My usual example of a contradiction is the origin of Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is an ordinary Jew who becomes the son of God by adoption once he's been baptized by John. His birth is not attended by portents or angelic messengers and he's the only Jesus not said to be descended from David. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is said to be the literal son of God, the product of divine insemination of a virgin, meaning these Jesuses must have God's own Y-chromosome. They're both said to be descended from David, a claim that contradicts the notion that they're literal sons of God; and anyway the two irreconcilable genealogies provided are both for Joseph. The Jesuses of Paul and of John are both influenced by gnosicism ─ each existed in heaven with God, each created the material universe (regardless of Genesis) in the role of the demiurge, and each have no description of their birth or childhood except that they're said to be descended from David, implying that each was born to an unidentified Jewish couple, presumably by spiritually entering the zygote at the time of conception.
Plenty of contradiction there, and that's just for a start.
That's easy ─ Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh and is unrecognizable as a Jewish messiah. And the Suffering Servant in Isaiah is the nation of Israel, not a person. And in Isaiah 7:14 the young woman who's to conceive and bear a son to be called Immanuel bears that son in Isaiah 8:3. And so on.
Yes. The aim of the historian is to understand the past as it was, not how anyone might wish it to have been. The aim of the apologist is precisely the opposite.
I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth: truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds to objective reality (the 'correspondence' definition). There are always difficulties in working out what events truly occurred in history, which is why the cold eye of the historian is needed to get as close to the truth as we can.
That since we find gods and supernatural beings in all cultures, they're something we've evolved to employ; and that since there's no agreement between cultures as to their identity, nature and function, they only exist as concepts or things imagined in individual brains.
I'm an igtheist. That's to say, I find the concept of a real god ─ one who is not imaginary, one who has objective existence and is therefore to be found in nature ─ to be incoherent. I've yet to find a definition of God appropriate for a real being; God instead is a congeries of imaginary qualities. There is no objective test that will tell me whether my keyboard is God or not. There isn't even a concept of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c, would lack.
That's fair. There is no objective purpose which humans came into existence in order to fulfill, unless you count the evolutionary imperatives of surviving long enough to breed. But to be a human is to have purposes, and we each make of them what we can. There is no life after death, or even any testable hypothesis as to how such a thing could be possible.
But from the human point of view it's a positive thing to invent a new vaccine, to operate an orphanage, and to write and play music that people like. My own hope is that we all treat each other with decency, respect and inclusion, as I may have mentioned. I don't see that happening soon. If we can get on with that, I don't think it particularly matters what our views regarding religion are.
What kind of hope is it that makes you think people will act with 'decency, respect and inclusion'? People need reasons and motivations for their behaviour to be decent. If Paul is to be believed, we all struggle in the flesh, and the only effective and lasting remedy for the sinful inclination is a Spirit that can rule the flesh. Hence the need that we all have for the righteous Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.
Turning to the question of Jesus' origins and the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. This issue arises so frequently on RF threads that l typed out an explanation to save unnecessary repetition. There is no contradiction between the two accounts, in fact, quite the opposite. They mesh together to form a beautiful synthesis of truth. Here's the explanation:
The Genealogies of Jesus. R.A.Torrey
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.
2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.
3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.
4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.
5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).
6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.
7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’
Another point worth considering is the purpose of having four Gospels. Simply suggesting that one copies another is not enough to explain the differences. Each Gospel takes a stance, or perspective, on the role played by Jesus Christ. Matthew follows the royal theme throughout [Jeremiah 33:15], and was of special significance to Jews. Mark provides the perspective of a servant of God [Zechariah 3:8], which is why a genealogy does not appear. But Luke gives the perspective of the Son of Man [Zechariah 6:12], which is why a human genealogy, running back to Adam, is provided. There is no genealogy in John's Gospel because he presents Jesus Christ as the Son of God [Isaiah 4:2]. Does God have a genealogy?
The harmony provided by the Gospel accounts is not contradictory as you suggest. Jesus fulfils so many prophecies of the Tanakh that one cannot fail to see that he is the Christ of prophecy. We know that there are more prophecies to fulfil but that is explained by the reaction of Israel to the coming of the Messiah, and the mercy of God on Gentile nations.
Last point. When one's whole purpose in life is temporal, the idea of giving up life for others seems foolishness. But such foolishness is the basis of the life of Jesus, whose purposes were eternal and not temporal. Why store up treasures on earth? [But if there is no heaven, where else can you store them?]
Atheists have no obligation to love others. Christians know that their sins were forgiven through love. Christians, therefore, feel an obligation to the One who gave His life for them.
