How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity

[blü 2]

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

Well, if you put it like that, I'll just point to the elephant in the room ─ stories of angelic messengers and ghostly impregnators of virgins and star-guided wise men and unhistorical events like 'all the world should be taxed' and the massacre of the innocents make it perfectly clear we're reading fiction, and to think otherwise is simply superstition.

But Mary did NOT have to be a virgin in the Hebrew and she DID have to be a virgin the Greek, and so the authors of Matthew and Luke spin this yarn about the virgin and about Jesus having God's Y-chromosome. And none of Paul or the authors or Mark or of John agree. Goodness, if it were true, wouldn't it be one of the most essential pieces of evidence to establish the supernatural credentials of the principal character of the story?

But it's perfectly clear why the author of Mark doesn't mention it ─ his Jesus is an ordinary Jewish lad until his baptism, and only then does God adopt him as his son, in the Jewish manner, that is, on the model of David and Psalm 2:7.

And our two gnostic-flavored authors, Paul and the author of John, don't mention it either. On the basis of what evidence do you assert that they knew the tale but didn't mention it?

It's your claim that they knew, so it's your task to demonstrate it. Go ahead.

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.

First, as I said above, it's your claim that he did. My reply is, you have no evidence for such a statement. On what basis do you make it?

You're committing the logical fallacy also of "argument from silence" by assuming that silence proves he must not have believed it.

You're joking, surely?

There is no assumption that any author know anything except what he said.

If we use your logic instead, then you can validly be assumed to know the full names of my four grandparents, because you haven't mentioned them. So tell me the full names of my four grandparents. Or withdraw that silly argument.

Bring that up to date and we can move on to what you found when you made that comparison of versions of the resurrection.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Trust me, I know what the TR is. You do yourself no favors trying to patronize. And you're ducking the question again.

Do you attach any authority to the TR?

To which I now add:

Or do you argue with the TR on the grounds of textual analysis?

Or do you think everyone's free to choose what they like?

Having said that, your response is committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

That's interesting. So you don't intend to make that fallacy, and you don't intend to assert that anything is historically true, or morally correct, just because it's in the bible, right?

Because I gave you specific reasons why you cannot say with certainty that the singular rendering was the original.

Nor can you give any specific reasons for denying it. Which brings us back to the TR questions above.

Now it's time for you to report what you found when you compared the six versions of the resurrection.

 

[Rise]

Well, if you put it like that, I'll just point to the elephant in the room ─ stories of angelic messengers and ghostly impregnators of virgins and star-guided wise men...make it perfectly clear we're reading fiction, and to think otherwise is simply superstition.

Thus is revealed, as I pointed out much earlier, the underlying problem with your conclusion that the Gospels are supposedly in contradiction: The core underlying assumption of your conclusion is based in part on your preconceived assumption that the realm of spiritual activity isn't real.

You would first need to prove your claim is true that you know with 100% certainty that miracles can't happen and spiritual beings aren't real before you can use that as your starting point for declaring the NT has to be regarded as a work of fiction simply on the basis that it makes references to miracles and spiritual beings.

That's kind of like you trying to declare, "The Bible isn't true because God isn't real". Well, can you prove God isn't real? If you can't do that then you don't get to logically use that assumption as your proof that the Bible supposedly isn't true.

Ultimately you've taken that fallacy to the next level by committing the logical fallacies of "circular argument" and "begging the question".
The kind of argument you're trying to use is essentially similar to if someone were trying to say: "The God of the Bible isn't real because the the Bible isn't accurate. And the Bible isn't accurate because God isn't real". That's an example of an invalid argument because you're using your conclusions to establish your premise is true.

The statement I quoted from you is trying to make a similar fallacious argument. You try to claim that the information about Jesus in the Bible is not true because the text is not accurate - but you try to prove the text is not accurate by claiming that the things it says about Jesus can't be true. Those are the logical fallacies of begging the question and circular reasoning.

 

[Rise]

It's your claim that they knew, so it's your task to demonstrate it. Go ahead.

Logical fallacy, "strawman". My argument against your claim was never based on merely the assertion that I thought I knew Paul knew about the virgin birth.

You were the one who claimed to "know", as a fact, that Paul couldn't have known about the virgin birth. And tried to use that claim as proof of your conclusions. That's why the onus is on you to prove your claim is true before you try to use it to prove your conclusions.

