Outer Rim Territories

Foolish Contradictions

At the request of Seminarian Dock, I trudged my way through a debate with William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman on the resurrection of Jesus. It was painful at times on both sides. Ehrman refused to see his methodological atheism which is both poor science and historical method. "Bill" Craig missed the wide hole left by Ehrman to discuss the ancient document evidence relative to others of antiquity. I was disappointed he tried to push the seven years after the event argument. If Ehrman will acknowledge the Gospels as even 30 years after the resurrection, the issue is only whether the authors were eyewitnesses. You can read the transcript here or watch most of the debate on YouTube. This isn't the strongest apologetic argumentation but it gives you a feel for what the Academy in Strasbourg was all about. Pr. Cwirla posted a short post about unreasonable or foolish skeptics. Perhaps Dr. Ehrman might be classified as one. Watch the video and be the judge. Rev. Cwirlas Blogosphere - Foolish Contradictions

When someone says to me, "The Bible is full of contradictions," I like to say back, "Name three." Nine times out of ten, they can't because they haven't read the Bible well enough, or at all, to know a contradiction when they see one. Usually so-called "contradictions" run in one of three categories: 1) Law and Gospel, which are certainly contradictory when you see them in stark contrast side by side. 2) Point of view or perspective, such as the various descriptions of the tomb at Jesus' resurrection. 3) Apparent contradictions due to lack of information. I like to point out that the guys who wrote and edited the Scriptures were certainly smart enough to figure out they had a contradiction on their hands. Matthew, Mark and Luke, who obviously copied from each other or from something, should at least have gotten their notes straight. And John, who wrote well after the others, should have made his story fit theirs like a glove. But then, the skeptics wouldn't trust them because their stories fit too cleanly, like rehearsed witnesses. Either way, you can't please a skeptic. I sometimes offer this biblical couplet for free: Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. So what are you supposed to do? Answer a fool according to his folly or not? This leads us to a fourth kind of contradiction - Intentional. Here you need to get into the Hebraic mindset, where one learns by contrast and contradiction. The point? When dealing with a fool, it's always a lose/lose situation. Either you will join the fool in his foolishness, or you will make him think he's wise in his own eyes. The only way to avoid the dilemma is not to deal with a fool at all.