Progressive Disenchantment Atonement

[Clete]

When literalist Christians tell me to just open the Bible and read it, as if the truth were simply written there in black and white, I can't help thinking they must be joking.

I can assure you that I am not joking.

Lutheran scholars have never been able to agree on biblical interpretation, even though the Reformation principle says Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) is the norm.

That's because they don't "just open the bible and read it, as if the truth were simply written there in black and white"!

Sola Scriptura says that Scripture is the final authority, not that Scripture is self‑interpreting in a way that produces uniformity.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self-defeating.

Once you remove a magisterium, every theologian becomes his own interpreter, every pastor becomes his own exegete, and every synod becomes its own doctrinal center.

No they don't. This is an extreme over reaction. There are teachers and there are students. There are leaders and there are followers. Most people are nearly mindless sheep that believe whatever it is they are taught to believe.

Further, the magisterium is nothing at all other than it's own collection of theologians, most of whom don't happen to give a damn what the bible says at all! And to the extent that they consult the scripture, they have carte blanche to "interpret" it any which way they please. How is that better?

The result is not unity but plurality.

So what?

This is why Lutheranism fractured almost immediately after Luther's death. In fact, Lutherans disagreed from the beginning. Luther disagreed with Karlstadt on the Lord's Supper, images, liturgy, and the pace of reform. He disagreed with Melanchthon on free will, the law, the sacraments, and the role of reason. The conflict between Gnesio‑Lutherans vs. Philippists evolved into a full‑blown civil war inside Lutheranism.

Yeah, so what? On some issues Luther was right and on other he was wrong. Why is that so frightening? That's precisely where the scripture finds its value. It stands as an independent and consistent standard against which theologically claims can be rationally tested.

Luther's famous standard is the key. It is not solely the scripture but the plain reading of scripture mixed with the use of sound reason that produces doctrinal truth. Most, including Luther, do not have the humility to adhere to that policy. Indeed, none of us do perfectly, but Luther in particular, was far more faithful to Augustinian teaching than he was the plain reading of the text of scripture.

Sola Scriptura guarantees interpretive diversity, because Scripture is not a commentary on itself.

It is also self-contradictory. There is no scripture that produces the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It therefore contradicts its own standard the moment it's uttered.

It contains no inspired hermeneutical manual. These require interpretive decisions: law and gospel, wisdom and apocalyptic, narrative and poetry. Some read Scripture through a historical‑critical lens, some through a confessional‑dogmatic lens, some through a pietistic or charismatic lens, and some through a sacramental‑liturgical lens. Sola Scriptura does not adjudicate between these.

There is no question that there are several "lenses" through which one can view the scripture. You seem here to be treating them as if they are all co-equal options that anyone might choose with equal validity as if they are just one choice among several in a theological buffet line. And I'd agree that a great many people treat them as exactly that. They are, of course, not that. They aren't equal at all, by almost any measure you care to name, but the real problem for your position, the problem that you either ignore or are simply blind to, is that Catholicism (i.e. the magesterium) is nothing more than yet another of the lenses you are talking about.

You treat these lenses as if there is no objective means by which to evaluate one against another and as if they are all mutually exclusive of each other. Neither is true. Proper doctrine proceeds from proper hermaneutics. "Hermaneutics" being just a fancy word for the logic used to interpret scripture and to formulate doctrine. Like any other form of logic, the conclusions produced by it are valid if and only if the premises are true and the logic sound.

In the case of Catholicism and the magesterium, neither is the case. Catholics seem to have no incling at all of the need for reasoning from first principles. They don't even seem to have any clearly defined first principles, and to the extent they do, they have even less allegience to them when and if the need to alter them (or reject them outright) comes up. The only real first principle they seem to have is the absolute authority of the magesterium itself. They give lip service to both scripture and tradition but neither can be considered a true first principle because the magesterium has total carte blanche to interpret both in whatever way it sees fit.

Human reason and experience inevitably enter the process. Even Luther admitted this when he said: "Scripture is clear, but not to us." What he means is that clarity is in the text, but the interpreter is clouded. Without a magisterium, the "final authority" becomes the interpreter. This is why Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anabaptism, and later evangelicalism all diverged despite claiming the same principle.

So, rejecting one false principle (the magesterium) and replacing it with another false principle (sola scriptura) leads to a failure that you conclude means we should readopt the former false principle.

The irony is that Lutherans appeal to Scripture alone, but in reality they rely on confessions.

As if a reliance on confessions is their biggest departure from their own stated policy.

Confessional Lutheranism insists that the Bible is the only norm, while the Confessions are the correct interpretation of the Bible. But this only shifts the problem: Who interprets the Confessions? Who decides what counts as "confessional"? Who adjudicates new doctrinal questions not addressed in the 16th century?

Can you really not see how you just crushed YOUR OWN position here?

What answer could they give to such questions that would be inferior to the answer you give and by what standard?

The only answer you could possibly offer would trap you in question begging circularity.

Thus the disagreements continue. Lutheranism claims Scripture alone, but in practice it operates with a thin, rationalized hermeneutic that suppresses the supernatural world of the Bible. The result is a tradition that claims unity in Scripture but lives in interpretive diversity.