My argument was actually based on pointing out that you are committing the logical fallacy of argument from silence by claiming you "know" Paul couldn't have known about the virgin birth merely because he didn't explicitly mention it. That is invalid logic, which makes it an invalid form of argument. You need a valid form of argument if you want to try to claim your conclusion is true.

That further makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof". You can't defend your claim that you think you know Paul didn't know about the virgin birth by demanding others disprove your claim by proving he did know. The onus is on you to prove your claim - not on others to disprove it.

 

[Rise]

And our two gnostic-flavored authors, Paul and the author of John

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and argument by repetition.

I already disproved your claim to be able to refer to the writings of Paul and John as "gnostic" and you did not refute my arguments, or even attempt to respond to my last counter arguments on the subject.

Here are the relevant posts I made, if you'd like to deal with the arguments, rather than continuing to try to assert something that has already been refuted:



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.

...


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.

...

Your claim that John's gospel is gnostic is not only wrong, but ironically so, because there are many points in John's gospels and letters that were clearly written specifically to refute gnostic heresies that were floating around (like the idea that Jesus was never a man in the flesh, or never physically died on the cross).

...

Calling it "gnostic" is inherently wrong when you are pulling the information out of the Bible. Gnostic is defined by what makes it different from the Bible, not what makes it similar to the Bible.

That would be like referring to mentions of Jesus as a man in the Gospels as the "islamic qualities of the gospels". No, it's Christian doctrine that Jesus was a man too. Islam didn't create that idea and doesn't lay claim to it exclusively. What makes something an Islamic view of Jesus is when they reject many parts of the Gospels about the divinity/resurrection of Jesus, and insert their own ideas/texts on top of that which disagree with what the Bible says.

In the same way, gnosticism rejects many things found in the New Testament and inserts things which are not found anywhere in the NT.

By definition a viewpoint is not gnostic if is derived entirely from the NT. That's called standard Christianity. By definition any viewpoint that would be labled as exclusively gnostic is a viewpoint that won't be supported by the NT text alone, but would require gnostic texts to add to the NT while also rejecting portions of what the NT says.

So that's why I asked you to clarify why you're calling it gnostic. Because nothing you quoted from the NT would qualify as being an exclusively gnostic idea - they are Christian ideas. They might be elements of the NT that gnosticism doesn't reject, but that doesn't mean gnosticism lays claim to those ideas.
What would make a gnostic idea was if the NT didn't support that idea, but gnostic texts did.

 

[Rise]

On the basis of what evidence do you assert that they knew the tale but didn't mention it?

Logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof".

You were the one who claimed you "know" that the authors of the NT could not have known about anything unless they explicitly wrote about it.
The onus is on you to prove the truth of your claim with logical argumentation and factual evidence.
The onus is not on me to disprove your claim by proving the opposite is true.
Because you don't have evidence, your claim is itself a logical fallacy of appeal to silence. Silence alone isn't proof of a disagreement. You need other valid evidence to back up your claim if you want to try to assert it's true.


I did, however, list a lot of reasons why we have other reasons to believe why some information might not be in all four Gospels, or Paul's letters.
But you ignored all those points for several pages, even after I resposted them several times, because they refute your claim that theological disagreement is the only answer to explain the silence.

So it's ironic that you are asking now for evidence, when you haven't even tried to deal with the evidence I already presented you.


Here is a repost of all the relevant points I made which refute your claim that disagreement is the only explanation for silence, which has been reposted more than once; and you have ignored them every single time because they conclusively disprove the heart of your claim that your explanation is the only possible one.


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.


Continued in next post....

 

[Rise]

.

...Continued from previous post....


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.




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]

Trust me, I know what the TR is. You do yourself no favors trying to patronize. And you're ducking the question again.

Logical fallacy, "ad hominem" and "argument by assertion."
Merely claiming I "ducked the question" doesn't make it true. You haven't pointed to what question you think I didn't address concerning the TR or why you think I didn't address it.
You're further guilty of using that fallacious assertion as an ad hominen; because you're using it to avoid answering the points I made (because those points I made refuted your argument).

Those points were (distilled into a short summation to help you better track with the line of logic I used):

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.

Those points refute your claim that the original could not have been anything but singular and couldn't possibly have been plural. You cannot state with certainty that the original was singular because you don't have the evidence to support such a claim.


