<BR/><BR/>Imagine we ask the question “What is the distance between Detroit and Chicago?” We could receive the following answers:<BR/><BR/>“280 miles”<BR/>“One hour”<BR/>“Five hours”<BR/><BR/>Depending on whether we are using the method(s) of measuring by distance, or time to travel by plane or time to travel by automobile, we obtain different answers. (Each answer is correct within its own method.) Once we understand the methodologies, we can understand why there are differences. Otherwise we end up with:<BR/><BR/>“It is five hours between Chicago and Detroit”<BR/>“It is one hour between Chicago and Detroit.”<BR/>“Five”<BR/>“One”<BR/>“Five”<BR/>“One”<BR/><BR/>In that scenario, neither understands that the other is using a completely different method and we can observe this ridiculous argument.<BR/><BR/>When writing this blog entry, I am using the method of “which scenario is more plausible” whereas you freely admit you reject this method. You are using the method of “any possible solution resolves the contradiction” which is a very different method indeed.<BR/><BR/>One of us is talking about the time it takes to travel by plane, the other the time it takes to travel by automobile.<BR/><BR/>Under the “more plausible” method, within the Gospel of John it is more plausible that Andrew was called prior to Peter, by introduction into the story, and simple chronology.<BR/><BR/>Under the “more plausible” method, within the Gospel of Luke it is more plausible that Andrew was called after Peter, by virtue of the fact that Andrew is conspicuously missing from Luke 5, even though Luke is copying Mark, and is aware of Andrew’s connection with Peter. (Luke 6:14)<BR/><BR/>When I wrote this blog entry, I made is deliberately clear that I was <B>NOT</B> using the “any logical possibility,” but rather was using the “more plausible” method. <BR/><BR/>You, however, desire to continue to use the “any logical possibility” method. If it is any help (and I thought I had long ago) I would whole-heartedly, fully, completely and unabashedly agree there <B>is no</B> contradiction under this method. Anywhere. In the entire Bible. Including this story.<BR/><BR/>Under the “any possibility” method, within the Gospel of John, it is possible that Andrew was called before, after, during, or died, observed from Heaven, and was brought back to life the calling of Peter.<BR/><BR/>Under the “any possibility” method, within the Gospel of Luke, it is possible that Andrew was called before, after, during, or introduced his Twin, also named “Andrew” as to the calling of Peter.<BR/><BR/>That’s what is so great about your method—it resolves any and all contradictions.<BR/><BR/>Under my method, it is more plausible Andrew was called before Peter in John, and after Peter in Luke. Under your method, Andrew could have been called anytime, anywhere, anyhow.<BR/><BR/>Is the difference clear, yet? We are talking about two completely different methodologies, here.<BR/><BR/>You keep insisting that you are winning, but you are only using your own method. You think I am having difficulty, but only under your own method.<BR/><BR/>The problem with your method is that it removes the Bible from being unique. The Qur’an’s contradictions can be resolved by “any possible contradiction.” So, too, the Book of Mormon. So, too, most human works. The Bible is one among billions of other works that appears to have a contradiction, but does not if we can produce “any possible” solution.<BR/><BR/>Even things we know and agree as contradictions appear as non-contradictions within this method. I already blogged on that.<BR/><BR/>The only reason I continued this discussion is that <B>REGARDLESS</B> of when Andrew and/or Peter was called, I was wondering how you could fit the events of John 1 into the other Gospels. I was aware of the other contradictions that would be introduced by any attempt to harmonize these events.<BR/><BR/><B>REGARDLESS</B> of whether Andrew or Peter were called in John 1, as you can see, simply fitting these occurrences into what the rest of the Bible says creates a ridiculous picture. Possible? Yes. Plausible? Not hardly.<BR/><BR/>I understand completely why you regret writing the harmonization. I knew ahead of time that this would introduce MORE problems than it was resolving. Sure it takes care of coordinating with Luke 5. Just not the rest of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>This is analogous to a scientific proposal. If a student introduced a hypothesis that resolved one small problem, but also introduced numerous other problems that did not exist previously, it would be rejected. It fails to answer MORE than the previous hypothesis did.<BR/><BR/>Remember those old antennas on televisions? “Rabbit ears” we called them? And by turning and poking and prodding we hoped to bring a clearer picture? This is like our complaining about the reception, so you point out how if we stand 20 feet behind the TV and hold the antenna on our head, we get better reception.<BR/><BR/>We point out how, as effective as that is for reception, we can no longer see the picture! You complain that we are “introducing new problems” and all you want to resolve is how to get a better reception. You don’t want to talk about the fact that your solution, while resolving the immediate problem, introduces many, many greater problems—that we can’t see the picture at all, regardless of how good the reception is!<BR/><BR/>Part of the reason I continued the discussion was that, complain all you want, I was going to point out all the contradictions introduced by your harmonization. I don’t expect you to see it. (I hope you do, but don’t expect it.) However, there are others reading. Others that may want to research on their own. Others that may take up the study and realize the difficulties you present.<BR/><BR/><B>Dennis: </B> <I> When I see DagoodS continually beg for irrefutable evidence that Bible is God's revelation to us, I ask myself if he ever applies his own skepticism towards his own beliefs. </I> <BR/><BR/>Irrefutable evidence would be wonderful! However, I would settle for <I>some</I> evidence at this point. We are looking for something that makes the Bible unique. Stand out. Be different than simply a human writing.