Nostradamus can be translated any way one wants as it is written like a bunch of gibberish as he writes Hister which some translate as Hitler. The prophecies are after the fact, like so many, and can be disregarded as a bunch of blather.
Monavis
And that differs . . .
No. It’s too easy.
Regarding the 3 “synoptic” Gospels: they are very similar, but contradict themslves in minor ways. If the early church fathers were so free with rewriting scripture (as has been alleed), then why didn’t they “clean up” these Gospel contradictions? John is a big mystery to me-why was it written, and was it much later than the first three? It’s message seems very strange-almost as if it came from a different tradition.
They’re really only similar where they’re interdependent. Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke both copied independently from Mark and Q. Wherever Matthew and Luke do not share a common source they diverge wildly. Their nativities and their appearance narratives do not just contain “minor contradictions” but are entirely different stories with some major contradictions.
Who alleges that there was any Patristic tampering with the Gospels? This is not a claim made in NT scholarship. There is no scholarly contention that the Church Fathers re-wrote the Gospels, although that is a strawman I’ve seen apologists go after before.
That is the general belief.
Damn. I was in a hotel room once, and opened the desk drawer, and there was a book about Buddha. In English as well as Japanese.
I’m not a believer!
From the cite talking about revelations in Revelation 8.
Their commentary
Common guys, how could we not be persuaded? This sounds exactly like modern warfare. The US Army has been working on the Huge Mountain Launcher (HML) for years now. The HML is extremely effective if it lands on you, although the effective range now is less than a millionth of a micrometer, so getting the enemy to come to the weapon seems more productive. The Army has been working on a clever PR campaign to try and get the insurgents in Iraq closer.
Other factions within the HML development team say that this will never happen and we need to concentrate our energies on increasing the range. To quote the leader of this team, “if Mohammed won’t go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed.”
The HML is classified - how did you find out about it? The Revelation passage could describe a nuclear explosion over or in water, or a very large meteor.
Or it could describe a really bad acid trip. Or a cardboard cutout that the props guy set on fire. Or a bunch of other things. Or something no one has ever seen. Speculation is useless, and doesn’t lead to any real information.
The waters turned bitter, and that could mean contamination? How? Does radioactive water change flavor? How would the writer have know anything about radiation? Maybe the mountain that falls into the sea is a really big tea bag, and it catches on fire during atmospheric entry, and that’s the reason the water turns bitter. It’s obviously the only explanation that makes sense.
I read Revelation closely, and then God fills in the blanks. It’s like doing sudoko, but you don’t need to use the eraser as much.
The Army part can be understood because of the reference to “green grass.” If it weren’t then there wouldn’t be a need to stress “green.” The 1/3 part talks about the disagreement and God moves in mysterious ways, which is the reason for the cryptic comment about Mohammad.
If it’s not too much trouble I’d be interested is seeing an example or two of where they diverge wildly and where there are major contradictions. I’m not contending this isn’t so. Just curious about your use of wildly and major.
Ok. Some of this material is adapted from a piece I wrote for another website. My original piece addressed contradictions between all four Gospels but I’ve pared it down some to try to focus on the synoptics and the differences between Matthew and Luke where they lack a common source.
I’ll start with the Nativities. Mark has no Nativity so Matthew and Luke had no common source for it and each created his own. As a result, their narratives are not just conflicted on details but are entirely different stories. Not every difference is a necess
To begin with, their genealogies for Joseph are different. Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.
Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that’s that.
There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it. This particular contradiction is a thread in itself but the subject is addressed very thoroughly here by historian, Richard Carrier who addresses every counterpoint decisively.
Now let’s move on to the narratives themselves. I think it’s helpful to examine them side by side.
Synopsis of Matthew’s Nativity:
Joseph and Mary are engaged but they haven’t had sex yet. Mary turns up pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph (understandably) wants to break up with her but then an angel comes to him in a dream and tells him that the Holy Ghost knocked her up and she’s still a virgin and Joseph should marry her anyway. Somehow Joseph buys all this and agrees to stay with Mary.
Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew does not have anything about a census or an inn. He just says Jesus was born in Bethlehem with the implication that Joseph and Mary already lived there).
Some “astrologers (magoi) from the East” show up at Herod’s court and ask him where the new king of Judea is because they “saw his star in the East.” (note: Matthew does not call them kings and does not say how many there were. The “three kings” image is an extra Biblical popular tradition)Herod gets pissed and calls the priests to ask them where the “Annointed” is supposed to be born. The priests tell him Bethlehem and quote from Micah. Herod then tells the astrologers to go to Bethlehem and find the kid and then report back to him, ostensibly so he can “pay homage” to the kid but really so he can kill him.
