How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[Rise]

That's simply not what the NT...say.

The NT doesn't say anything that proves your claim about the origin of Gospels. You've tried using verses to prove your claim but so far I've shown why your claims were either incorrect or how your claims were logically invalid because they were based on unproven or wrong assumptions.

If you think any verses in the NT prove your claim about the origin of the Gospels you're welcome to post them.

...or the scholarship of the NT say

Logical fallacy, "appeal to authority" and "bandwagon"
Mark is not proven to have been written first just because a scholar has claimed it is.
Even saying most Scholars hold a particular viewpoint doesn't prove a viewpoint is true.

The real test of truth is a logical examination of the evidence, not a popularity contest of how many people believe a particular idea is true or what their titles are.

What you need to do is look at the actual arguments the scholars have used to try to claim that Mark was written first to see if they are valid arguments.
I have, and they don't have actual evidence to back up their conclusions. It's pure speculation, built upon even more speculation.

That's why I challenged you: Give us any evidence you think proves Mark was written first. What are some of the actual pieces of evidence these scholars use? Is there any evidence?

If the belief in your version of the Gospel's unfolding were true, shouldn't you be able to easily find the evidence for why you know it's true?
If so, then why haven't you found any?

If the scholars are as accurate as you think they are, then why can't you go to one of them and find the evidence they supposedly use to prove this?

You are the one making the claim that what these scholars say is true, so the onus is on you to prove your claim by giving evidence and logical argumentation to support why their conclusions are supposedly true.

To merely assert that they are right just because they are scholars is the most base of logical fallacies.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most Christians should probably call themselves "Paulians" since they side with Paul over Jesus on the question of how to get to heaven.

Hubert this is terribly misinformed. Read Hyam Macoby instead. Though he is not 'Correct' he has useful model. He establishes everything that would occur and lead to Christianity in a situation in which Paul creates Christianity whole cloth. He works out the details of your speculation without making erroneous claims of its truth or falseness. The OP claim is uninformed.

It is true that one talmudic scholar (Hyam Macoby) has expertly speculated about Pauline christianity a book and created a framework of how he could conceive of Paul creating Christianity. He does a fantastic job. This does not equate to fact. It is scholarly speculation yet is 10x better than lay speculation. Macoby's model is incorrect, but it is an interesting and informative read that one can objectively consider. The difference between that and the OP is that the scholarly speculation is based on a model, and they tell you what their assumption are and have worked out the details. Its tool for understanding (and probably catharsis) rather than misinformation. The OP cannot really inform anyone.

 

[Rise]

I say again:
1. Isaiah 7:14 says: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
2. As you'll know if you've read Isaiah 7, this is not a prophecy of Jesus. (There are no prophecies of Jesus in the Tanakh ─ Jesus doesn't fit the job description of a Jewish messiah, being neither a war leader, civil leader or high priest, and never having been anointed by the priesthood.)
3. The word in Isaiah 7:14 for 'young woman' is `almah.
4. This is translated into Greek in the Septuagint by the word 'parthenos' which unlike `almah specifies a virgin.
5. Taking this for a messianic prophecy the author of Matthew and the author of Luke after him, made up a tale in which Mary is a virgin (implicitly in Matthew, explicitly in Luke). To this are the further tales to get Jesus born in Bethlehem and to get him to 'come out of Egypt.
6. You can tell they're fictions for that reason, and for the further reason that in history there was no taxation census as claimed (and if there had been, it wouldn't have required anyone to return to their town of birth); and there no 'massacre of the innocents' or anything resembling it.

Logical fallacy, "Red Herring."
What you posted is irrelevant to what you are responding to.
You are responding to a quote in which I gave you reasons for why Paul logically and historically would have no reason to talk about the Virgin birth. You didn't dispute those points.
Instead you ignored them and started repeating your claims about Isaiah 7 being mistranslated (which is a different topic, unrelated to proving your claim that Paul should have talked about the virgin birth if he believed in it. A claim which I disproved, and which you ignored).


Here is what you were responding to, put back into context:

The arguments I made about contextual relevancy in John also apply to Paul's letters. Paul never wrote a Gospel, telling the life of Christ from beginning to end - which is where that information makes the most sense to include it.
He was also writing to believers who probably already knew this information, so there was no need to recount it for his intended audience. Paul's letters are always written to an existing church with a particular purpose in mind, addressing particular issues specific to that church - which is why every letter has different content. It's perfectly feasible to conclude that the nature of the earthly birth of Jesus was likely not a doctrinal point of contention for these churches that Paul was writing to - so there was no need to address it.

Now, there are some verses in Paul's letters which could be taken to allude to the virgin birth, but I don't see the need to even delve into that when context (ie. purpose and audience considerations) alone provides a sufficient answer for us.



There are additional fallacies weaved into your post, which I will break down:

1. Isaiah 7:14 says: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
2. As you'll know if you've read Isaiah 7, this is not a prophecy of Jesus. (There are no prophecies of Jesus in the Tanakh ─ Jesus doesn't fit the job description of a Jewish messiah, being neither a war leader, civil leader or high priest, and never having been anointed by the priesthood.)
...
5. Taking this for a messianic prophecy the author of Matthew and the author of Luke after him, made up a tale in which Mary is a virgin (implicitly in Matthew, explicitly in Luke). To this are the further tales to get Jesus born in Bethlehem and to get him to 'come out of Egypt.
6. You can tell they're fictions for that reason, and for the further reason that in history there was no taxation census as claimed (and if there had been, it wouldn't have required anyone to return to their town of birth); and there no 'massacre of the innocents' or anything resembling it.

Logical fallacy, "Red Herring". You're committing the same fallacy I already called you out on, without attempting to correct or address it. Which further makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by repetition". Merely repeating your fallacious argument, without fixing it's errors, doesn't make it valid.

Here is what I said to you already on this subject:

You are ignoring the arguments I made which disproved your original claims about textual contradictions in the NT concerning who Jesus is, and try to distract from that by changing the subject.
You haven't been able to demonstrate any textual contradictions between the NT texts, and now you're trying to change the subject to supposed historical contradictions with the texts or trying to claim contradictions between the OT and NT.