You've also committed a variant of the logical fallacy "appeal to authority". You tried to defend your fallacious argument about the TR by simply responding with "Trust me, I know what the TR is". Well, just because you claim that doesn't mean you arguments weren't fallacious and wrong. I pointed out many reasons why your arguments were wrong and you didn't respond to any of the points I made. I will repost my original arguments in italics further below, in full, so that you might actually respond to the the points I made (instead of ignoring them and responding with fallacies like "I know what I'm talking about". Well if, that was true, why are you making bad arguments that clearly show you don't know as much as you'd like to pretend you do about the process of textual criticism. I'm not going to fault you if you don't know much about it and simply concede you're not equipped to defend your claim on this particular point; but you should be honest with us and not try to pretend you know more about it than you do).

Do you attach any authority to the TR?

How would your question be relevant to rebutting the arguments I gave above which refuted your orignial claim?

The issue in contention here is whether or not the TR has the level of authority you're trying to ascribe to it.
The reason that is the issue in contention is because you are the one who tried to blindly and fallaciously appeal to the authority of the TR for proof of your claim.

In response, I showed why you cannot ascribe the level of authority to the TR you tried to.
You will find the reasons for that reposted below in italics.

Your question is itself a logical fallacy of a "Red Herring" or "Irrelevant Conclusion"; because your claim doesn't stop being wrong based on anything I would say about my personal views on the TR. The fact remains that you tried to ascribe way more authority to it than is warranted by the facts and logic.
You're essentially trying to claim that something is true just because it's in the TR; and I showed why that is an invalid argument to make.
But you didn't respond to my arguments which disproved your presumption. You're trying to distract from having to do that by asking an irrelevant question.

To which I now add:
Or do you argue with the TR on the grounds of textual analysis?
Or do you think everyone's free to choose what they like?

I've already given you the basis for which I disputed your claim that it had to be singular in the originals just because it's in the modern TR collation (and you still haven't clarified which TR you're talking about).
The arguments I already gave were based on logical, historical, and textual grounds. Is that not plain for you to see by reading it?

You haven't tried to take issue with any of the specific points I made.

I'll repost the arguments I made, in case you'd like to try disputing the validity or truth of my arguments:

---------------------------

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.
...
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).

....
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.

 

[Rise]

.

Having said that, your response is committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

That's interesting. So you don't intend to make that fallacy,

Why would anyone intend to commit a logical fallacy? By definition you can't make a valid argument if you're doing that.

The fact that you seem to speak as though it might be permissible to commit logical fallacies as part of an argument may be a clue as to why you are committing so many of them without trying much to reform your arguments when those fallacies are pointed out.

and you don't intend to assert that anything is historically true, or morally correct, just because it's in the bible, right?

I haven't done that here, have I?

My arguments don't depend on making a statement like that in order for my arguments to be demonstrated to be true.

In contrast, a lot of your argumentation depends on the premise of simply asserting that the Bible isn't true because you don't believe the spiritual things written in it could be true (as I already outlined in more detail in a previous post). Not because you have proof that they aren't true but simply because you choose to believe they aren't true.
That's not a logical foundation on which to build an argument. You are, in fact, only stating an opinion.

Because I gave you specific reasons why you cannot say with certainty that the singular rendering was the original.

Nor can you give any specific reasons for denying it.

There are two problems with your statement:
1. You are committing the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof".
It was never my responsibility to prove your claim isn't true to begin with. You are the one who made the claim, so you are the one who is responsible for proving your claim.
You cannot logically try to defend the truth of your claim by saying others need to disprove it otherwise it's true.

2. Your claim isn't even true. I gave many specific reasons in my post about why your claim was wrong and your argument was invalid.


I will highlight in bold those reasons and arguments for you:

------------

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.
...
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).

....
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.


--------------

You haven't attempted to refute any of those points.
Trying to claim they aren't valid points, without demonstrating logically or factually why any of them are supposedly in error, makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". You don't disprove the validity of my claims simply by asserting they are not valid. You need to provide actual arguments to prove why you think they are not valid. But you haven't even attempted to do that. You can't. That's why you just try to ignore them.

 

[blü 2]

Thus is revealed, as I pointed out much earlier, the underlying problem with your conclusion that the Gospels are supposedly in contradiction: The core underlying assumption of your conclusion is based in part on your preconceived assumption that the realm of spiritual activity isn't real.

If it were real, you could show it to me.

But you can't and that's because it's not found anywhere outside of the imagination of some individual.

You would first need to prove your claim is true that you know with 100% certainty that miracles can't happen

There you go again, failing to understand the onus of proof. That miracles happen is your claim. It's an extraordinary claim too ─ science has never recorded even a single instance ─ so you're going to need that extra quality of evidence.

That's kind of like you trying to declare, "The Bible isn't true because God isn't real".