<BR/><BR/>Using the least possible standard of resolving contradictions—“any possibility”—makes the Bible get lost in the crowd of Billions of other documents.<BR/><BR/><B>Dennis: </B> <I>As an atheist, he has to believe that all matter was never created and has always existed and that spontaneous generation can happen … </I><BR/><BR/>Ah. So you would prefer I believe in a God that was never created and has always existed and consists of three entities that are actually one, but act separately, while being singular?<BR/><BR/>Worse, the proponents of this God, while insisting he provided us writing, are too busy to defend it against a mere human skeptic. The only way in which to sustain the unique nature of the Bible is to develop a method that makes it less unique than a grocery list.<BR/><BR/>Rather than spend you time asking yourself what I do, or complaining about what I believe, I would prefer you spent your time explaining away these contradictions, even if I (gasp!) dare to point out that your resolutions of one contradiction collide and cause a contradiction elsewhere.<BR/><BR/><B>Dennis: </B> <I>Someday I want to teach an apologetics course to the teens class at church. I am sure many of these kids have been sheltered from skepticism of the Bible and I would rather be the first person to show them a contradiction instead of some atheist who will employ any tactic to break their faith.</I><BR/><BR/>What contradiction out of the Bible are you going to show them?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166711710534576772006-12-21T09:35:00.000-05:002006-12-21T09:35:00.000-05:00Dave,I couldn't agree with you more. When I see D...Dave,<BR/><BR/>I couldn't agree with you more. When I see DagoodS continually beg for irrefutable evidence that Bible is God's revelation to us, I ask myself if he ever applies his own skepticism towards his own beliefs. As an atheist, he has to believe that all matter was never created and has always existed and that spontaneous generation can happen (even though that theory was dismissed by most scientists centuries ago).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Lurker,<BR/><BR/>I really wish I did have the time to attack DagoodS' laundry list of contradictions. I couldn't so I focused on just one. I hope you were paying attention and could see the difficulty he had defend just that one. His tactic of hand waving and pointing to other contradictions is a game I see played all the time.<BR/><BR/>I really struggle with the idea of someone calling themselves a Christian and believing the Bible contains errors. Doesn't the term "Christian" imply being a follower of Christ? When we look at how Jesus handled the Old Testament, does this lead us to believe that we should pick and choose which parts are true and which parts are false? Clearly not. Jesus was the son of God and had the authority to speak whatever he wanted to say without quoting the words of mortal men, yet this is what he did. Jesus quoted the Old Testament very frequently. In Matthew 22:23-29 and Mark 12:18-24 we see the Sadducees trying to corner Jesus was a trick question and Jesus' response is "You are in error because you don't know the scriptures." If Jesus believed the OT contained errors, wouldn't it be odd for him to use it to rebuke the errors of the Sadducees? Please don't take offense at this statement, but it seems like you are more concerned with following the wide path of the mainstream than you are the example that Jesus left us. It was the "mainstream" religion that rejected Jesus and crucified him.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166690380321874952006-12-21T03:39:00.000-05:002006-12-21T03:39:00.000-05:00Dennis, Speaking as a Christian, I'm afraid I feel...Dennis, <BR/><BR/>Speaking as a Christian, I'm afraid I feel that - whatever quibbles you may have over tactics - DagoodS has routed you, and demonstrated the unsustainability of the inerrancy doctrine. If you wish to continue defending it, you must expend the same time and effort which DagoodS put into his last post, rebutting his comments one by one. Regardless of what you regard as your victory concerning the original point.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe, however, that you will make any headway without arguing that black is white - and that X or Y event must have occurred twice, etc. For me, this kind of exercise demonstrates the triviality of "apologetics" (of the conservative / textual, rather than the more philosophical Keith Ward variety). Losing the war, you are claiming victory in the battle, being reduced to throwing around accusations and trying to ignore the obvious: that the non-inerrantist's position is unanswerable, on a close scrutiny of the text. If it were not, why would non-evangelical scholarship have reached such conclusions more than a century ago? Mainstream opinion is mainstream for a reason.<BR/><BR/>Can one still be a Christian while accepting the findings of scholarship? (As opposed to "apologetics".) I believe so. May I recommend a little book which is published on the internet (google it) by a Methodist minister in Cornwall, England: "Why Bible-Believing Methodists Should Not Eat Black Pudding". This sensibly rebuts the inerrancy argument while offering an alternative way of reading Scripture, employing reason, tradition and experience as well as revelation. In fact, most Christians employ such tools anyway, to override a strict reliance upon the text - whether they admit it or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166682716942115252006-12-21T01:31:00.000-05:002006-12-21T01:31:00.000-05:00Supposed Christian irrationality and gullibility a...Supposed Christian irrationality and gullibility and special pleading with regard to "difficult" biblical passages and alleged "contradictions" is NOTHING -- not one-millionth as irrational and foolish -- conmpared to atheist metaphysical, polytheistic blind faith: <BR/><BR/>http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html<BR/><BR/>First things first, for heaven's sake!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166628822597663692006-12-20T10:33:00.000-05:002006-12-20T10:33:00.000-05:00Let's talk about "hand waving" since that is what ...Let's talk about "hand waving" since that is what you are clearly doing. I'm not just "calling it". I'll explain what it is and how we can see that you are employing this tactic to cover up your blunder of proclaiming a contradiction in the calling order of Peter and Andrew.