We could certainly debate all of these new issues you are trying to bring up, as separate issues in their own right - but you would first need to deal with the arguments you have completely ignored which refuted your original claims and stop trying to avoid doing that by changing the subject.

If you are not able to provide counter arguments to the points I made which refute your original claims then you need to admit you are unable to support your claims and stop continuing to assert your original claims as though they should be considered truth.

I reposted all those arguments further up, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them in order to respond to them.

3. The word in Isaiah 7:14 for 'young woman' is `almah.
4. This is translated into Greek in the Septuagint by the word 'parthenos' which unlike `almah specifies a virgin.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, and argument by repetition.

I already addressed your claim, refuting it, and you ignored that. You continue to assert your claim is true by repetition without being able to defend it against my counter argument.


I will repost that for you too:

There is nothing linguistically wrong with translating Isaiah 7 as "virgin" from the Hebrew word almah. Almah can mean virgin, but doesn't always mean virgin. The Hebrew language actually has no specific language for virgin. They have two or more words for young woman, which often implies unmarried, which by extension usually implies virgin, but we can show in the Bible and historically that none of those words are used exclusively for a virgin. So there's no basis for you to claim that Almah can't be translated as virgin. It is one of the legitimate ways of translating that word.

Contextually there's also reason to believe Isaiah 7 could refer to a virgin; because a young woman giving birth wouldn't be considered a miracle sign from God Himself unless she was a virgin or barren.

 

[blü 2]

Matthew 10, ESV:
Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts,
no bag for your journey,
or two tunics or sandals or a staff,
for the laborer deserves his food.
And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart.

Notice that, in context, there is another valid way to read this, one which actually makes more sense: He's saying don't take two tunics, two sandals, or two staffs. He's not necessarily saying take no staff or sandals. Telling them to go without sandals at all could be extremely difficult on their feet, so it makes more sense to read it as telling them not to take an extra pair of sandals as a backup.

Thanks. I must have missed it.

But that argument doesn't work. Matt 10:10 says ─

μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν .... μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας μηδὲ ὑποδήματα μηδὲ ῥάβδον
or.. bag..for journey or-yet two tunics .. or-yet. sandals.... or-yet staff​

That is, grammatically, bag [singular], two tunics, [one pair of] sandals and staff [singular]. ῥάβδον rhabdon 'staff' is singular accusative ─ if it were plural it'd be ῥάβδους rhabdous but it's not.

It says, [do not take] a staff. (It also says don't take two tunics ie you don't need a second tunic.)

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Red Herring."

Not so fast. You're misunderstanding the point. You asked me to show you contradictions in the NT.

I'm pointing out that there are at least three incompatible models of Jesus in the NT ─ Mark's ordinary human who's later adopted, Matthew's and Luke's genetic child of God, and Paul's and John's model, gnostic at the very least to the extend of pre-dwelling in heaven with God and of creating the material universe.

And in answer to your claim that the bible authors should be assumed to know and agree with what the others said but don't mention, I'm pointing out the source of the particular error ─ and it is an error ─ peculiar to the authors of Matthew and Luke, the invention of a virgin mother so as to comply with their misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14.

Which is this ─ the error that the authors of Matthew and of Luke made explains why THEY mentioned a virgin and NO ONE ELSE does. That's one more reason why we should NOT assume that silence is agreement.

Therefore my explanation is right on the point, locating the error with the offenders, and not with the others, who do not make that error.

If you wish to claim that Paul specifies that Mary was the mother of Jesus and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, now's the time to set out the verses on which you rely.

You are ignoring the arguments I made which disproved your original claims about textual contradictions in the NT concerning who Jesus is, and try to distract from that by changing the subject.

With all due respect, don't be silly. You disproved nothing. You declared that the gospel authors all know and agree with what the others were saying even when they don't mention what the others were saying. Yet as I pointed out, the authors of Mathew and of Luke took Mark and rewrote it to please their respective selves. They disagreed with Mark on various points and they disagreed with each other on various points.

Let me single out, from many candidates, one convenient and again well-known case. The gospel authors each wrote separate accounts of the resurrection. (More exactly, in Mark's case someone added one later.) There are also brief references to the resurrection in Paul and in Acts 1. Each account contradicts the other five on major points. You can check this for yourself by looking at these questions and lining up the answers in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts ─
1. Who first went to the tomb? [Answer, to get you started: Paul [ ] ─ Mk: Mary M, Mary mother of James, Salome ─ Matt: MM, MmJ ─ Luke: MM, MmJ, Joanna ─ Acts [ ] ]
2. What did she or they see on arriving?
3. Did they find any guards there?
─ If there were guards, what did the guards do?
4. What did she or they do?
5. Did she or they see anyone at or in the tomb?
─ If they did, who did they see?
─ If they did, what did whoever they saw do?
6. What did she or they do next?
7. To whom did Jesus first appear?
─ How?
8. To whom did Jesus second appear?
─ Where?
─ With what result?
9. To whom did Jesus third appear?
10. To whom did Jesus fourth appear?
11. To whom did Jesus fifth appear?
12. When did Jesus ascend to heaven?
13. From where did Jesus ascend to heaven?

Not one of those questions gets a single unanimous answer. (Though Paul's the only one who claims there was a fifth appearance at all.)

You haven't been able to demonstrate any textual contradictions between the NT texts

Having read my answer to your 'take a staff' point, you'll now know that I've given you at least that one.

And having read this post carefully, you'll be able to add as examples of contradictions the not fewer than three different models of Jesus, and of course the six incompatible resurrection stories and the many irreconcilable details between them.

There is nothing linguistically wrong with translating Isaiah 7 as "virgin" from the Hebrew word almah. Almah can mean virgin, but doesn't always mean virgin.

That's to say, its primary meaning is 'young woman', and a young woman may or may not be a virgin. But the Septuagint specifies her as a virgin. And that's plainly the motive of Matthew's and Luke's authors in inventing a virgin mother for Jesus.

 

[Rise]

Well, living in heaven with God, and making the universe are qualities of the gnostic demiurge.