If you can't show that God is real then you certainly can't show that the bible is substantially on the mark.

Well, can you prove God isn't real?

First, yet again I'm not the one claiming there's a God so it's not my task to show there is. That's always going to be your obligation.

However, I point out that there's no definition of a real God ─ no test that will determine whether, for instance, this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. If you say there is, then please tell me the test.

Otherwise no one knows what real thing we're talking about and there's nothing for anyone to prove. I'd be much better off hunting unicorns ─ at least if I found a real candidate I could determine whether it were a unicorn or not.

My argument against your claim was never based on merely the assertion that I thought I knew Paul knew about the virgin birth.

Your claim was that Paul and the four gospel authors can be assumed to know and to agree with what the others wrote.

And that therefore the failure of Paul or the authors of Mark and John to mention the virgin birth means they agree with the story.

If that's not your claim, then you agree that no NT author can be taken to know or agree with anything he doesn't say.

Which is it?

You were the one who claimed to "know", as a fact, that Paul couldn't have known about the virgin birth

Listen carefully. I made no such claim.

Instead I said that you (and I) have no basis for claiming that he did.

I notice you haven't produced any of the passages you mentioned that show, you said, Paul declaring Jesus' mother was a virgin.

I already disproved your claim to be able to refer to the writings of Paul and John as "gnostic"

No. You did not. I correctly stated that Paul and the author of John say Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that Jesus created the material universe. And I gave you the quotes.

These are views found in gnosticism. They are not views held by the authors of Mark, Matthew or Luke. Hence it is entirely appropriate to refer to Paul and the author of John as gnostic-flavored.


AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO REPORT ON HOW MANY INCONSISTENCIES YOU FOUND IN COMPARING THE SIX REFERENCES TO THE RESURRECTION AND ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS I SUGGESTED.

AFTER ALL, THE HEART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BIBLE.

 

[Rise]

If it were real, you could show it to me.

Logical fallacy, "Argument from Ignorance".
Something is not proven false just because it hasn't been proven true, and vise versa.

You are also committing the logical fallacy of "Irrelevant Conclusion". Because the truth or falseness of your statement is irrelevant to disproving what you are responding to.
I will explain why in more detail for you:

I could, if there was a need, show you a lot of evidence that would demonstrate why we have reason to believe that miracles and angels are real - but there's no logical need for me to do that to defend my point because it's not relevant to the premise of my argument or the method of argument I used.

Remember what my claim was: Which is that your assumption that miracles can't happen is unproven, and then you are committing the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof" by trying to claim your assumption is proven true unless someone can prove your assumption false.

My conclusion stands proven true, and my arguments stand up as being valid, regardless of whether or not miracles have been proven to exist or not. Thus, it's unnecessary for me to have to prove miracles are true in order for my original points to be true.

From a logical argument standpoint, I don't need to prove miracles are true in order to show that your argument was invalid. Your argument was invalid because it was based on the unproven assumption that miracles can't be true. And then when I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, you tried to defend your claim by committing the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof" (ie. Trying to prove your claim is true by demanding others have to try to disprove it, otherwise your claim must be true).

There you go again, failing to understand the onus of proof. That miracles happen is your claim.

Logical fallacy, "Shifting the Burden of Proof".

You were the one who claimed that miracles can't happen as an assumption of truth.

Many of your arguments are based on that assumption being true.

But you can't prove your assumption is true.

So you have no basis for claiming they cannot be true unless you can give proof to establish such a claim.

You could potentially argue that you find it unlikely they could be true because you've never seen one: but that's not the same as arguing that you "know" they can't be real without any proof.

You're confusing your opinion with proven fact.

If you can't show that God is real then you certainly can't show that the bible is substantially on the mark.

Logical fallacy, "Shifting the Burden of Proof".

You are the one who claimed the spiritual things in the Bible can't be real and then tried to use that assumption as the basis for your argument that the Bible's content can't be true. The onus is on you to prove your claim is true.

You don't establish the proof of your claim by demanding others try to disprove it.

First, yet again I'm not the one claiming there's a God so it's not my task to show there is.
That's always going to be your obligation.

Logical fallacy, strawman. You will find nowhere that any of my arguments were based on the assertion that God exists.

One is only obligated to prove something if they claim it is true.
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

You are the only one here who has made arguments that depend on claims which you are unable to prove are true.

In contrast, you will not be able to point to a single argument I made in this thread where I based any argument on something I wasn't willing to back up with factual or logical support as proof of my claim.

