Crucifixion: Four Different Accounts

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Page Locked

This page has been locked due to repeated attempts to provide defenses which do not meet the minimum standards of ErrancyWiki. The minimum standard is that a defense possess at least one of following qualities:

1) Simple

2) Reasonable

3) Supported by the text

I'm not sure if there is any defense here which would meet the minimum requirements since the error is so clear and pervasive. I would suggest trying to look at the Greek for a defense. Proposed defenses need to go to the related talk page for review and possible promotion to this page.

--JoeWallack 17:04, 18 April 2010 (EDT)


Pro

For those who believe in the supernatural literal inspiration of the Bible, this is a huge problem. Here are four different allegedly eyewitness accounts of the same event. Each of them recorded the details of this event. Each of them is supernaturally inspired by God to record this event. The event is the central point of human history. Even if a shoe horn is used to fit the apparently contradictory passages together, then why are God's reporters so really bad at details. Which one was the real writing on Jesus cross. Four testaments, four different set of words. No eyewitness precision at all:

Mat. 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mar. 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luk. 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Jhn. 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.


Suppose it's not like Luke says, that it was written in Greek (why Greek?), Latin and Hebrew (aramaic?). Also suppose that Pilate didn't write the title himself, like John suggests. Still we have no coincidence, and the four originals in Greek bear the same literal differences. The inscription was written, everybody saw it. If we talk about eyewitness, such mistake among four sources (two of them clearly collusions) is not acceptable.

Con

Neutral

JW:

The following has been moved from Con to Neutral:

From the four accounts, we find that the full and complete inscription placed above Jesus was--

THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Each gospel writer chose to record (for whatever purpose) a part of the inscription rather than the whole inscription. Investigation of the Greek text shows that they all agree on that part of the inscription that they record. It is true that we have four different accounts, from four different perspectives but none of the accounts disagrees with, or contradicts, any other account. The inscription placed above Jesus did contain the words recorded by each of the gospel writers.

JW:

The above was moved because it describes Assertions as Facts. The following can not be described as a Fact:

1) "the full and complete inscription placed above Jesus was--

THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS."

2) "Each gospel writer chose to record (for whatever purpose) a part of the inscription rather than the whole inscription."

3) "Investigation of the Greek text shows that they all agree on that part of the inscription that they record."

4) "none of the accounts disagrees with, or contradicts, any other account."

5) "The inscription placed above Jesus did contain the words recorded by each of the gospel writers."

--JoeWallack 09:47, 16 Jan 2008 (CST)


JW:

The following has been moved from Con to Neutral:

See [AnswersinGenesis] page

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1343.asp

JW:

The above was moved because arguments that consist only or mainly of links must have links that possess all of the following characteristics:

1) Clear

2) Simple

3) Reasonable

This link has none of these qualities. If the argument made at the link is made here only 3) Reasonable Standard will need to be met here.

--JoeWallack 19:34, 15 Jan 2008 (CST)


Its kind of like saying. The car was red; the car was scarlet, the car was burgundy, and the car was deep red.

Does it really make a difference. The answer is no.

Pilate's point is that Jesus is being crucified for political, not religious reasons.


Here is a better example. A press release is issued that says:

Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York, announced today that she is running for president of the United States.

Four newspapers report on the story and state, "According to the press release..."

Paper 1 - Hillary Clinton announced that she is running for president.

Paper 2 - Hillary Clinton announced that she is running for president of the United States.

Paper 3 - Hillary Clinton, Senator from New York, announced that she is running for president.

Paper 4 - Clinton, Senator from New York, announced that she is running for president of the United States.


JW:

The following has been moved from Con to Neutral:

"John records that Pilate wrote the title to be placed on the cross used to crucify Jesus.

"And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS." (John 19:19)

The Jewish leaders objected to the Pilate's title for Jesus as, "The King of the Jews."

"Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews." (John 19:21)

The three synoptic accounts all focus the attention of the reader on that to which the Jews objected and tell us that the inscription was "THE KING OF THE JEWS." Luke adds the words, "THIS IS," to the inscription, and Matthew includes, "THIS IS JESUS," in his account

From John's account, we know that the inscription was, "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS." The quibble is whether the Luke and Matthew accounts support the addition of "THIS IS" to that inscription.

Nothing prohibits each author providing only part of inscription or requires that they provide the full inscription. This is not a problem for those who believe in the supernatural literal inspiration of the Bible."

JW:

No evidence has been provided for the second to last sentence, such as an accepted literary convention. The related problem is that "Matthew" and "Luke" likely copied from "Mark" so changes were deliberate and intended to "correct".

--JoeWallack 11:33, 27 Jan 2008 (CST)

6:10 PM, July 4, 2009:

Personal tools