Logical fallacy, "irrelevant conclusion." The truth or falseness of your statement is irrelevant to the point you were trying to respond to.

I never said those weren't attributes found in the gnostic writings. I said you had no historical or evidentiary basis for claiming that the NT writers were drawing upon gnostic ideas in the creation of NT theology.
It's only baseless speculation on your part.

Without evidence establishing your assumption is true, you can't talk of Bible doctrines as though you take for granted they originated outside of the apostles with gnosticism.

So I ask where Paul and the author of John got these gnostic notions from.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
I already addressed that, and you ignored it, merely repeating your original assertion.

Here is what I said:

Your question is based on a faulty assumption: You assume they had to get the idea from somewhere other than God.
John and Paul tell us they got it by the words of Jesus and revelation from God. So if you want to call them liars you're going to need some reasons and evidence backing you up if you expect people to accept your claim as truth.
You'd have to first prove your assumption is true before the question is valid.


You haven't attempted to provide any proof for your claim that they got it from gnosticism rather than from God. You've only repeated your original assertion while ignoring the fact that I showed why your claim is invalid.

And why the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke didn't know about them.

Logical fallacy, "argument from silence" and "argument by repetition".
I already refuted your claim by pointing out why it was an invalid argument from silence. Rather than deal with the points I made you ignored them and simply repeated your original assertion as though it had not already been refuted.

You can ask why that information isn't included in their Gospels, but you can't assert you know they didn't know about it, because you can't prove they didn't know about it at the time of the writing of their Gospels.

I've already given you reasons why, contextually, John had reason to talk about many things that were likely not relevant earlier during the establishment of the church. You haven't tried to address any of those points, but merely ignore them and continue to repetitiously assert your unproven claims.



John's is written near the end of his death, after a lot has happened in the church since it's founding and many false teachers have arisen. As such, and with it's Greek audience in mind, an audience that might even be majority gentile church by this point, and even the Jews in the church might be native greek Jews who had more of a greek mindset rather than a hebraic mindset - so you get a focus on different issues that have to be addressed.
It focuses on the spiritual side of Jesus to put to rest the heretical ideas that Jesus might have just a man, or maybe was just a demi-god, or wasn't fully God, or wasn't fully man and was just a spirit. You also see John directly deal with with addressing the idea that John the baptist was the real messiah, which was another strain of false teaching we saw historically pop up early on, by recounting John's own denial of that idea.
There's likely simply no need to talk about the earthly geneaology of Jesus at this time because presumably it simply wasn't an issue of contention by this point by the later Greek church. It was the Judean hebrews who were always most concerned with these issues, which is why Matthew and Hebrews both have a greater focus on these aspects.
It was probably an issue of contention back when Matthew was written, during the early days of the Jerusalem based church, but ceased to be a concern by the time of John's writing, or at least wasn't an issue amount gentile converts or Greek Jews. Especially since that was already established in Matthew's gospel, which very likely was available to them by that time in a Greek translation. That could be another reason John doesn't see the need to retread a lot of the ground Matthew has already covered thoroughly.

And if the answer is, God, why did God tell one author one thing and another author a different thing?

You haven't shown a single textual contradiction between the NT in general, much less shown a contradiction between what they say about who Jesus is. So you can't claim they were telling something different.
Telling a different part of the same account is not the same as telling a different account.

I know Paul does. Please remind me where the author of John makes that claim ─

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ
-1 John

We also see in Revelation that John meets with Jesus in Heaven, where He described as the first and the last, as God Himself. Which fits with the eternal picture of Jesus we see in John 1 as being existent before creation:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must [a]shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
....

Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of [j]Hades and of Death. 19 [k]Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

Which fits with Isaiah 48:

“Listen to me, O Jacob,
and Israel, whom I called!
I am he; I am the first,
and I am the last.
13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I call to them,
they stand forth together.

I thought he said at the end of Chapter 21 he was told it by other humans.

You are misreading that chapter.
John is saying that he was an eyewitness to what he wrote down.

Reading it in the NLT version might make that more clear for you:

20 Peter turned around and saw behind them the disciple Jesus loved—the one who had leaned over to Jesus during supper and asked, “Lord, who will betray you?” 21 Peter asked Jesus, “What about him, Lord?”
22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? As for you, follow me.” 23 So the rumor spread among the community of believers that this disciple wouldn’t die. But that isn’t what Jesus said at all. He only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate.
-John 21

It's quite possible that the gospel authors were influenced by the midrash tradition, and if they were they may not have regarded such fictions as they wrote as lies, but rather as legitimate fantasizings on the possibilities of scriptural texts.

Your statement is not relevant to what you were responding to.

You claimed John and Paul didn't get their ideas about God from God.
I pointed out that they say otherwise.
If you want to call them liars, and state that as a fact, then you need to have evidence to do so.
You can't expect us to believe they are liars just because you choose to believe they are.
Likewise, you can't accuse them of lying through a midrash without giving evidence to believe that's what they were doing either.

There's a difference between fact and opinion; and you're trying to traffic in your opinions as though they were established facts. That creates a lot of problems when trying to get to the truth of a matter.

 

[Rise]

And why didn't he tell authors in Rome and Byzantium and China and India and Persia and Egypt and Africa and northern Europe and Russia and the then-undiscovered Americas, and so on round the world at the same time? You get the greatest impact and the quickest and best result when you release your news or your movie or your invention in as many places at once as you can, surely?

Logical fallacy, "Red Herring" and "Irrelevant Conclusions". Trying to dispute the wisdom of how God's chose to carry out His plan is not relevant to your attempt to prove your claim that there is supposedly a contradiction between the NT books about who Jesus is.

Ah, you must have missed it before when I gave you some sample references. No harm done ─ here they are again, and this time I'll set the texts out with them:

That Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God

Philippians 2:5 [...] Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
​

That Jesus created the material world:

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

John 1:2) He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
​

Those claims have no parellel in Mark, Matthew or Luke.

Your response makes no sense given what you were responding to.