The astrologers go to Bethlehem and then follow the star until it stops over a house (not a stable) with Jesus in it. The astrologers give mad props to Baby Jesus and give him gold and frankincense and myrhh. Then an angel comes to them in a dream and warns them not to go back to Herod so they secretly split back to their own countries instead.
Then an angel comes to Joseph in a dream (in Matthew’s Nativity it seems like everybody is constantly getting hounded by angels in their dreams) and tells him to haul ass to Egypt and bring Jesus with him. Joseph packs up his family and blows.
When Herod gets stood up by the astrologers he loses his shit and orders all male children under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be killed.
Herod dies and Joseph gets the message (yep, you guessed it) from an angel in a dream and returns to Israel. He finds out that Herod’s son, Archelaus is king of Judea so he’s afraid. Joseph gets visited by an angel in yet another dream and is told to go to Galilee (which, incidentally was being ruled by another of Herod’s sons, Herod Antipas, so it’s not clear why Galilee would have been any safer…but to be fair, Archelaus sucked much harder than Antipas. He was so bad, in fact, that he was forcibly removed in 6 CE by the Romans, Judea was made part of the province of Syria and Quirinius was put in charge). So Joseph drags the family to Galilee and settles down in Nazareth.
Synopsis of Luke’s Nativity
There is a long, boring story about the conception of John the Baptist. During the pregnancy of JBap’s mother, Elizabeth, an angel come to Mary (who is already living in Nazareth) and tells her that she’s going to get knocked up by the Holy Spirit. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and Elizabeth gets all excited and there’s some more boring stuff and then JBap is born.
Jump to a pregnant Mary travelling to Bethlehem with Joseph to register for Quirinius’ census. Jesus is born in a stable (and Luke actually intimates that it is for privacy, not because there was no room inside). Cut to a bunch of shepherds tending their flocks at night. An angel comes down and scares the crap out of them. The angel tells them to chill and informs them that the Messiah has been born and is lying in a manger in Bethlehem. then a whole bunch more angels come down and start singing at the shepherds. Then all the angels disappear and the shepherds rush off to Bethlehem and find Baby Jesus and give him mad props.
Then, eight days later, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Jerusalem to the Temple to be circumcised. While they’re at the Temple an old guy named Simeon comes up to them because the holy spirit told him all about Jesus. Simeon gives Baby Jesus mad props and then predicts doom and gloom for Israel. Then an old lady “prophetess” named Anna happens by and sees this and she starts telling everybody else all about it.
Then after Jesus is properly snipped, Joseph and Mary and Jesus all go back to Nazareth. There is nothing about a flight to Egypt. They go straight to Nazareth and Jesus commences to growing up “strong and wise.”
It’s pretty easy to see that with the exception of the place of birth and the defense of Mary’s virtue these stories have virtually no relationship to each other. as I said above, not every detail in Luke is necessarily in contradiction to Matthew but whatever is not directly contradicted is pretty much incidental in contrast to the details that clash. Let’s add some of them up:
Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.
Matthew says that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.
Luke says nothing about Herod’s slaughter of the innocents or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.
Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.
These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.
To recap the most intractable contradictions between the Nativities, we have
- Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
- Luke places the date of Jesus’ birth ten years later than Matthew.
- Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
- Matthew says that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
- Luke knows nothing of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke’s chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
Now for the resurrection.
The resurrection/appearance narratives are really a mess of contradictions so I’ll just write a brief synopsis of each account and then pick out the contradictions. As with the Nativities, the divergence netween Matt and Luke (and John, for that matter), becomes completely wild at the exact point where Mark’s narrative leaves off.
Synopsis of Mark’s Resurrection
Scene: Sunday Morning
Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Salome are walking to the tomb. As they’re walking they’re talking and worrying about how they can get somebody to help them move the rock. They get to the tomb and see the rock has been rolled away. They go inside and see an angel sitting in the tomb. The angel shows them that Jesus’ body is gone and tells them to inform Cephas and the rest of the disciples that Jesus is risen and that they should all go to Galilee where they will be able to see him. The women run away from the tomb but they don’t tell anybody because they’re terrified.