To put it another way, to help you understand what I mean by that: There isn't a single argument I've made in this thread that depends on assuming God is real or the Bible is true as written.

You, on the other hand, have formed most of your arguments in a way that is completely dependent on the assumption that God isn't real (which you essentially do by default when you assume mentions of angels and miracles in the Bible couldn't have really happened) and your assumption that the Bible can't be true as written.

You are the one who has unproven assumptions that need to be proven in order for your arguments to be valid. If you can't prove the assumptions underlying your arguments then your arguments are invalid.

You need to try to formulate new arguments that are consistent with logic. Instead of simply making arguments based on your opinion and beliefs.

However, I point out that there's no definition of a real God ─ no test that will determine whether, for instance, this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. If you say there is, then please tell me the test.

If your argument were true it would only prove my point for me. Ie: If you have no way of disproving God exists, then you can't logically use the assumption that God doesn't exist as the basis your arguments because you can't prove your assumption is true.

You might hold the opinion that your conclusion is true because you don't think God exists but that's not the same as trying to argue your conclusion has to be true because you know God can't exist. The former doesn't require you to logically prove anything to others but the later does.

 

[Rise]

Your claim was that Paul and the four gospel authors can be assumed to know and to agree with what the others wrote.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman". You are mischaracterizing what I said.

You won't find a single line anywhere in my posts where I do what you just claimed.

Not a single argument/claim I made anywhere in this tread depends on that as an assumption for it's premise. You're welcome to try to find it.

And that therefore the failure of Paul or the authors of Mark and John to mention the virgin birth means they agree with the story.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman". You are mischaracterizing what I said.

You've actually committed that same exact fallacy multiple times already with concern to that particular issue, even after I've corrected you on it.
Which further makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "Argumentum ad Nauseam". Merely repeating your disproven claim doesn't suddenly make it true.

You are trying to accuse me of the logical fallacy of "appeal to silence", by trying to claim I argued silence proves agreement - but you will not be able to cite a single post of mine where you will find me doing that; because I never did it.

I think the reason you continue to repeat that "Strawman" fallacy, despite me having disproved it already, is because you're actually trying to commit the logical fallacy of "Tu Quoque".
The "Tu Quoque" fallacy is when you try to accuse the other person of being a hypocrite for doing what they criticize others for doing.
The worst part is that your "Tu Quoque" fallacy isn't even based in truth - but a false "strawman".

I believe you're doing this because you know that I dismantled the basis of your original argument; but rather than just admit that you're trying to distract from having to admit that by trying to falsely turn your error back on me and accuse me of doing what you did. ie. Trying to accuse me of using an "appeal to silence" fallacy as the basis for my argument - which you can't point to a single example of to prove your claim because the fact is I never committed that fallacy here.

If that's not your claim, then you agree that no NT author can be taken to know or agree with anything he doesn't say.

I take issue with your wording because it implies you are the one presenting this idea to me, when it's actually been the other way around.

You were the one who was trying to argue that you "knew" John could not have agreed with or known about things found in Matthew just because John chose not to repeat them.
I was the one who pointed out the fallacious logic of your argument: That you can't make declarations about what they knew or didn't know purely on the basis of silence in the written record.

So now it sounds like you're agreeing with me that to make such an argument is wrong and doesn't actually prove anything. Ok, great. So that means you've admitted that your original argument is invalidated because the premise of your argument was a logical fallacy of "appeal to silence".
You don't have a valid argument to support your claim that the Gospel writers believed in a different and contradictory Jesus.

Given that your entire claim about the Gospels not being in harmony about who Jesus is basically rested ultimately on the assumption that silence is proof of disagreement or ignorance; your entire argument is now effectively dismantled.

You were the one who claimed to "know", as a fact, that Paul couldn't have known about the virgin birth

Listen carefully. I made no such claim.

I can quote you where you did just that. I will insert my comments inbetween them in bold to explain for you why you did just that.


For example, there are five different Jesuses, of three seriously different kinds.

>>>You first assert as truth that there are different versions of Jesus, which implies that the writers either disagreed or were ignorant about certain things. By definition you can't have multiple versions of Jesus without them being in disagreement of each other.

>>>The fact that you assert this as being true, rather than merely suggesting it as a possibility, will be key to what follows, because that's what puts the onus on you to have to prove your claim is true. Because you state it as though it's a true fact rather than just your opinion.