Here is what you were quoting from me when you wrote that:
Nothing John or Paul wrote contradicts Genesis. You've given no support for your assertion, so we have no reason to answer your question with the assumption that your assertion is true.

And, sure enough, nothing you posted shows any contradiction with what we see in Genesis as compared with the NT.

So you haven't disproven my point. It appears you weren't even trying to respond to my point.

Those claims have no parellel in Mark, Matthew or Luke.

I think you don't understand what a "contradiction" actually is.
Definition: To assert the opposite of a statement or idea put forward by (someone).

In order to demonstrate a contradiction you need to be able to compare something (Like a verse in John) to something else (Like a verse in Matthew) and then logically explain why those two things disagree in a mutually exclusive way.

Instead, you're trying to compare something (A verse in John) to nothing (The absence of a similar verse in Matthew).

That's not what a contradiction is by definition. You're engaging in the logical fallacy of argument from silence. You can't logically prove Matthew's silence on what John wrote means Matthew disagreed with what John said.

Only if you can quote something Matthew said which contradicts John, or vise versa, will you have established that a contradiction exists between the Gospels.

 

[Rise]

Thanks. I must have missed it.

But that argument doesn't work. Matt 10:10 says ─

μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν .... μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας μηδὲ ὑποδήματα μηδὲ ῥάβδον
or.. bag..for journey or-yet two tunics .. or-yet. sandals.... or-yet staff​

That is, grammatically, bag [singular], two tunics, [one pair of] sandals and staff [singular]. ῥάβδον rhabdon 'staff' is singular accusative ─ if it were plural it'd be ῥάβδους rhabdous but it's not.

It says, [do not take] a staff. (It also says don't take two tunics ie you don't need a second tunic.)

nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.
-NKJV

Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
-KJV


The reason you see this translation appear is because the majority of greek manuscripts attest to the word being ραβδους rather than ραβδον. Meaning plural, not singular.

So there is reason to believe that was the original rendering of the verse. Which would mean there is no contradiction in the original accounts as written.

Later scribal errors are not proof of Matthew and Mark writing different Gospels, because those errors were never part of the original Gospels as written.

Now, you might want to dispute what the original rendering was, but ultimately you don't end up with proof of a contradiction unless you can say with absolute certainty that the original reading had to be singular. But you can't say that. Not when the overwhelming majority of manuscripts attest to it being plural. It is very possible that plural was the original rendering and was faithfully transmitted down through the Byzantine textual tradition.

Why more translations go with the singular has to do with the assumption that the oldest surviving manuscript must be the most accurate. However, logically that is not necessarily true. Because if it were, no one would see the need to compile manuscripts from a majority of sources to determine what was likely the original rendering. Instead, we would just take the oldest manuscript we have and translate that directly. But no one does that. Why not? For the simple reason that the age of a manuscript doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how accurate the copying job was at the time of that manuscript's creation. A old copy from a shoddy copy tradition is not actually going to be as reliable as a newer manuscript that is descended from a more reliable copy tradition.

Take, for instance, the dead sea scroll of Isaiah. It's basically identical to the modern masoretic text version of Isaiah that the Jewish people have transmitted over the centuries since the fall of Jerusalem. Why is it that they were able to transmit a near perfect copy over two thousand years? Because of their rigorous copying protocols. But such standards are not universal, which is why some manuscript traditions contain more errors than others.

The Egyptian based manuscripts and fragments we have are among the oldest, not because they were first written there, but because the environment there has been the most conducive to the survival of ancient manuscripts. This can create a skewed perspective of what the original renderings must have been if you think age automatically means they must be superior; ignoring the fact that there were manuscripts all over the Roman empire at this time and almost none of them survived simply because their climate wasn't as arid to the extreme as Egypt.
Yes, age means you're closer in time to the original source; but it doesn't automatically mean you're closer to the original renderings because you don't know how good or bad their copying protocols and traditions were in that region at that time (Origen actually attests to their standards being very poor in Alexandria around this time). You don't have an abundance of other regions to compare it to in the same time period (as opposed to later time periods where we have an abundance of witnesses across a great geographical area that allow us to easily pinpoint which manuscripts are the outliers from what the overwhelming majority of other manuscripts are attesting to). So there is a limitation to what kinds of assumptions you can make based on a handful of old manuscripts with little else to compare it to from the same time period.

 

[blü 2]

The reason you see this translation appear is because the majority of greek manuscripts attest to the word being ραβδους rather than ραβδον. Meaning plural, not singular.

My text is the Textus Receptus. My translation is therefore from the closest thing there is to an official text. And it says [a] staff, singular.

So there is reason to believe that was the original rendering of the verse. Which would mean there is no contradiction in the original accounts as written.

If you have to go hunting in the bushes for excuses, sure. If you don't think the TR has some authority, then anything you like.

Later scribal errors are not proof of Matthew and Mark writing different Gospels, because those errors were never part of the original Gospels as written.

That's EXACTLY what you don't know. You have no basis for such a claim.

Anyway, I've since given you a wealth of other contradictions.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Most Christians should probably call themselves "Paulians" since they side with Paul over Jesus on the question of how to get to heaven.

Observe that Paul states:

Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

However, Paul directly contradicts the guy that he claims is his savior, since Jesus says:

Matthew 7:21-23: "NOT EVERYONE who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Clearly in Matthew 7, Jesus is stating that many people will call on his name and perform actions in his name, and yet, they will not go to heaven. Yet the majority of Christians (especially Protestants) believe Paul over the guy they claim is their savior. Why do I, as an agnostic, care? Well, it's amusing to me to watch Christians ignore all of the verses where Jesus clearly teaches that good works are necessary to go to heaven. Just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of many Christians. Not only do they willfully ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, they also willfully ignore the words of Jesus himself. Strange, isn't it?

There's no contradictions between what Paul said and what Jesus Christ said..
as you suppose there is..

Let's take a closer look at what Paul said in Romans 10:13---"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

Let's take a closer look at what
Jesus Christ said in Matthew 7:21-23.