Mark cuts off right there with no further visits to the tomb and no appearance narratives,
Synopsis of Matthew’s Resurrection
Scene: Sunday Morning
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” go to the tomb (no mention of Salome this time). Right when they get to the tomb, there’s an earthquake, an angel comes down from the sky, rolls away the rock and sits down on it. This time there are guards at the tomb and they get scared. The angel then tells the women pretty much the same thing the other angel said in Mark. he shows them that Jesus is gone and tells them to tell the disciples that Jesus wants to holler at them in Galilee. The women run away but this time they run bang into Jesus. They freak out some and Jesus tells them to chill and then tells the women to let the disciples know he would holler at them in Galilee.
Ata this point, there’s an interjection in which the guards run to the priests and tell them what they saw, so then the priests bribe the guards to say that the disciples stole Jesus’ body.
Back to the disciples. The eleven of them go to a mountain in Galilee and Jesus appears. They give Jesus mad props but some are still doubtful. Jesus tells them to go out and preach the message and baptize people and that he will always be with them.
And that’s it for Matthew.
Synopsis of Luke’s Resurrection
Scene: Sunday Morning
Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, Joanna and “the rest of the women” go to the tomb. As in Mark, they find the stone already rolled away. They peep inside the tomb. What? No Jesus! As they’re standing there trying to figure out what’s going all of a sudden TWO angels appear out of thin air. The women freak, the angels tell them to chill and tell them that Jesus has risen. The women run to tell the disciples (but Luke’s angels do not explicitly instruct them to do so this time). The disciples don’t believe them but then Peter jumps up and runs to the tomb. He peeps in and sees that Jesus is gone. He goes home “marvelling.”
Cut to “two of them” (one named Cleopas, the other unnamed) walking to Emmaus. They meet Jesus but they don’t recognize him. They tell him all about Jesus and the women and the empty tomb. Jesus tells them how dumb they are for not knowing the prophecies (which didn’t actually exist but that’s another can of worms). They stop to have some grub and when they break bread, they recognize Jesus, then he vanishes.
Cleopas and the other dude run back to Jerusalem and find the rest of the disciples. The rets of the disciples tell them that Jesus had risen and appeared to “Simon” (who may or may not be the “Peter” who Luke says had seen the empty tomb but does not say had seen the risen Jesus. I mention this because Luke actually uses the name “Peter” in the former case and “Simon” in the latter, so this may indicate two different people).
Cleopas and the other dude start telling the disciples about seeing Jesus on the road to Emmaus and then Jesus suddenly appears while they’re talking. (please note that they are still in Jerusalem and have not yet gone to Galilee) They freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he shows them all the rad holes in his hands and feet. Then Jesus asks them if they have anything to eat (I guess he hadn’t eaten in three days). They give him some fish and he eats it. Then he preaches at them for a while before leading them to Bethany where he ascends into the sky. The disciples go happily back to Jerusalem, and that’s the end for Luke.
Synopsis of John’s Resurrection
Scene: Sunday Morning
Mary Magdalene (alone) goes to the tomb. The stone has already been rolled away. She runs and finds Simon Peter along with the “Beloved Disciple” (who will henceforth be referred to as “BD”). Mary Magdalene tells them that the body has been “taken.” Peter and BD go running to the tomb. BD outruns Peter and gets there first and sees some strips of burial linens lying utside the tomb. Peter gets there and goes inside the tomb. Peter sees that Jesus is gone. BD then goes in and sees it too. Peter and BD go back home.
Mary Magdalene is left crying outside the tomb. She peeps inside the tomb and sees two angels. Then Jesus comes up behind her and she sees him but doesn’t recognize him. She thinks he’s the gardener and asks him if he moved the body and could he tell her where it was. Then Jesus says her name, “Mary,” and she recognizes him. He tells her not to touch him but to go tell the disciples about him. She goes and finds the disciples and tells them (John doesn’t say where they are). Later that night, Jesus appears to the disciples and shows them all his rad wounds. Then he breathes on them and says he’s giving them some Holy Spirit and tells them that he’s giving them the power to forgive sins.
Then we get the Doubting Thomas story. Thomas doubts. Thomas sticks fingers in rad nail holes. Thomas believes. Then Jesus says that people who believe without proof are more blessed than those annoying skeptics.
John really ends there. There’s another emended chapter which I won’t bring into the contradictions argument but just to be thorough, the emended chapter tells a weird story about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee and helping them catch some fish, then he keeps asking Peter if he loves him and gives him his evangelical marching order and hints that he’s going to come to a rough end. Then Peter sees the BD following them and asks Jesus about him. Jesus tells Peter it’s not his business if Jesus wants to BD to hang around until he returns. Then the author says there was a rumor that the BD wasn’t supposed to die before Jesus came back but Jesus didn’t actually say tthat he just said “what business is it of yours if I DO want him to stay?”
