Also they were all written at different times with a range of the earliest possible being Mark at 30 years after the alleged death of jesus to the latest estimate of John being 70 years after the alleged death of jesus. What always got me was the non biblical scholars mentioning of jesus.Leave Blank wrote:I don't think you're likely to find a rational, intelligent bible literalist to answer that as you'd have to be pretty moronic to take all of the bible literally.scspkr99 wrote:I'd appreciate if anyone who takes a literal view of the bible could explain why Jesus has two genealogies according to the gospels Luke and Matthew. Also the death of Judas is dealt with differently in Matthew and Acts. I understand that different churches maintain that it's their interpretation of the bible that is true but I don't know how inerrantists resolve the questions of the bibles inherent contradictions.
I don't know that Leave Blank is a literalist so this isn't directed specifically towards him
Like any work of literature, the bible uses a bunch of literary tropes and conventions. As a result, there will be parts of the bible that are allegorical, metaphorical etc. Even Jesus spoke in parable.
However, there is an extent to which, I can answer that question. Matthew's gospel is not, in terms of events, names and places; the most accurate however, it makes sense when you consider the culture Matthew was writing into. Matthew has a tendency to group events and names together thematically as opposed to chronologically (for example, Matthew groups most of Jesus' teachings that follow a particular theme into one event in his gospel, the sermon on the mount whereas, all other gospels refer to the same teachings happening at different times, some scholars even claim there was no single, "sermon on the mount"). So, Matthew's gospel exists to speak in to a very particular eastern cultural context whereas, Dr. Luke's gospel was much more meticulous in terms of chronology for the same reasons as Matthew's wasn't, namely culture. Luke's gospel written to a bureaucratic Roman friend serves as an early form of apologetics and, therefore, needs to remain as accurate historically as possible. It is for this reading that you find the odd contradiction.
As an aside, it is precisely because these gospels contain contradictions that gives them their credibility as witness accounts to Jesus' life. Imagine you are on the jury in court and you have four guys charged with a robbery. Each guy comes out, one at a time and gives their account of the events and you soon notice that all four accounts are 100% flawless in their correlation with the other accounts. It would quickly become apparent something fishy was going on as, in the heat of the moment, it is perfectly natural for one person's perception of events to differ slightly from the other's. In fact, this simple bit of knowledge is used today in the justice system as a means to detect collaborative lies.
I hope this resolves those conflicts for you.
Scholars like Pliny the elder, who would have been alive during the alleged lifetime of jesus and didn't die until 49 years after the alleged death of jesus never mentions jesus once. This seems odd as if we are to believe the gospels some of the stuff that happened with jesus was quite a big deal and likely would have been noticed by a historian.
In contrast we have Tacitus who was born 26 years after the alleged death and lived until 87 years after the alleged death. He does mention jesus and is somewhat consistent with the gospels when describing the alleged death.
So Tacitus lived during a time when the roman empire was actively persecuting christians and had reason to try and cover it up, and yet he describes essentially what the gospels have to say. Pliny who lived when there was no such threat from the cult of christianity and the stuff was actually supposed to be happening never mentions it once.
I think it makes more sense that there never was any jesus and that christian mythology borrows heavily from earlier less remembered mythologies while ensuring the new stories fit with the jewish prophecies of a messiah. The writers of the gospels would have had access to all of that, Alexandria wasn't that far away.
Theres plenty more evidence to suggest this like the complete lack of any archeological evidence supporting there having been a jesus and the wildly varying opinions on what jesus even was by different christians sects before the council of nicea.