21--"not every one that saith unto me,
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven"

22--"many will say to me in that day,
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesized in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devil's, and in thy name done many wonderful things"

23--"And then I will profess unto them,
I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"

Now the question is..what sets apart the difference between what Paul said and what Jesus Christ said..

Paul speaking to those coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, that those who come to Jesus Christ....if they call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Had you started at the beginning of Romans chapter 10 and pickup what the subject and article is about...you would have found Paul speaking to those who are coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. And if they call upon the name of the Lord then they shall be saved. Through their faith of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord.

Now as for what Jesus Christ said in
Matthew 7:21-23…
Seeing that you read right over it..
So what sets apart what Paul said and what Jesus Christ said ?

Notice in verse 22 above, there's one word that sets apart the difference between What Paul said and what Jesus Christ said..

So in verse 22 above, Jesus Christ is pointing to a precise day. When he said
( Many will say to me in that day)
So here we find Jesus Christ pointing to a precise day when many will say to him in that ( day)

But what ( day ) is that ?

This being the day of Jesus Christ second coming,. when he returns back to earth and finds many in the worshipping the Antichrist ( Satan)

and then many shall say to Jesus Christ have we not prophesized in thy name and done many wonderful things in thy name.
And then Jesus Christ will say unto them in that (day)
"I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" Matthew 7:23.

Therefore there is no contradiction.
As you suppose there is..
between what Paul said and what Jesus Christ said..
Only you misunderstanding what your reading.
but none the less I hope this clarifies the difference between what Paul said and what Jesus Christ said.
Thank you.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Most Christians should probably call themselves "Paulians" since they side with Paul over Jesus on the question of how to get to heaven.

Observe that Paul states:

Romans 10:13: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

However, Paul directly contradicts the guy that he claims is his savior, since Jesus says:

Matthew 7:21-23: "NOT EVERYONE who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Clearly in Matthew 7, Jesus is stating that many people will call on his name and perform actions in his name, and yet, they will not go to heaven. Yet the majority of Christians (especially Protestants) believe Paul over the guy they claim is their savior. Why do I, as an agnostic, care? Well, it's amusing to me to watch Christians ignore all of the verses where Jesus clearly teaches that good works are necessary to go to heaven. Just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of many Christians. Not only do they willfully ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, they also willfully ignore the words of Jesus himself. Strange, isn't it?

You are ignorantly mistaken,
The reference to "Lord" in Romans 10:13 is NOT a reference to Jesus.

try again

 

[Faithofchristian]

You are ignorantly mistaken,
The reference to "Lord" in Romans 10:13 is NOT a reference to Jesus.

try again

No your mistaken had you had back up to the beginning of Romans chapter 10..
and pick up what the whole subject and article is about..
You would have found Romans 10:13.
Is in reference to Jesus Christ.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

No your mistaken had you had back up to the beginning of Romans chapter 10..
and pick up what the whole subject and article is about..
You would have found Romans 10:13.
Is in reference to Jesus Christ.

Ok, never mind,
I thought you could at least read.

"Whoever calls upon THE NAME of the Lord....",
now, tell me His "NAME", and we may have something to discuss.

Oh, and it's NOT "Jesus", "Yeshua", or anything like that.

 

[Rise]

I'm pointing out that there are at least three incompatible models of Jesus in the NT
─ Mark's ordinary human who's later adopted, Matthew's and Luke's genetic child of God, and Paul's and John's model, gnostic at the very least to the extend of pre-dwelling in heaven with God and of creating the material universe.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and argument by repetition. I refuted the arguments you tried to use to support that conclusion, but instead of addressing my points you merely repeat your original assertion as though it's assumed to be true.

Claiming they are "incompatible" with each other brings me back to what I posted above, wherein I showed you are misusing those terms - You don't seem to understand what "incompatible" and "contradiction" mean.

Here is a repost of it:

I think you don't understand what a "contradiction" actually is.
Definition: To assert the opposite of a statement or idea put forward by (someone).

In order to demonstrate a contradiction you need to be able to compare something (Like a verse in John) to something else (Like a verse in Matthew) and then logically explain why those two things disagree in a mutually exclusive way.

Instead, you're trying to compare something (A verse in John) to nothing (The absence of a similar verse in Matthew).

That's not what a contradiction is by definition. You're engaging in the logical fallacy of argument from silence. You can't logically prove Matthew's silence on what John wrote means Matthew disagreed with what John said.

Only if you can quote something Matthew said which contradicts John, or vise versa, will you have established that a contradiction exists between the Gospels.

And in answer to your claim that the bible authors should be assumed to know and agree with what the others said but don't mention,

You are mischaracterizing what I said. Likely unintentionally.

I never said the Bible authors "should be assumed" to know and agree with what the others said - I actually showed you why the historical evidence we have supports that as a valid conclusion.

That's the difference between what the two of us are doing here. I've cited the historical record about the origin of the Gospels as evidence for my conclusion - but you have cited no evidence for your conclusions. You merely assume certain things to be true without evidence and then run with it - but that's not how we determine what is true. You need more than baseless assumption and speculation behind what you believe before you can go around claiming to other people that it's the truth.

That's why I say I think you mischaracterized my argument unintentionally, because I don't think you're actually making a distinction in your mind between the idea that making an evidence based argument is not the same as an exercise of pure speculation.

You seem to act as though you erroneously think that your speculation is itself evidence of something - but that is not how a logical argument is structured.
A logical argument has two components: A premise and a conclusion.
But if your premise can't be said to be true then your argument is not logically valid. You either need to prove your premise is true or withdraw that line of argumentation and try a different argument.

I'm pointing out the source of the particular error ─ and it is an error ─ peculiar to the authors of Matthew and Luke, the invention of a virgin mother so as to comply with their misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and argument by repetition.
You have not established that the assumptions underlying your conclusion is true.

You have given no proof of your claim that Matthew or Luke invented anything.
You merely assume they do, but then go on to assert it as a proven fact, and then think that merely by repeating your assertion that you have proven it's true.
But it doesn't become true just because you continue to assert it's true. You need to back up your claim with some evidence and logically valid arguments.

 

[Rise]

Which is this ─ the error that the authors of Matthew and of Luke made explains why THEY mentioned a virgin and NO ONE ELSE does.

