The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[George Hannah]

If they couldn't provide a written account then the only method open to them must surely have been a verbal account. That means that, when the Bible was written a few hundred years later, the accounts of the witnesses will have been passed on, verbally, from one generation to the next. That surely can't make the version that was eventually documented in the bible all that accurate? Memories fade, tales are embellished, "Chinese whispers" give rise to changes in the events, history is open to both accidental, and intentional, doctoring. If a great deal of what was documented in the bible had previously been passed verbally from person to person to person to person to person and so on then there is certain to have been inaccuracies which have found their way in.

No period of history has received such intensive and prolonged study as that which contained the life of Jesus and the rise of the Christian church. Literally thousands of first century manuscripts have been found and analysed by scholars the world over. Most of them share common sources, many of which have been lost and are known only as hypothetical scholarly constructs. The processes you refer to, redaction and hermeneutics, are fundamental to the academic treatment of these and a wide variety of other orally transmitted traditions.The academic consensus in each area and period of study has and continues to be the outcome of rigorous research, analysis and debate by a professionals in different disciplines and of all religions and none. So you may rest easy that your observations about the considerable difficulties of the task have been noticed and taken into account for many centuries.

 

[JASR]

It's still riddled with 536 contradictions, which doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest.

Bizarre way of wanting to live a lie you have.

 

[George Hannah]

It's still riddled with 536 contradictions, which doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest.
Bizarre way of wanting to live a lie you have.

Thanks Yoda, you've changed though.

 

[Paladin]

It's still riddled with 536 contradictions, which doesn't seem to bother you in the slightest.

Bizarre way of wanting to live a lie you have.

I clicked your link to this, and the first few contradictions I read were adequately answered from the Christian point of view. There are links to the responses on the site itself if you are interested.

 

[stony]

I'm sorry stony, I missed this reposte earlier. Don't worry friend, in order to be a proper attack dog you need teeth, the worst the bleating god-bothers will get from you is a juicy gum. Remember, don't swallow the Steradent when you rinse and repeat ;)

Shouldn't you be turning the other cheek? Or is that just for shitbags on trains and proper Christians?

 

[aguero93:20]

The ones who witnessed the events were illiterate, impossible for them to provide a written account.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Therefore it's not a primary source.

 

[George Hannah]

Therefore it's not a primary source.

If somebody didn't write down what they saw and heard at the time it didn't happen. Right. If they wrote down what they saw and heard at the time and made a mistake, then it happened, as long as nobody else noticed. Right.

 

[aguero93:20]

If somebody didn't write down what they saw and heard at the time it didn't happen. Right. If they wrote down what they saw and heard at the time and made a mistake, then it happened, as long as nobody else noticed. Right.

If somebody writes down what they believe might have happened a few centuries earlier, it's not a primary source.

 

[JASR]

I clicked your link to this, and the first few contradictions I read were adequately answered from the Christian point of view. There are links to the responses on the site itself if you are interested.

Well at least you looked at ...a few...
Slightly more than @George Hannah managed to do.

From the many more , I've looked at,
Christian responses to the contradictions, generally break down into:

It's all about interpretation of words, Christian interpretation is always correct, sceptic interpretation is always incorrect. (Surprise surprise)

Or

God/Jesus didn't mean that, they meant something else. (Hahaha)

Or

No response (take them as agreed contradictions then?)

Or

Trivial (as pointed out before - and really not worth arguing about, with far bigger elephants in the room.)

 

[George Hannah]

If somebody writes down what they believe might have happened a few centuries earlier, it's not a primary source.

Right, but that's not what happened with the synoptic gospels and the Pauline letters. There are manuscripts recording parts of those sources as early as 81AD.