<BR/><BR/>"Hand waving" is a tactic used in debate by a person who is trying to create a distraction for his opponent. After the opponent presents a good argument, the hand waiver will avoid directly addressing that argument by trying to bring up other unrelated issues.<BR/><BR/>Repeatedly I have asked you to defend the following contradiction:<BR/><BR/><I>Problem of Order<BR/>- According to Mark and Matthew, the first disciples called were Peter and Andrew together.<BR/>- According to Luke, it was Peter first, then Andrew later.<BR/>- According to John, it was Andrew first, then Peter later.</I><BR/><BR/>Repeatedly I have pointed out that the book John does not tell us that Andrew was called to be a disciple before Peter was. I have also repeatedly pointed out that the book of Luke does not record when Andrew was called to be a disciple. It seems that you are inferring these calling orders but you won't explain the basis for your inferences.<BR/><BR/>You are hand waving because you continue to avoid admitting what is surely obvious to everyone. Your supposed contradiction of the calling order doesn't clearly read from the text.<BR/><BR/>Since your contradiction reads "According to Luke…" and "According to John…", would it be too much to ask you to include specific verses where the book of Luke says Andrew was called to be a disciple and the specific verse were John says Andrew was called to be a disciple?<BR/><BR/>I now regret falling into the trap of giving you a chronology. See, this particular contradiction doesn't need to be harmonized with a chronology. The correct answer to this contradiction is to point out that you are implying a calling order between Peter and Andrew that anybody can crack a Bible and see doesn't exist in the text.<BR/><BR/>This particular contradiction continues to be passed from person to person because most people don't ever take the time to actually verify what is written. They assume DagoodS knows the Bible well and would never think of actually taking the time to verify what you have written. I am not accusing DagoodS of purposely employing this trick. I personally think he was duped just like most other skeptics who read this contradiction and never take the time to verify it. Time will tell if he ever uses the contradiction again. I bet he won't.<BR/><BR/>So now that I made the mistake of presenting a chronology, DagoodS has unloaded a laundry list of other contradictions that have nothing to do with the calling order of Andrew and Peter but are only related in that he thinks they present a problem for the order of events that took place around the calling of the disciples.<BR/><BR/>I wish I had the time to investigate each claim and reply to it, but I don’t have that time. Even if I did, I don’t think this discussion would progress very far. Look at how much time was spent on a this supposed contradiction that is so easily refuted once an open minded person actually realizes that Luke and John don't actually record the calling of Andrew.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for this conversation. I am going to bookmark it. Someday I want to teach an apologetics course to the teens class at church. I am sure many of these kids have been sheltered from skepticism of the Bible and I would rather be the first person to show them a contradiction instead of some atheist who will employ any tactic to break their faith. I think this contradiction and your response to my objections is a textbook example of how skeptics react when their contradiction has been turned over and fully exposed.<BR/><BR/>I am looking forward to have another discussion with you. Maybe you should be more selective on the contradictions you choose next time so that we don’t get bogged down on one that is so easily resolved. As for your proposal that contradiction can only be resolved by the opinion of a neutral person will never happen. The Bible had such a huge impact on everyone living on this planet that it is almost impossible to find someone who doesn't already have a positive or negative bias of it that will slant their opinions.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166570266148381562006-12-19T18:17:00.000-05:002006-12-19T18:17:00.000-05:00Montgomery Burns voice: “Exxxxccellent!”Good on ya...Montgomery Burns voice: “Exxxxccellent!”<BR/><BR/>Good on ya, Dennis. Now we have a chronology. Frankly, it gives me a chance to highlight even <B>more</B> problems in attempting to align these passages.<BR/><BR/>You can call it “hand waving” all you want. Re-read my blog entry. “Calling it” does not make it so.<BR/><BR/>The Chronology proposed will be in bold:<BR/><BR/><B>In John 1, Andrew and Peter only spend the day with Jesus. </B><BR/><BR/>Ah, but you decline to state when. Raising an interesting conundrum in itself.<BR/><BR/>First of all, we must return to the scene of the crime. John the Baptist is on the other side of the Jordan (John 1:28), outside of Galilee. He points out Jesus to two of his own disciples who leave John the Baptist, and physically follow Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Problem One: Mark 1:14 and Matthew 4:12 (and Luke 3:20 certainly implies it) all clearly state that John the Baptist was thrown into Prison before Jesus came to Galilee and started calling disciples. John 3:24 says it was after<BR/><BR/>The only way to harmonize this is to put John the Baptist in prison twice, maybe? However, according to Matt 4:2, Mark 1:13, and Luke 4:2, immediately after being baptized, Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted for 40 days, and then came back to learn of John’s being in Prison.<BR/><BR/>As you are fond of what is literally written, and no inferences, it is fair to point out that the Gospel of John does not technically have a Baptism of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>So for our timing, to harmonize, we would have to propose:<BR/><BR/>1) John the Baptist baptizes Jesus;<BR/>2) Jesus goes into wilderness for 40 days.<BR/>3) John the Baptist is thrown in prison<BR/>3) Jesus returns and sees John the Baptist again (John 1:36)<BR/>4) So wait, John must have been released?<BR/>5) John is thrown back in prison<BR/>6) But why was John released?