That's one more reason why we should NOT assume that silence is agreement.

Logical fallacy, "strawman". I never argued that we should assume their silence on the issue is proof of agreement. That would be committing the logical fallacy of "argument from silence" to do so.

What I did is point out that you are committing the logical fallacy of "argument from silence" by trying to claim that their silence proves they didn't believe it.
You can't logically do that, as it is an invalid form of reasoning:
Argument from silence - RationalWiki

Silence proves nothing other than the existence of silence.

Especially when there are other perfectly valid ways of reasoning why that silence is there (which I gave you, and which you still have not responded to)

You have no logical or evidentiary basis for claiming your assumption is the only possible answer.

In order for you to even begin to claim that your assumption has to be accepted as the truth, you'd need to be able to demonstrate logically why your assumption could be the only possible answer - but you can't do that. Especially when I gave you a list of valid possibilities that could explain the silence, and you have not even attempted to refute them.


Here are the points I made reposted for you (because you've never tried to deal with them yet):


The arguments I made about contextual relevancy in John also apply to Paul's letters. Paul never wrote a Gospel, telling the life of Christ from beginning to end - which is where that information makes the most sense to include it.
He was also writing to believers who probably already knew this information, so there was no need to recount it for his intended audience. Paul's letters are always written to an existing church with a particular purpose in mind, addressing particular issues specific to that church - which is why every letter has different content. It's perfectly feasible to conclude that the nature of the earthly birth of Jesus was likely not a doctrinal point of contention for these churches that Paul was writing to - so there was no need to address it.

Now, there are some verses in Paul's letters which could be taken to allude to the virgin birth, but I don't see the need to even delve into that when context (ie. purpose and audience considerations) alone provides a sufficient answer for us.


Asking why Mark doesn't think it should be mentioned is a valid question. But what you're missing is the fact that you can't go from asking that question to then skipping a dozen logical steps to conclude the wildly unsupported assertion that Mark must not have believed or known about it. Especially when there are other explanations available.

It's already obvious why Peter wouldn't include the Davidic lineage, given the context of his audience and the use of a spoken verbal format (as I already explained in previous posts, which you did not attempt to counter).

As for the virgin birth; It is talked about in Matthew and Acts in the context of being part of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. But you don't see Mark talk explicitly about Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled (if I recall correctly) because it's likely not relevant to his presumably mostly Roman gentile audience. You see prophecy talked about most in Matthew because it is written to the Jews.
Likewise, you see Paul leans more heavily on referencing OT prophecies, and OT scriptural interpretation, when writing to Jewish audiences.
Luke, attempting to be a thorough historical documentation, also would have reason to talk about OT prophecy even if the intended audience weren't entirely Jewish (Although his audience very well could have been Jewish. I'd guess likely the Jews living outside of Judea who had need of an accurate account of events, as likely recalled to Luke by first hand sources still living in Jerusalem. I'd say the content is definitely suggestive of a mixed gentile and Jewish audience, but not necessarily the hyper religious and traditional Jews found in Jerusalem that Matthew appears to have been written to).

It has also been suggested that the gospels all are written in a way that highlights a specific aspect of Jesus more than the others, by design of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the benefit of giving us a more complete picture of who Jesus is. It is very clear that Matthew focuses on establishing the Jesus as the King of the Jews, son of David. It is very clear that John focuses on establishing Jesus as son of God, and God Himself. It is also fairly establishable that the content of Luke focuses more on the humanity side of Jesus, being part of mankind, tracing His lineage back to Adam instead of stopping at David as Matthew did. If Mark doesn't serve either of those three purposes, then there wouldn't necessarily be need to talk about any other aspect of Jesus's birth.

Also, consider, Matthew was already written before Mark, so perhaps that could have also been a contributing factor to why it was not seen as necessary to rehash what was already sufficiently recorded there.
Which is the same reason we don't need to have it retold in John.
Afterall, if the Holy Spirit is guiding this, and they are all aware of what has been written before them, this line of logic makes sense. You only assume there would be a need to retell the story four times if you assume these were all written isolated from each other or alternatively try to assume they were attempts at copying and adding to each other (but we have no historical reason to believe either of those two assumptions would be true).
The only reason we see it retold in Luke appears to be so that we can get a different perspective of it; from the perspective of Mary, from the perspective of Jesus as the son of Adam, and to get the Davidic lineage of Jesus through Mary. So in that case we're getting new information, not simply a retelling of what was already available for people in the Gospel of Matthew. It is also likely that the people Luke was compiling this information for already had access to the Gospel of Matthew.


You are commiting a fallacy of "argument from silence". It's a fallacy that makes unwarranted assumptions about what happened simply by the lack of mention of something.
But that is a logically invalid form of argument.

Here's an example of why it's a fallacious invalid form of argument: What if I tried to claim you've never gone to the store for groceries just because I can't any evidence of you mentioning doing that in your forum posts. There's a lot of things you don't write down, but just because you didn't write it down doesn't mean it didn't happen. We don't know if you did or did not go to the store. It would be wrong for us to try to state affirmatively that you've never been to the store, and then start making assumptions about why you've never gone to the store, such as the pure speculation that maybe you were rich so you hired servants to do this for you, even though we have no other evidence to support that conclusion. It's all pure speculation based on a bad fallacious assumption.

Likewise, your claims about Mark are pure speculation based on an invalid assumption drawn from the logical fallacy of an "argument from silence".

 

[Rise]

Continued (This a lot of valid points you've simply outright ignored, because you can't refute them and they disprove your claims):



I must point out up front that many of your issues with the NT are based not on actual contradictions between two different letters, but your issues are based on a single faulty assumption - The assumption that just because an author didn't write about it that they didn't think it happened, or that they didn't believe it. But you cannot assume that is why. It would be wrong to even assume they didn't know about the information they left out, unless you have some reason to suspect they didn't. Especially when there are other explanations that make more sense and fit the evidence better.