The earliest Jesus we meet is that of Paul. This Jesus has many major gnostic qualities ─ he pre-existed in heaven with God (Philippians 2:5-8), he created the material universe (1 Corinthian 8:6), and he mediates between that universe and the (immaterial, pure, remote) God. We're told that he's born to a Jewish woman of the line of David but no other details. The Jesus of the author of John is also gnostic, also pre-existed in heaven (John 6:38, John 8:58 &c), also created the material world (John 1:2), also mediates between God and man. As with Paul, no specifics as to how the heavenly Jesus was made flesh, or how he's of the line of David.

The next is the Jesus of Mark. Mark's Jesus is a human born of an ordinary Jewish family, without angelic foretellings or mention of a virgin mother, is not of the line of David, and doesn't become son of God until God adopts him at the time of his baptism by John the Baptist, on the model in Psalm 2:7 whereby God adopts David as his son (made even more specific at Acts 13:33). Mark's Jesus is thus the only Jesus whose status as son of God accords with Jewish tradition rather than Greek (though of course Jewish culture had been influenced by Greek thought since Alexander's conquest of the region three centuries earlier, and Greek was the administrative and commercial language of Judea under the Romans.)

Then come the Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke. There is no suggestion that either pre-existed in heaven. Each of them is angelically foretold, and is born of a virgin (implicitly in Matthew, explicitly in Luke ─ an erroneous 'fulfillment-of-prophecy' invention based on the Septuagint, which renders Hebrew `almah('young woman') in Isaiah 7:14 as Greek parthenos ('virgin'). Both these Jesuses are the result of divine insemination of Mary, a virgin. This means that these two Jesuses have God's own Y-chromosome (so the two incompatible genealogies invented to make Jesus a descendant of David are irrelevant anyway).

The only way those five models of Jesus can be turned into one is by imposing one's own preconceptions on the text that distort and pervert their plain meaning.

>>>Here you directly claim that Paul's idea of who Jesus was (and by direct implication, what they believed) was different from Matthews and Luke's simply on the basis that they contain different but not contradictory pieces of information. This is why your entire argument was based on the logical fallacy of an appeal to silence. Because you demonstrate no actual contradictions between the different books about who Jesus is. You only assume there is contradictions based on a fallacy of an appeal to silence.

>>>You state all this as a fact, not as an opinion. Meaning you have the obligation of proving it to be true.


The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke do not pre-exist in heaven either. Nor do they create the material universe. They are however the only Jesuses who are born by divine insemination. They are thereby subject to the absurdity of incompatible and obviously fake genealogies of descent from David, which even were they credible and compatible would be irrelevant to a person whose genetic father is God.

>>>Here again, we see you directly claiming that Matthew and Luke don't believe in the pre-existence of Christ based solely on a fallacious appeal to silence. This same flawed line of reasoning is the same one you applied to presume that no one but Matthew or Luke must have believed in the virgin birth, which by implication means you are asserting Paul didn't know about it or believe it.

>>>You continue to state all of this as fact - not as opinion. Thus the burden of proof is on you to establish the truth of your claims.


The contradictions between the three basic concepts of Jesus can't be reconciled.

>>>Here again, we see you refer to "silence" as being a "contradiction". Which is why I had to point out for you earlier why you are misusing the term "contradiction" because silence is unto itself not proof of a contradiction. That's the fallacy of appeal to silence. A contradiction by definition requires comparing something to something else. You can't logically show a contradiction by comparing something to nothing.


You really think that if Jesus had been born of a virgin Paul and the authors of Mark and John would not have thought that should be mentioned?

>>>Here the implication of your question is that you think if Paul believed the virgin birth he would have explicitly mentioned it. Ignoring the fact that the context of the letters dictate whether or not that information is relevant to talk about. Although this particular quote of yours can't be technically called an assertion because it's formed as a question; the implication of your question reveals that you think it's valid logic to claim Paul must not have believed the virgin birth if he didn't write about it explicitly. Which is noteworthy because other quotations of yours have already established that you did try to assert as true that Paul, John's, and Mark's silence on the virgin birth was proof of not believing it. Which means you were trying to assert as truth that silence was proof of disagreement. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to silence.


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.

>>>Here we see your claim present again. First, it's important to note that the only support you've given to your claim that the books of the NT are incompatible concerning Jesus is the fact that some are silent on certain accounts or topics (a fallacy of appeal to silence). Therefore, you automatically are stating in your assertion that you believe Paul must have disagreed with or been ignorant of the virgin birth simply because he doesn't make explicit reference to it. Because you've already cited that as being one of the differences between what he writes about compared with others. And you claim the difference of silence is what makes them believe in different things about Jesus.