As if there isn't widespread doctrinal disagreements within the Catholic church.

At most the Catholic church has one "official" teaching and then there's a million different variations depending on which particular Catholic church you happen to walk into. How many sermons on the evils of abortion do you suppose Nancy Pelosi has ever been forced to sit through?

If the Catholic church is so unified, how is it that Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone can restrict Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion in May and then in June, she recieves communion at the Vatican?

For example, when it is asserted that the Flood narrative depicts a literal, global catastrophe, this contradicts most scholars of religion.

You seem to be addicted to the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Flood myths are widespread across the world and typically express the primordial fear that chaos might engulf the ordered world. The sea functions as a traditional symbol of chaos, as seen in the Gospel account of Jesus stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee.

Sounds nice, but why should I accept your word over God's?

Why am I to take you to mean what you say and not God?

What is it about you that makes it so easy for you to communicate yourself clearly and so impossible for God to do the same?

Ancient peoples lacked any notion of fixed natural laws; they believed that cosmic order depended on the ongoing favour of the gods. Hence the Aztecs offered sacrifices to ensure that the gods remained benevolent and that the sun would rise again. The underlying logic of the Flood myth is the fear that disorder will erupt when humanity violates divine commands. It carries a warning, one that remains worth taking seriously even today.

Well, you are the first person I have ever seen draw a moral parallel between Noah's flood and Aztec human sacrifice.

Astounding!

 

[Clete]

 

[MWinther]

Luther's famous standard is the key. It is not solely the scripture but the plain reading of scripture mixed with the use of sound reason that produces doctrinal truth. Most, including Luther, do not have the humility to adhere to that policy. Indeed, none of us do perfectly, but Luther in particular, was far more faithful to Augustinian teaching than he was the plain reading of the text of scripture.

I am not proposing the reconstruction of a magisterium. I am simply identifying the causes that led to the spread of Protestant sectarianism.

No, Luther was not faithful to Augustine. He dismantled Augustine's entire stratified Christian cosmos and flattened it completely. In the catechism, Luther defines faith as personal trust in God's promise. In doing so, he abolishes the ancient and medieval emphasis on participation, the idea that the divine incarnation continues in the pious human being. One of the legs is cut away, and Christian faith hobbles on like a one‑legged man.

Unlike what Luther says, God is not entirely hidden, as if we could rely only on the God revealed in history. The angelic realm remains accessible through participation. But because Luther abolished this Pauline concept, Lutherans no longer have access to the living God. For Luther, God remains utterly hidden, effectively unreachable.

 

[Right Divider]

I am not proposing the reconstruction of a magisterium. I am simply identifying the causes that led to the spread of Protestant sectarianism.

As Clete has clearly shown, Catholicism has its own sectarianism. They (and probably you) simply won't admit it.

 

[MWinther]

As Clete has clearly shown, Catholicism has its own sectarianism. They (and probably you) simply won't admit it.

I am myself a baptized and confessed Lutheran. I could never be a Catholic, standing with one foot in the Middle Ages and the other in modernity. But I remain critical of Protestantism as well. Luther did everything he could to flatten Christian cosmology, and the consequences for Christianity were tragic. The medieval image of ascending the ladder to God was later misread as a scheme of self‑salvation, though in its own context it expressed a participatory theology (koinonia, in Paul's term) in which the believer's ascent signified servitude to God. Luther's catechism marks a decisive break with this participatory ontology, redefining faith not as communion with divine life but as personal trust in the divine promise. We ought to return to participation in the heavenly life. Take back the angels.

I suspect that this absence of spiritual life is what lies behind biblical fundamentalism and the negativity, disrespect, and lack of humility we see among many Christians today.

 

[Right Divider]

I am myself a baptized and confessed Lutheran.

Were you baptized into Christ or baptized with water?

I could never be a Catholic, standing with one foot in the Middle Ages and the other in modernity.

Indeed, Catholicism is horrible. But Lutheran doctrine has lots of problems as well.

Every Christian organization that does not practice right division has serious issues.

But I remain critical of Protestantism as well.

I am critical of any unsound and erroneous doctrine.

Luther did everything he could to flatten Christian cosmology, and the consequences for Christianity were tragic.

I do not know what you mean by "flatten Christian cosmology".

The medieval image of ascending the ladder to God was later misread as a scheme of self‑salvation, though in its own context it expressed a participatory theology (koinonia, in Paul's term) in which the believer's ascent signified servitude to God. Luther's catechism marks a decisive break with this participatory ontology, redefining faith not as communion with divine life but as personal trust in the divine promise. We ought to return to participation in the heavenly life. Take back the angels.

I suspect that this absence of spiritual life is what lies behind biblical fundamentalism and the negativity, disrespect, and lack of humility we see among many Christians today.

It's odd that you rail against "biblical fundamentalism". Is there something wrong with fundamentals of the Bible?