For example:
Mark doesn't talk about the more spiritual side of the origin of Jesus OR the earthly virgin birth and Davidic line Matthew talks about - but that doesn't necessarily mean Mark didn't know about or believe in either of those things. You would be wrong to think that Mark just believed Jesus popped up out of no where one day, fully formed, simply because he omitted giving more information on that topic of where Jesus came from. Such a conclusion is not only bad logic, but there are clearly better explanations for why there is a difference in content between the gospels.

The different accounts can easily be harmonized together with all of it being true.
That comes from understanding the context in which these various gospels were written, to whom, and why they were written.
For instance, a difference in audience that reflects a different focus about what was most important to relate to the particular audience of their letter. Or at different points in history there were different theological issues that had to be addressed. There are also variations in which content is included based on the different eyewitness perspectives of the writers involved.

John's is written near the end of his death, after a lot has happened in the church since it's founding and many false teachers have arisen. As such, and with it's Greek audience in mind, an audience that might even be majority gentile church by this point, and even the Jews in the church might be native greek Jews who had more of a greek mindset rather than a hebraic mindset - so you get a focus on different issues that have to be addressed.
It focuses on the spiritual side of Jesus to put to rest the heretical ideas that Jesus might have just a man, or maybe was just a demi-god, or wasn't fully God, or wasn't fully man and was just a spirit. You also see John directly deal with with addressing the idea that John the baptist was the real messiah, which was another strain of false teaching we saw historically pop up early on, by recounting John's own denial of that idea.
There's likely simply no need to talk about the earthly geneaology of Jesus at this time because presumably it simply wasn't an issue of contention by this point by the later Greek church. It was the Judean hebrews who were always most concerned with these issues, which is why Matthew and Hebrews both have a greater focus on these aspects.
It was probably an issue of contention back when Matthew was written, during the early days of the Jerusalem based church, but ceased to be a concern by the time of John's writing, or at least wasn't an issue amount gentile converts or Greek Jews. Especially since that was already established in Matthew's gospel, which very likely was available to them by that time in a Greek translation. That could be another reason John doesn't see the need to retread a lot of the ground Matthew has already covered thoroughly.

Mark is the dictation of Peter's public telling of the Gospel to a Roman audience, presumably to a largely gentile audience. Speaking language is always more simple and abridged for most people, and has more time constraints about the amount you can convey in a single setting, which could also likely why it's the shortest gospel. A speaking format would explain more abridged content focusing on the high points necessary for his audience to come to faith. And Rome as a context makes things like Davidic genealogies, Messianic kingship, and even the fulfillment of certain old testament prophecies, not that relevant to dive into in the context of public preaching because it wouldn't be very meaningful to what is probably a mostly gentile audience or dispersed Jews more disconnected from Judean culture and teaching.

A perfect example of this truth of different audiences is the fact that Matthew is said to be the first Gospel written because it was written to the Jewish converts, before the Gospel went out to the gentiles. This is why in Matthew you find much more focus on the idea of Jesus as Messiah and King, with more focus on referencing Old Testament prophecy, imagery, and Hebraic concepts.

Luke is written as a comprehensive historical and overview, paired with Acts, with a stated aim to increase the reader's confidence in what they have heard by confirming various accounts and information.



You are assuming that Peter/Mark didn't think Jesus had a Davidic lineage simply because he didn't mention it. Ignoring the fact that, given his audience, he had no real need to communicate that part of the Gospel to them at that time. People do that today all the time when they teach the gospel to new people in most parts of the world. It's not necessary to start from that point because they don't have an Old Testament foundation yet that would make that information meaningful to them. This only becomes a topic of preaching in modern times when you're talking with Jewish people.



You haven't shown there to be any contradiction, because your conclusions are based solely on an "argument from silence" which is not a valid logical argument to make in support of a conclusion.

For instance; the absence of a a genealogy in Mark doesn't give you a logical basis to conclude that Mark did not believe Jesus had a Davidic lineage.
On top of that, there are other better explanations for why it wouldn't have been included, which I already gave you.



Just because something isn't mentioned in a Gospel doesn't give you logical grounds to assume they didn't know about or believe that information. There are other reasons why someone would not include everything in their gospel, based on the audience they are communicating to.

You won't find a single verse in Matthew or Luke that would outright contradict any information given by John or Paul about the pre-existent nature of Christ.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Ok, never mind,
I thought you could at least read.

"Whoever calls upon THE NAME of the Lord....",
now, tell me His "NAME", and we may have something to discuss.

Oh, and it's NOT "Jesus", "Yeshua", or anything like that.

Go back to the beginning of Romans chapter 10 and pickup what the subject and article is about
That will tell you that Jesus Christ is the main subject and article of chapter 10 is about.
And who the ( Lord ) is Jesus Christ.

It seems that you need to take a course in how to make a book report.
To make a book report is to start at the beginning of the chapter and find out what the main subject and article is about then the rest of the chapter will fall into place of what the chapter is about or who the chapter is about.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Go back to the beginning of Romans chapter 10 and pickup what the subject and article is about
That will tell you that Jesus Christ is the main subject and article of chapter 10 is about.
And who the ( Lord ) is Jesus Christ.

It seems that you need to take a course in how to make a book report.
To make a book report is to start at the beginning of the chapter and find out what the main subject and article is about then the rest of the chapter will fall into place of what the chapter is about or who the chapter is about.

And the question remains, regardless of "who" the "Lord" is,
the question is what is His "NAME" ?

 

[Rise]

Therefore my explanation is right on the point, locating the error with the offenders, and not with the others, who do not make that error.

As I pointed out above, you have no evidence or logical argument to support your claim that the inclusion or absence of the nativity information is a error on the part of any of the Gospel writers, because there exist various valid alternative explanations for why that happened. And you have provided no logical arguments or proof of why your theory has to be regarded as the only true one.

You have a lot of unproven assumptions behind why you think that's the only possible answer - but you haven't proven any of your underlying assumptions are true either about the creation of the NT. Which even further undermines your attempt to claim that your explanation of what we see in the Gospels must be regarded as the truth.

If you wish to claim that Paul specifies that Mary was the mother of Jesus and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, now's the time to set out the verses on which you rely.

Logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof".