>>>And, again, you're stating all this as though it were a fact rather than an opinion. Which means you are required to prove why you think it's a fact. You can't just assume it is and demand others prove otherwise. That's the fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof".

Instead I said that you (and I) have no basis for claiming that he did.

As we can see above, that's a lie.

You're backpedaling because you now know you can't defend the fallacious assumption underpinning your argument.

So rather than admit it was wrong, you're trying to pretend you never made that argument.

And then you try to take it a step further by falsely accusing me of doing what you did. In an effort to distract from the fact that your argument was proven to be invalid.

 

[Rise]

I notice you haven't produced any of the passages you mentioned that show, you said, Paul declaring Jesus' mother was a virgin.

I never made any arguments that would require me to produce such verses. You're welcome to try to quote where you think I made any argument that depends on such verses existing. You won't find any such quote.

I never required such verses in order to disprove your claim. Because your claim was that Paul couldn't have known, or didn't agree with the virgin birth, simply because he didn't mention it. That's a logical fallacy of "argument from silence". You can't use that as your basis for proving your claim is true.

My point about how your argument is invalid remains true regardless of whether or not I produce a verse about Paul affirming the virgin birth.

The burden of proof was also never on me to prove your claim is wrong by proving the opposite is true. That would be the logical fallacy of "Shifting the Burden of Proof".

I already disproved your claim to be able to refer to the writings of Paul and John as "gnostic"

No. You did not. I correctly stated that Paul and the author of John say Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God, and that Jesus created the material universe. And I gave you the quotes.

These are views found in gnosticism. They are not views held by the authors of Mark, Matthew or Luke. Hence it is entirely appropriate to refer to Paul and the author of John as gnostic-flavored.

Logical fallacy, "Argument from Silence". You can't logically claim the writers of Mark, Matthew, or Luke didn't hold those views just because they didn't mention it. Especially when I provided many other reasons why it could be absent - which you never attempted to refute. Because you can't. Because my reasoning was sound and my evidence was true.

(By the way: We just caught you in the act again of asserting the NT writers didn't believe things unless they explicitly wrote them out! After you just got done trying to claim you never did that with regards to Paul or the virgin birth.This proves again that you do try to assert that silence in the NT proves the writer was either in disagreement or ignorance on that issue; which further proves you are asserting Paul doesn't believe the virgin birth when you say he doesn't mention it but Matthew and Luke do).


You also commit the fallacies of "argument by assertion" and "argument by repetition" again.
You haven't dealt with any of the points I made which refuted your claim that gnosticism lays claim to those ideas. You have no basis for claiming those ideas originated with gnosticism, and you don't disagree that they aren't exclusive to gnosticism, so you can't accurately state any of those ideas Paul or John are writing about are "gnostic" by definition.
Ignoring my points and merely continuing to repeat your assertion doesn't prove your original assertion is true.

AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO REPORT ON HOW MANY INCONSISTENCIES YOU FOUND IN COMPARING THE SIX REFERENCES TO THE RESURRECTION AND ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS I SUGGESTED.

No need to get worked up; I haven't forgotten about your other posts. I'm working my way through them all and taking my time to make sure I give a thorough response.

AFTER ALL, THE HEART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BIBLE.

Logical fallacy, "Moving the Goalposts".
The issue in contention here was never whether or not there were apparent inconsistencies in the whole of the Bible, or even just the NT.

The issue here is that you originally tried to claim the four Gospels and Paul's letters all show they believed in a different and contradictory Jesus.

That is the issue I first challenged. I pointed out your claim is based on the logical fallacy of appeal to silence because you can't actually produce a single contradiction from the NT text that would prove different authors thought contradictory things about who Jesus is.

You can't even claim this is a debate about general textual NT contradictions, let alone Biblical contradictions as a whole, because none of that would prove your original claim is true unless the supposed contradiction in question dealt with the issue of who Jesus is.

Even if we were to assume you could theoretically show some kind of textual contradiction in the NT related to otherwise insignificant details of an account (Like your disproven attempt to do so with Matthew 10:10 and Mark 6:8), it would not even begin to prove your claim that the NT writers had conflicting beliefs about who Jesus was because you can't cite a single example where anything they wrote contradictions each other on who Jesus is.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy,

There you go again.

Now how many contradictions have you found when comparing the six biblical accounts of the resurrection?

 

[blü 2]

...

And again.

Now how many contradictions have you found when comparing the six biblical accounts of the resurrection?