<BR/><BR/>‘Course this would mean that the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke completely missed this second encounter with John the Baptist, after the temptation, but immediately before John the Baptist was arrested (again?) and the author of the Gospel of John missed the first encounter with John the Baptist and the temptation entirely, but happened to catch this second encounter on the very day of his arrest.<BR/><BR/>And it contradicts John 3:24 which says that John the Baptist had yet to be thrown in prison.<BR/><BR/>Is that plausible? (Frankly, I find this implausible to the extreme. But perhaps other inerrantists buy it.) A common tactic of inerrantists is to shove entire passages from one account between two verses of another—back and forth. <BR/><BR/>You also decline to say “where” Andrew and the other disciple spend the day with Jesus. Another predicament.<BR/><BR/>Problem Two: The two disciples of John the Baptist went to see where Jesus was staying. John 1:39. According to Matt. 4:13 Jesus lived in Capernaum.<BR/><BR/>(Quick side note. Matt. 4:13 has Jesus move to Capernaum AFTER learning of John the Baptist being thrown in prison, so even this “where” causes contradictions with our “when” above. Unless you want to say Jesus was staying somewhere else between Nazareth and Capernaum [yet <B>another</B> miss by Matthew] which brings me back to “where?”)<BR/><BR/>But Capernaum was in Galilee. If we are to align Matthew with John, then Jesus would have to take these two fellows from the other side of the Jordan river to Capernaum, which is in Galilee. Making your later statement of “The next day Jesus travels to Galilee” incorrect, as Jesus was already IN Galilee, by being in Capernaum.<BR/><BR/>We could try to utilize Bethsaida as a possible alternative, since according to the Gospel of John, Philip, Andrew and Peter were all from Bethsaida. (John 1:44) Again, this is contradictory to Mark 1:21-33 which indicates that Andrew and Peter were from Capernaum. While we don’t know exactly where Bethsaida is, the gospel of John indicates it is in Galilee. (John 12:21) Which leaves us with Jesus still in Galilee.<BR/><BR/>The best possibilities for where Jesus was staying are Capernaum or Bethsaida. Either one contradicts the other, AND contradicts your claim that Jesus was not in Galilee.<BR/><BR/>Where are you proposing Jesus stayed? Some place outside of Galilee that every Gospel writer missed? How much can they be missing and it still is plausible.<BR/><BR/>(By the way—yes I most certainly have missed names when recounting a story. Because I am <B>Human!</B> It is a very Human thing to do! How does it help your case that the Bible is divine by arguing (quite convincingly) that it demonstrates the same human limitations and capabilities as any other work?)<BR/><BR/>Further, you state: “In John 1, Andrew and Peter <B>ONLY</B> spend the day with Jesus.” (emphasis added) Where, exactly, does it state, “only”? You flip back and forth as to complaining about my inferring statements, but then inserting your own. The verses say the two disciples spent the day with Jesus. (John 1:39) Nothing about it being “only.”<BR/><BR/>How does the inerrantist get to add whatever language they desire and remain plausible?<BR/><BR/><B>Once again, John 1:39 says Andrew and Peter “spent that day with him.” </B><BR/><BR/>Actually, it does not. John 1:40 says that one of the two Disciples of John the Baptist was Andrew. John 1:41 says Andrew went to find his brother, Peter. John 1:42 says Andrew brought his brother to Jesus. Peter was not the other disciple.<BR/><BR/><B> After spending part of one day with Jesus, Andrew and Peter returning to their fishing career </B><BR/><BR/>Let’s talk about this “day.” They (the two disciples) stayed with Jesus until the tenth hour. 4 p.m. (No, the author did NOT use Official Roman time.)<BR/><BR/>We then have Andrew going to find his brother, Peter, telling Peter about meeting the Messiah, and then bringing Peter back to meet Jesus. (John 1:41-42) Jesus renames Peter to “Cephas.” <BR/><BR/>And this proposed chronology has Peter and Andrew then returning to their fishing career. Don’t forget, though, Luke 5:5 has Peter working all that night. Worse, you can’t even have Jesus in Galilee, under this proposed chronology, so whether Peter and Andrew were from Bethsaida (in Galilee) or Capernaum (in Galilee) they still have to travel back home, prior to going out fishing that night!<BR/><BR/>They literally do not have time to accomplish all this; <I>and that is assuming no interaction whatsoever between Peter and Jesus!</I> The chronology looks like this.<BR/><BR/>Andrew: Oh, my. Look at the time. Its 4 p.m. I must find Peter.<BR/>Run, run, run, run, run.<BR/><BR/>Andrew: Quick, Peter, I found the Messiah! The one John the Baptist has told me to look for. Come meet him.<BR/>Run, run, run, run, run.<BR/><BR/>Peter: Hi, Jesus.<BR/>Jesus: You are now to be called Cephas.<BR/>Peter: Gosh, I always wanted to meet the Messiah, but now I think I will go back to my fishing career.<BR/>Andrew: Gee, sorry, Jesus. I know you are the Messiah and all, but my brother wants to go fishing, and you know what brothers are like! Besides, we have to get to Galilee<BR/>Run, run, run, run, run.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, Dennis? This is even plausible to you? How does your chronology get Peter and Andrew all the way back to Galilee after meeting Jesus in time to fish all night? See, the more interaction you have with Jesus/Peter/Andrew, the less time you can get them back into Galilee to fish all night. The less time with Jesus/Peter/Andrew, the more implausible this scheme. They work so hard to find the Messiah, so when they find him, they go back fishing?<BR/><BR/>Oh. One other thing. Jesus had already healed Peter’s mother-in-law, according to Luke, prior to their meeting. (Luke 4:38) Now, it is possible Peter was not there. But does this chronology also contend that Peter didn’t know about it? <BR/><BR/>How plausible is it that Peter meets the man who his dedicated brother claims is the Messiah, who healed his mother-in-law, and Peter only wants to spend a few minutes with him? Because he must be off to fish?