End of emended John.
So how many women went to the tomb? was it Mary Madalene by herself? was she with the other Mary? The other Mary and Salome? The other Mary and Joanna and the “rest of the women?”
Was the stone already rolled away when they got there or did they see an angel come down and do it?
How many angels were there, one or two? Where were they? Were they in the tomb or sitting on the stone or did they appear out of thin air or did they descend from the sky?
Who was the first person to see Jesus? was it Mary Magdalene? If so, when did she see him? Did she crash into Jesus on her way to tell the disciples or did he come up behind her after she had returned to the tomb and was peeping in at the angels?
Where and when did Jesus appear to the disciples? Was it in Jerusalem or was it Galilee.
As you can see, where there is no shared source, there is not just contradiction but the narratives become utterly unrelated. It’s not the same story told from different points of view, it’s totally different stories.
Luke 21:24
Luke 21
24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
(New International Version translation)
Jesus said Jerusalem would be destroyed
This is a tough one to reconcile or call accurate. The book of Luke was written as early as 80 to 90 CE but the fall of Jerusalem was 70 CE. If you wish to call it a matter of faith that’ is fine but I can’ buy it as being factual or a “real” prophesy if the book was written after the event it predicted.
It’s not like Jerusalem hadn’t been destroyed and/or conquered before. For a capital that was conquered no less that six times since the Jewish people first took over the area and was currently under outside rule…predicting that they would be conquered or destroyed again is a little like predicting that the sun will rise.
It would be like finding a book that says some prophet predicted that the Twin Towers in New York would be destroyed. That would be a pretty good clue that the book was written after 9/11/2001. It would not be considered a prophecy.
So are you saying christians don’t have to follow anything in Corintians or just the parts that you don’t agree with?
This is all very confusing- do you think it would be possible for you christians to get together and choose someone you can all agree upon, maybe Billy Graham, or the Pope, or Jim Baker, to go through the bible with a red pen and cross out the stuff that no longer applies?
So you’re saying that Revelation 11:4-13 was written after Sept. 11? Because I clearly remember reading that passage before the incident happened.
You don’t actually think this passage has anything to do with 9/11, do you?
Who knows for sure? But I can’t think of any other historical event which closely matches that passage. Can you?
Besides, John lived 2,000 years ago. If he really did envision two skyscrapers collapsing, he wouldn’t share the same frame of reference we modern humans do. He’d be more likely use terms like “two olive trees”, and “two candlesticks standing before the God of the Earth.” Not to mention the mere concept of being witnessed by EVERYBODY ON EARTH (Rev. 11:12, which was interpreted as “television” long before 9/11) – how likely would someone living 2,000 years ago even think of that concept?
I’m not big on Biblical prophecy, but Revelation has always seemed…different.
Yes, what a bizarre and startling concept; surely none had the capability to dream of such a thing before the invention of television… well, none save John, of course.
It’s certainly different.
In fact, this is so silly it begs for further attack.
It depends on your standard of “closely matches”. I wouldn’t say 9/11 closely matches it either. But, then, my position is that no historical event closely matches it, that it’s incapable of closely matching anything given its vague overinterpretable nature, that it no better predicts anything than any of Nostradamus’ surreal ramblings.
John couldn’t speak of two really tall buildings as two really tall buildings? Surely Biblical authors could at least on some occasions conceive of and speak directly about the concept of a really tall building… a building so tall it seems to scrape the sky, reaching into the very heavens.
Well, maybe some of of his gifted predecessors could, but not poor John. No, he could only reasonably be expected to attempt to communicate such a concept through the loose, rather odd metaphorical fit of olive trees or candlesticks, for while he has seen buildings and knows of tallness, he could not in any direct way bundle the concepts, for reasons similar to those preventing his contemporaries from moving from the idea that an event might be witnessed by a great many people at once to its natural generalization.
It’s further interesting to note, in support of the passage’s malleable semantics, that the site you linked to gives an interpretation that has nothing to do with September 11, wherein the olive trees and candlesticks are interpreted as God’s preachers and profits (for they bring light to a spiritually darkened generation, of course, just like candlesticks!).
The passage also speaks of an immediately following earthquake killing 7000 in Jerusalem. I don’t remember that happening. But I guess accuracy does go up if you only count the vague hits and forget the specific misses.