 

[Rise]

There you go again.

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem". You show you not able to respond to the points I made or defend your claim. You have nothing left to respond with but personal attacks that tries to imply being dismissive of the validity of my points without actually addressing them.

Now how many contradictions have you found when comparing the six biblical accounts of the resurrection?

You obviously didn't read my post. Because I already responded to you saying that the first time.

I will re-post it for you:

No need to get worked up; I haven't forgotten about your other posts. I'm working my way through them all and taking my time to make sure I give a thorough response.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem". You show you not able to respond to the points I made or defend your claim.

I've already defended my claim. And I can't be bothered correcting your misunderstandings on what is fallacy and what isn't, where the burden of proof falls, and your custom of misrepresenting what I write by turning it into absolute statements. (And how can 'silly' be an ad hominem argument when it's not presented as an argument at all? It's a comment and I'd be happy to defend its accuracy but that would be to delay our getting back to the point.

And the point is: Are there contradictions in the bible? You say there are not. I simply point them out.

I've already shown you that the five main versions of Jesus follow three distinct and incompatible models.

You don't with to hear that, and I don't wish to hear you repeat what you've already said. You know I disagree with it, and why.

No need to get worked up; I haven't forgotten about your other posts. I'm working my way through them all and taking my time to make sure I give a thorough response.

Here, I'll give you a hand with your homework. Here are the contradictions to the second question as well:
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?
Paul: [] ─ Mark: open tomb ─ Matthew: An earthquake. An angel descending who rolled away the stone and sat on it. He looked like lightning, his raiment white as snow ─ Luke: open tomb ─ John: open tomb ─ Acts [].
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?

So now you've got the idea, work your way through the list, and when the fun's over, count the contradictions and let me know how many you've found.

Enjoy!

 

[Rise]

I've already defended my claim.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion". Merely asserting you have defended your claim doesn't make it true.
In order to be able to claim you have defended your claim you would need to be able to respond to my counter arguments and demonstrate why they are either logically invalid or factually incorrect.

It is, therefore, logically impossible for you to have defended your claim when you have ignored the latest arguments I made which refuted your claims.

And I can't be bothered correcting your misunderstandings on what is fallacy and what isn't,
where the burden of proof falls,

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion". Just because you assert that my logic was in error, or my use of fallacies was incorrect, doesn't make it true.

In order to prove the truth of your claim you would have to point to something I said and then demonstrate why it was either invalid logic or factually wrong.

If you cannot do that then you cannot claim that I committed any errors in pointing out the logical fallacies of your posts.

and your custom of misrepresenting what I write by turning it into absolute statements.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion". Just because you assert that I misrepresented your statements doesn't make it true.
You would need to prove your claim is true by attempting to demonstrate how I supposedly misrepresented anything you said.

I proved my claim that I represented your presumptions accurately by quoting you directly and then explaining in detail how what you said constitutes both making an assertion of truth and committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to silence".

Given that I have offered that valid argumentation and evidence in support of my claim that you were asserting your claims as truth, rather than opinion, the onus is now on you to offer a counter argument showing why you think my arguments were either invalid or my evidence in error.

If you cannot do that then you cannot truthfully claim I misrepresented you. You're probably just using that assertion as a way of avoiding having to acknowledge that you made a mistake of logic and your argument is invalid.

(And how can 'silly' be an ad hominem argument when it's not presented as an argument at all?

It's not clear what you are referring to because you did not even use the word "silly" in your last couple posts wherein I called you out for committing the "ad hominem" fallacy. So I'm not sure what you're trying to refer to. You'd have to clarify that before I could respond.

It's a comment and I'd be happy to defend its accuracy but that would be to delay our getting back to the point.

You don't seem happy to defend any of your comments when pressed to.

This last post of yours was full of logically invalid claims (As I demonstrated). They were merely unproven conclusions being stated as though they were fact, without any premises or arguments attached to them.

I'm pressing you to back up your assertions with a valid argument and evidence.

I don't expect you will try to. You appear to be using these fallacies as a way of trying to give yourself cover to flee from the debate without having to admit you were wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion"

So how are you getting on with question three? How many biblical contradictions have you found so far?

Goodness, don't tell me you're afraid to go there?

 

[Rise]

So how are you getting on with question three? How many biblical contradictions have you found so far?

Goodness, don't tell me you're afraid to go there?

Logical fallacy, "Avoiding the Issue", and "Red Herring".
Unable to respond to the points I made, you try to change the subject.