<BR/><BR/><B>I think it is possible that Jesus may have called them both to join him this day and that they may have declined the invitation because they did not feel worthy. </B><BR/><BR/>This is pure speculation and not necessary to the chronology. Further, the claim that elsewhere Peter believes he is not worthy so he follows Jesus is not a good argument that this time Peter believes he is not worthy so he DOESN’T follow Jesus. I was uncertain how it supports it at all, frankly. It really supports the exact opposite, true?<BR/><BR/>But since it is not necessary, we press on:<BR/><BR/><B>The next day Jesus travels to Galilee (John 1:43) where he calls Peter and Andrew for the first or possibly second time and then calls Philip later that day. </B><BR/><BR/>Shall we look at the verse?<BR/><BR/>“The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, "Follow Me."<BR/><BR/>If I have this correctly, we simply <I>insert</I> a few events between the “Galilee” and the word “and,” right?<BR/><BR/>In our chronology, the author of the Gospel of John simply skipped over<BR/><BR/>1) Jesus preaching to the crowd,<BR/>2) Jesus seeing the a boat,<BR/>3) Jesus taking the boat,<BR/>4) Jesus preaching from the boat,<BR/>5) Jesus asking Peter to toss out a net<BR/>6) Peter catching a miracle of fish,<BR/>7) Peter asking for help from his partners (the author of the Gospel?)<BR/>8) Peter and James and John (the author?) being called<BR/>9) Peter and James and John (the author?) abandoning their boats and following Jesus,<BR/><BR/>The author goes from “I want to go to Galilee” skips all that and jumps right back in with “and now I am calling Philip.”<BR/><BR/>Ever see the movie <I>The Blues Brothers</I>? This makes me think of the scene where they are traveling up the elevator with elevator music, and it is so calm and serene, while the story cuts back to the chaos of all the police pulling up outside. First we see a calm elevator scene, THEN SIRENS EVERYWHERE. Calm Elevator. COPS RUSHING THE BUILDING. Calm Elevator. SWAT GOING UP STAIRS.<BR/><BR/>That is exactly what is portrayed. The Gospel of John with its calm forthright story, then cut to BIG MIRACLE AND CALLING. Back to calm Gospel of John…<BR/><BR/>You still didn’t deal with how John and James were called after Peter and immediately left their belongings in Luke, but were mending their nets in Matthew/Mark. I thought you wanted to harmonize all four accounts?<BR/><BR/>Finally, you indicated a bunch of “maybe” as to what the author of the Gospel of John wrote. <BR/><BR/>I contend that the authors of the various Gospels contradict each other because of lack of knowledge, and deliberate manufacturing of legend by either themselves or their sources. That answers every single one of these questions. Every time. No “maybe” necessary.<BR/><BR/>It is more plausible, more feasible, and as even you point out—the very thing humans do.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, Dennis, for at least providing a limited chronology. <BR/><BR/>All debate aside, is this <I>really</I> convincing to you? I mean the terrible timing, and jumping in and out of Galilee? Do you think you could convince a single neutral person that this was not contradictory? Just curous…DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166554465510739262006-12-19T13:54:00.000-05:002006-12-19T13:54:00.000-05:00First, let me state that I disagree that a contrad...First, let me state that I disagree that a contradiction can only be resolved by presenting a case that is "more plausible". If you can present a case of a contradiction that is "plausible" and I can then present a harmonization that is also "plausible", then the contradiction is resolved. It's utterly silly to get into this "more plausible", "less plausible" game especially considering the fact that both sides of these debates are biased.<BR/><BR/>Now I see why you are screaming for a harmonization for such an absurd contradiction claim. You realize that your claim with the problem of "calling order" of Peter and Andrew isn't strong enough to stand on it's own so you want to me to present a harmonization that involves several other claims for contradictions. I have argued lots of other contradictions and this same game is played every time. I demonstrate that a contradiction doesn't exist and the skeptic avoids doing the respectful act of admitting the mistake and withdrawing the contradiction and instead wants to draw a laundry list of other contradictions.<BR/><BR/>I'll give you the chronology for this contradiction, but let's deal with them one at a time. Right now we are focusing on all the misinterpretations you made to support your claim that there are discrepancies between the gospels about the calling order of Peter and Andrew. If somehow the issue "mending of the nets" causes a problem with my chronology, then bring it up. Otherwise I will view trying to bring additional contradictions into our discussion a replay of the same old game of hand waving and pointing out unrelated contradictions in an attempt to cover up for a contradiction that has been answered and resolved.<BR/><BR/>Let's get back to our contradiction that you so clearly stated:<BR/><BR/><I>Problem of Order<BR/>- According to Mark and Matthew, the first disciples called were Peter and Andrew together.<BR/>- According to Luke, it was Peter first, then Andrew later.<BR/>- According to John, it was Andrew first, then Peter later.</I><BR/><BR/>I will once again point out that you Luke does not record the calling of Andrew nor can you claim that it is inferred. John doesn't tell us when Andrew was called. If you knew these facts at the time your wrote your post, then what you have done is deceptive. It is wrong for you to infer details that don't exist and then state "according to Luke" or "according to John". Instead of getting upset at me for stating this, maybe you can tell me how it is that you infer Andrew being called after Peter based on what is recorded in Luke.<BR/><BR/>You did it again when you said "<I>Matt. 10:2 says Peter was first.