Since you are the one making the claim that Paul did not believe in the virgin birth, the onus is on you to prove your claim is true with logical argumentation and facts.

You're committing the logical fallacy also of "argument from silence" by assuming that silence proves he must not have believed it. And I've already explained in the preceding posts in greater detail why your entire line of reasoning is fallacious and invalid.

You did not respond to my points. Instead you just ignored them and continued to repeat your disproven claims.

But the Septuagint specifies her as a virgin. And that's plainly the motive of Matthew's and Luke's authors in inventing a virgin mother for Jesus.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and argument by repetition.
You cannot claim as true that Matthew or Luke made that information up because you have given no evidence or valid arguments to support such a claim.
And continuing to repeat your unproven claim doesn't prove your claim.

So any speculation on your part of their motive becomes irrelevant when you can't even prove they did anything to begin with.

With all due respect, don't be silly.

Logical fallacy, "Argumentum ad lapidem". Trying to dismiss my argument as "silly" doesn't disprove the validity of my arguments or the truth of my conclusions.

You disproved nothing.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion". Merely claiming I did not disprove your points doesn't make it so. You need demonstrate with logical argumentation that your points are still valid, in light of my arguments, by trying to counter my arguments with new arguments or facts.
All you've done most of this thread is merely repeat your original claims while ignoring most of the points I've made which disproved them.

And, you'll note in my preceding posts, that I never merely accuse you of disproving nothing and then walk away: I actually demonstrate why your responses failed to disprove what I said: Using logic and facts to show that your arguments were either invalid or your assumptions were wrong.

That's called a counter argument.

In a debate, counter arguments are required. You can't merely keep repeating your original claims while ignoring the other side's counter points that refute your claims.
To do so makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of argument by repetition and argument by assertion. Something isn't true just because you assert it is. And it isn't true just because you repeat it. You need to be able to logically defend it against counter arguments if you want to be able to claim it's true.

You declared that the gospel authors all know and agree with what the others were saying even when they don't mention what the others were saying.

The key difference here you're missing is why I can say that; Because I'm basing my conclusion off historical documentation that says that is what happened.

Ie. I have a valid evidence based reason for reaching certain conclusions about the authorship and transmission of the Gospels. And I have already stated some examples of that, which you have ignored.

You, in contrast, have presented no evidence that would dispute what the historical record says on this matter.
Merely asserting the historical record is wrong doesn't make it true. You need to give valid reasons and evidence to prove that claim.

Yet as I pointed out, the authors of Mathew and of Luke took Mark and rewrote it to please their respective selves.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion, and argument by repetition.

You don't prove your claim true just by asserting it's true.

You have to give evidence with valid logical reasoning that would prove your claim is true.

They disagreed with Mark on various points and they disagreed with each other on various points.

Logical fallacy, argument from silence.

Silence on a matter proves nothing other than the fact that there is silence.

You cannot claim silence means disagreement.

By definition, "disagreement" (like "contradiction") requires two things to compare to each other.

You cannot logically show a disagreement, by definition, by comparing something to nothing, when there is no logical reason to conclude the absence of something represents a choice based on disagreement.

I already explained in more detail in preceding posts why this line of reasoning by you is invalid, using a fallacious argument from silence, and you haven't addressed those points I made.

 

[Rise]

My text is the Textus Receptus. My translation is therefore from the closest thing there is to an official text. And it says [a] staff, singular.

If you don't think the TR has some authority, then anything you like.

This is where it starts to show you're reaching the edge of your knowledge on the subject.

You don't seem to understand that the Textus Receptus is, and what it isn't.
It isn't a manuscript. It's a combination of various manuscripts put together, based on what the collators thought were probably the original readings.
The Textus Receptus by itself isn't an authority because there's no such thing as a Textus Receptus manuscript in history. There's not a single manuscript in history that is 100% in line with what the Textus Receptus says. Same for other Greek collations besides the TR. Do you even realize there is more than one text that goes by the name TR, and they differ?

The TR represents only what the people who collated it thought were the original renderings based on looking at various manuscripts. It's only as authoritative as the individual who compiled it, and no person is above having their conclusions questioned with a need to provide logical justification for their conclusions.


Having said that, your response is committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".
Because I gave you specific reasons why you cannot say with certainty that the singular rendering was the original. Why there is reason to believe it could have been plural.
You didn't address those points.
Instead you ignored them and made a fallacious appeal to authority by saying essentially "If the TR says it it must be true".
Well, I gave you reasons why that rendering in the TR may not be accurate, and instead of addressing that you just commit the fallacy of circular reasoning by saying "the TR rendering is true because it's the TR".
No, you have to be able to argue why it's true, not just assert it is.

If it were, in fact, true that the Textus Receptus is the final authority on this matter, then you should be able to argue why the TR went with that rendering, and thereby disprove my points; instead of trying to deflect from having to answer my points with a fallacious appeal to authority and circular reasoning (Ie. the TR is right because it's the TR).

If you have to go hunting in the bushes for excuses, sure.

Logical fallacy, "Argumentum ad lapidem". Merely being dismissive of my arguments doesn't disprove them.

The valid points I raised against your claim stand unchallenged by you.

Which were:
1. The majority of greek manuscripts render it plural.
2. That you cannot prove the original was rendered singular, as the evidence is not clear enough on this matter to declare with certainty that it had to have been singular originally.
3. That the assumptions behind why some choose to go with the singular reading are not necessarily based on sound logic.

That's EXACTLY what you don't know. You have no basis for such a claim.

Let's look at what I said again, because I don't think you understood what I said:

Later scribal errors are not proof of Matthew and Mark writing different Gospels, because those errors were never part of the original Gospels as written.

Let's break this down:
I asserted that if a scribal error were committed that changed the original text, then that scribal error would not reflect what Matthew/Mark had originally wrote.

So, are you disagreeing with that statement?

On what basis could you? It's a simple statement of logic that if you change something then it's no longer original.
How would you accuse that statement of being wrong?

I don't think you actually understood what I was saying, because I don't think you would try to claim my statement was wrong unless you misunderstood it.