</I>" Matthew 10:2 doesn't say Peter was the first disciple called. Matthew 10:2 says "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee…" What does the author mean by "first"? Does that mean Peter was the most important? Or that Peter was the first to be given authority to drive out demons and heal as mentioned in the previous verse? I agree that this might be a reference to the calling order especially considering the order of James and John falls after Peter and Andrew as we see the calling order in Matthew 4. Also, I think an argument could be made that Andrew was grouped with Peter when the author labeled them as being "first" (whatever that actually meant). You can't definitively state that this verse says "Peter was first".<BR/><BR/>So here's your proposed chronology to reconcile John with the other gospels:<BR/><BR/>In John 1, Andrew and Peter only spend the day with Jesus. Once again, John 1:39 says Andrew and Peter "spent that day with him". After spending part of one day with Jesus, Andrew and Peter returning to their fishing career. I think it is possible that Jesus may have called them both to join him this day and that they may have declined the invitation because they did not feel worthy (see Luke 5:8).<BR/><BR/>The next day Jesus travels to Galilee (John 1:43) where he calls Peter and Andrew for the first or possibly second time and then calls Phillip later that day.<BR/><BR/><I>The question is not whether it is “possible” that Andrew was there. The question is whether it is “more plausible” whether Andrew was there. You have yet to provide even a single iota of evidence as to why the author of Luke would skip Andrew’s name, if he was there. (Especially in light of Luke 6:14)</I><BR/><BR/>Why do I have to prove that the detail of Andrew was just forgotten or completely left out? Do you ever forget to include names of people when retelling a story? Does that somehow discount your entire story or have some "more plausible" explanation? If you have such a strong argument against the Bible and your supposed contradictions are so strong, then why do you make such a big deal out of Andrew's name being left our purposely or just forgotten. Let's play the eerie mystery music and all wonder why Andrew was left out! DUM, DUM, DUM! What could this possible mean!? Sheesh!<BR/><BR/><I>Again, though, the argument is not what is possible, but what is more plausible. Is it plausible that the author of the Gospel of John is careful to record a meeting between Andrew and Jesus and Peter, the day before they were actually called (and completely implausibly, at least Peter seems to have completely forgotten the events of the day before) but skips entirely the calling at the sea? And (if you claim John the Disciple wrote the gospel) the calling John was involved in?</I><BR/><BR/>Why does this observation lend credibility to your position of this contradiction between John 1 and the other gospels? We all know that the author of John went out of his way to avoid even mentioning John, so that could be one reason. So what if this detail was left out? If your position is so strong, then why do you need to make a big deal out of details that are missing? I can think of many reasons! Maybe John just forgot to include it, ever write a book the size of the Gospel of John and forget to include one detail? Maybe John knew that the story was already covered in the other books so he instead focus on the first meeting of Peter and Andrew. Maybe the author of John just left the story out to keep his book from being too long. The author of John even tells us in John 21:25 that he purposely left out stories because he couldn't have recorded them all.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking your time for this discussion. Once again I would like to request that you focus this discussion on demonstrating that your claimed contradiction over the calling order of Peter and Andrew isn't utterly baseless. If you somehow feel that the "mending of the nets" has anything to do with the calling order of Peter and Andrew then by all means use that in your defense of my proposed chronology. I hope you have something stronger than "more plausible''s or questions about why some writer didn't include some mising detail. A well thought out contradiction would show the discrepency in what was written not what is inferred or where our imagination takes us as we wonder why a writer did not including some detail.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166537055218369582006-12-19T09:04:00.000-05:002006-12-19T09:04:00.000-05:00Dennis,May I remind you that the methodology is “m...Dennis,<BR/><BR/>May I remind you that the methodology is “more plausible”? Not “what is possible.” The author of the Gospel of Luke associates Peter with Andrew. (Luke 6:14) The author lists three (3) named disciples as being called back in Chapter 5: Peter, James, and John. Andrew is conspicuous by his absence.<BR/><BR/> The question is not whether it is “possible” that Andrew was there. The question is whether it is “more plausible” whether Andrew was there. You have yet to provide even a single iota of evidence as to why the author of Luke would skip Andrew’s name, if he was there. (<B>Especially</B> in light of Luke 6:14)<BR/><BR/><B>Dennis: </B> <I>Where is it implied [in the Gospel of John] that Andrew and Peter continued following Jesus? </I> <BR/><BR/>Are you serious? Are you honestly claiming that Andrew and Peter stopped following Jesus for a period of time? I will remind you that Matt. 10:2 says Peter was first. John 1:43 says “the next day” (after meeting Peter for the first time) Jesus called Philip. If Jesus called Peter prior to Philip, he only has from 4 in the evening to the time in the next day in which Jesus called Philip.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be hinting that the meeting of Andrew/Jesus/Peter of John 1 happened the day before the calling of Mark 1. Am I correct?<BR/><BR/>Again, though, the argument is not what is possible, but what is more plausible. Is it plausible that the author of the Gospel of John is careful to record a meeting between Andrew and Jesus and Peter, the day before they were actually called (and completely implausibly, at least Peter seems to have completely forgotten the events of the day before) but skips entirely the calling at the sea? And (if you claim John the Disciple wrote the gospel) the calling John was involved in?<BR/><BR/>Is that plausible? You are stuck on “possible” Dennis. I was writing this blog entry to those that claimed “more plausible.”<BR/><BR/><B>Dennis: </B> <I>I am not trying to avoid giving you a hypothetical harmonization to resolve your supposed contradiction regarding the order of Peter and Andrews calling. </I> <BR/><BR/>Yet…no proposed chronology is forthcoming.<BR/><BR/>I will ask again. If my contradictions are so “baseless” and rely so heavily on my specific inferences, and so clearly not contradictory, this should be child’s play for you. <BR/><BR/>I will ask again: Provide a proposed chronology that is plausible.<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: Heck, at this point you have me so desperate, I’ll ask for a chronology that is possible! :-)<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: Provide a chronology that harmonizes the events of Mark 1, Matthew 9, Luke 5 and John 1.<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: Be sure to include every detail (and yes, we understand that each author may leave out details that others include).<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: I am looking, within this chronology, as to John the Baptist being thrown in prison, mending of the nets, and Zebedee’s servants.<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: (is it getting through, yet, Dennis?) If I appear a bit frustrated, there is a reason for that—I am. You make these grand assertions of “Resolution!” and, quite frankly, the easiest way to demonstrate that is to provide a proposed chronology.<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: I am not running from it—I welcome it. This should be child’s play. Yet you would rather dance with “Luke doesn’t mention Andrew in Chapter 5, so it is possible he is there, possible he is not, possible that Andrew and Peter stopped following Jesus, possible they did not,” and so forth.<BR/><BR/>I will ask again: Yet with all your words, we have yet to see a proposed chronology.<BR/><BR/>How many more times must I ask?<BR/><BR/>Dennis. Enough. I will not respond to any more comments on this blog entry from you until I see the proposed chronology. I hate to be insistent; but I hope by your performing this exercise, you will start to see how implausible the proposal is. Possible? Sure. Plausible? Not hardly.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166534222832339302006-12-19T08:17:00.000-05:002006-12-19T08:17:00.000-05:00DagoodS,I am not trying to avoid giving you a hypo...DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>I am not trying to avoid giving you a hypothetical harmonization to resolve your supposed contradiction regarding the order of Peter and Andrews calling.<BR/><BR/>The problem I am having is that your claim of a contradiction is so baseless and relies so heavily on your specific inferences instead of what is actually recorded that a harmonization isn't needed. Clearly, what is recorded in John is not contradictory to what is recorded in the other gospels.<BR/><BR/>Let me demonstrate how baseless your claim of a contradiction is:<BR/><BR/>You originally stated:<BR/><BR/><I>Problem of Order<BR/>- According to Mark and Matthew, the first disciples called were Peter and Andrew together.<BR/>- According to Luke, it was Peter first, then Andrew later.<BR/>- According to John, it was Andrew first, then Peter later.</I><BR/><BR/>After pointing out to you that neither John or Luke tell us any kind of order, you defend your inference with the following statements:<BR/><BR/><I>1) Jesus is walking on the seashore, spies Peter and Andrew fishing and simultaneously calls them to be a disciple. Matt. 4:18-20. Mark 1:16-18.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. Both Peter and Andrew appeared to have been called together here.<BR/><BR/><I>2) Jesus uses Peter’s boat to preach from, and simultaneously calls Peter, James and John to be disciples. Luke 5:10-11 No Andrew. (Remember, we are using what is actually written, not what can be inferred.)</I><BR/><BR/>You can't assume Andrew wasn't there. The passage in Luke mentions two fishing boats and only three specific names. There must have been others there and Andrew could have been one of them. You can't make an assertion that Andrew wasn't there just because his name isn't mentioned. Andrew wasn't part of the inner circle of disciples so maybe he was purposely excluded or maybe not included by whoever conveyed this story to the author of Luke. You do realize that Peter, James, and John were more significant than Andrew, right?<BR/><BR/>I am still confused as to how you can state "<I>According to Luke, it was Peter first, then Andrew later.</I>." Since you even admit that Andrew isn't mentioned until chapter 6 when a list of disciples is given, how can you claim that Luke tells us Andrew was called later? You have some explaining to do.<BR/><BR/><I>3) Andrew follows Jesus, and subsequently brings Peter to Jesus. John 1:37-42.</I><BR/><BR/>Where is it implied that Andrew and Peter continued following Jesus? John clearly states that Andrew followed Jesus to where he was staying and it clearly says he spent the day with him. Not days, but "day". How is this passage contradictory to the other gospels? If you want to infer that Andrew and Peter continued to follow Jesus then share with me what you are basing that inference on and why did the author of John mentioned that they spent the day with Jesus? Couldn't I make a stronger inference by this statement that they didn't continue following Jesus the next day? <BR/><BR/>Hopefully I have demonstrated to the jury that your charges aren't based on what is actually written but based on poor inferences. No need to give them a harmonization, they won't be out very long to come to a consensus on this one.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166456480356346842006-12-18T10:41:00.000-05:002006-12-18T10:41:00.000-05:00Dennis: If you want to claim the Bible is contra...<B>Dennis: </B> <I> If you want to claim the Bible is contradictory, then your examples should show contradictions of what is actually written, not what is inferred by an athiest who is trying to prove a contradiction. </I><BR/><BR/>Like the actually written names of the Disciples? Like the actually written locale of Peter and Andrew?<BR/><BR/>Look, if you think I have some bias, because of my atheism (I don’t—I have bias from my humanity), how about we come up with a method whereby we remove bias as best as possible? Perhaps a method of: what is more plausible to a neutral person? Someone who we both agree has no stake in the outcome of contradiction/inerrancy? <BR/><BR/>Peculiar how I propose that method over and over, yet the inerrantist shies away from it.<BR/><BR/>Let’s talk about inferences as compared to what is written. <BR/><BR/>First what is actually written: John 1 refers to a meeting of Andrew with Jesus in which Andrew discovers Jesus is the Messiah, then bringing his brother, Peter to Jesus. By John 6:8 (assuming <I>some</I> sort of chronology is in place) Andrew is a disciple.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 4:18 refers to Jesus calling Andrew to be his disciple.<BR/><BR/>Now inferences: I would hope it is safe to infer that at some time between John 1:35 and John 6:8 that Jesus called Andrew to be a disciple. It is not a question of <I>whether</I> but rather <I>when.</I><BR/><BR/>What is actually written: <BR/><BR/>1) Jesus is walking on the seashore, spies Peter and Andrew fishing and simultaneously calls them to be a disciple. Matt. 4:18-20. Mark 1:16-18.<BR/><BR/>2) Jesus uses Peter’s boat to preach from, and simultaneously calls Peter, James and John to be disciples. Luke 5:10-11 <B>No Andrew.</B> (Remember, we are using what is <I>actually</I> written, not what can be inferred.)<BR/><BR/>3) Andrew follows Jesus, and subsequently brings Peter to Jesus. John 1:37-42.<BR/><BR/>For me, the most plausible inference is that the stories are contradictory. Human nature. <BR/><BR/>But you desire to align these tales. Fine. I am attempting to place the “When” in John, in light of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The most plausible inference is when Andrew started to follow him. You think this is a bad inference.<BR/><BR/>Show a better one. Show what is more plausible. Show a “when.” Show me Andrew following Jesus BEFORE being called. Show me Andrew realizing Jesus was the Messiah BEFORE being called. <BR/><BR/><B>More: </B> <I>Let me state that your inference that anybody who followed Jesus became a disciple must be incorrect. Many people followed Jesus around and never became a disciple. </I><BR/><BR/>We are not talking about “anybody.” We are talking about Andrew. Am I not on safe ground to claim that Andrew followed Jesus and Andrew was a disciple? <BR/><BR/><B>More: </B> <I>How can you infer that Andrew was called after Peter? [in Luke 5 & 6] </I><BR/><BR/>Because the author was specific as to who was called in Chapter 5—Peter, James and John. Are you “inferring” that the author intentionally did NOT list Andrew? How is that a good inference? Can you give a reason that is more plausible as to the author knowing Andrew was there, but not listing him?<BR/><BR/>Further, if you want “actual writing” and no inferences, Mark has James and John mending their nets when Jesus calls them, but Luke had them abandoning their boats and nets upon hitting the shore. When, within your plausible inference, did they have time to mend the nets?<BR/><BR/><B>More: </B> <I>Personally, I think the best inference to make is one that harmonizes the 3 different accounts of the calling of Peter and Andrew.</I><BR/><BR/>Great! Then how about that harmonization of the chronology as to the events of John 1 as compared to Luke 5, Mark 1 and Matthew 9?<BR/><BR/>You DO know, I presume, that every time I ask it, and every time you avoid it, the jury understands that this is a problem for you. Can you put together a chronology that is MORE plausible than good old-fashioned human contradiction?<BR/><BR/>You call it a “different set of details.” Fine, again. Provide us the full picture, incorporating ALL of the these “different details” within these four passages. And then try to sell it as more plausible.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166450083451021572006-12-18T08:54:00.000-05:002006-12-18T08:54:00.000-05:00DagoodS,I agree with you that inferences must be m...DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that inferences must be made as we read the Bible or any other book.<BR/><BR/>Here's the problem. If you want to claim the Bible is contradictory, then your examples should show contradictions of what is actually written, not what is inferred by an athiest who is trying to prove a contradiction. Do agree that incorrect inferences can be made? If so, how do we then know if the problem of a contradiction is because of an error in what was written and not a problem with what we are inferring?<BR/><BR/>Let me state that your inference that anybody who followed Jesus became a disciple must be incorrect. Many people followed Jesus around and never became a disciple. I don't have time to dig up references but the Bible records that there were crowds who followed Jesus around. If you are going to insist that anybody who followed Jesus only did so after they were called, you pretty quickly run into some problems. Let's call that a bad inference.<BR/><BR/>Here's another bad inference you made regarding the order of Peter/Andrew's calling:<BR/><BR/><I>According to Luke, it was Peter first, then Andrew later.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you actually read the account of Luke before you originally posted that?<BR/><BR/>Luke doesn't record the calling of Andrew. We don't see Andrew mentioned at all in Luke until Chapter 6 when Jesus calls all of his disciples together. How can you infer that Andrew was called after Peter? Why is your inference better than an inference that Andrew was called before Peter or at the same time?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think the best inference to make is one that harmonizes the 3 different accounts of the calling of Peter and Andrew. When I say "different" accounts, I don't mean contradictory. We have 3 accounts that give us different sets of details. None of the details revealed to us are contradictory.Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781513828861991687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1166375020380815792006-12-17T12:03:00.000-05:002006-12-17T12:03:00.000-05:00Dave Armstrong,By inerrantist I would include some...Dave Armstrong,<BR/><BR/>By inerrantist I would include someone who claims the Bible’s veracity is verified, in part, on the independent grounds of extraordinary internal consistency.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com