Many people seem to think that it's disrespectful to criticize anyone's doctrine. But the Bible says otherwise. They also seem to think that it's arrogant to make truth claims, when they are actually doing the same thing (though incorrectly).

 

[MWinther]

I do not know what you mean by "flatten Christian cosmology".

Luther effectively collapsed the distinction between heaven and earth by eliminating the traditional separation of the holy and the profane. God becomes equally present in all spheres of creation, including church, household, and state, thereby sidelining the classical conception of the celestial realm as God's true and permanent Creation. Consistent with this immanentist outlook, Luther insists that the resurrection takes place in our flesh‑and‑blood bodies, even though such bodies cannot enter the abode of angels. For Luther, the kingdom of God is a worldly community comprising "all the true believers who are in Christ and under Christ" (LW 45:88), which negates the ancient view of a transcendent kingdom awaiting realization in the end times.

It's odd that you rail against "biblical fundamentalism". Is there something wrong with fundamentals of the Bible?

Many people seem to think that it's disrespectful to criticize anyone's doctrine. But the Bible says otherwise. They also seem to think that it's arrogant to make truth claims, when they are actually doing the same thing (though incorrectly).

Biblical literalism, in the modern sense of reading the Bible as factually and historically accurate in every detail, is a recent development, largely a product of the Protestant Reformation and especially 19th–20th‑century Fundamentalism. It is the idea that the Bible contains no errors of doctrine or fact and should be interpreted according to its "plain sense." By the early 20th century, American Protestant Fundamentalism had transformed literalism into a defensive apologetic, asserting inerrancy and historical accuracy against modern skepticism.

This is not how most Christians in antiquity or the Middle Ages read Scripture. Early Christian thinkers such as Origen and Augustine explicitly rejected a purely literal reading. They used allegory, typology, and spiritual senses to interpret Scripture. Literal meaning was one layer among several, not the controlling one. There was no doctrine that the Bible was factually inerrant in every detail. Augustine held that Scripture could contain errors, and he believed creation was instantaneous, with the "days" serving as a symbolic or logical ordering of realities brought into being all at once.

So biblical fundamentalism is a modern, heretical deviation from historic Christianity.

 

[Nick M]

When literalist Christians tell me to just open the Bible and read it, as if the truth were simply written there in black and white,

Would blue and white be better?

 

[Right Divider]

Luther effectively collapsed the distinction between heaven and earth by eliminating the traditional separation of the holy and the profane. God becomes equally present in all spheres of creation, including church, household, and state, thereby sidelining the classical conception of the celestial realm as God's true and permanent Creation. Consistent with this immanentist outlook, Luther insists that the resurrection takes place in our flesh‑and‑blood bodies, even though such bodies cannot enter the abode of angels. For Luther, the kingdom of God is a worldly community comprising "all the true believers who are in Christ and under Christ" (LW 45:88), which negates the ancient view of a transcendent kingdom awaiting realization in the end times.

With all of the terrible things that you say Luther did... why are you a Lutheran?

Biblical literalism, in the modern sense of reading the Bible as factually and historically accurate in every detail, is a recent development, largely a product of the Protestant Reformation and especially 19th–20th‑century Fundamentalism. It is the idea that the Bible contains no errors of doctrine or fact and should be interpreted according to its "plain sense." By the early 20th century, American Protestant Fundamentalism had transformed literalism into a defensive apologetic, asserting inerrancy and historical accuracy against modern skepticism.

You seem to have a very bizarre view of Scripture.

You think that there are "errors of doctrine" in the Bible? That sounds heretical to me.

This is not how most Christians in antiquity or the Middle Ages read Scripture.

Fallacious arguments once again. It matters not one tiny bit what Christians in antiquity or the Middle Ages did or thought.

Appeals to antiquity (or appeals to tradition) and appeals to popularity are LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Early Christian thinkers such as Origen and Augustine explicitly rejected a purely literal reading.

Again, who cares what Origen or Augustine think about the Bible. This is an appeal to authority and it is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Origen had all kinds of strange beliefs, many that he drew from Greek mythology and pagan influences. Some of his ideas were later (after his death) deemed heretical.

They used allegory, typology, and spiritual senses to interpret Scripture.

Indeed they did... sometimes wrongly so.

Literal meaning was one layer among several, not the controlling one.

Again, the Bible contains many types of writing: Literal, poetic, historical, allegorical, etc. etc. etc.

No one type of writing can be "the controlling one".

There was no doctrine that the Bible was factually inerrant in every detail.

You seem to think that the Bible is loaded with errors. Why do you give it any place of authority?

Augustine held that Scripture could contain errors,

Again, who cares what Augustine held? Do you think that God put errors in the Bible?

and he believed creation was instantaneous, with the "days" serving as a symbolic or logical ordering of realities brought into being all at once.

That is completely ridiculous when the Bible makes it quite clear that the Creation was done is six literal days.

Exod 31:15-17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. (31:17) It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.​

That is completely clear, unambiguous and undeniable. Israel's work week was modeled after what God literally did during Creation of the universe.

So biblical fundamentalism is a modern, heretical deviation from historic Christianity.

Only if we use your false definitions... luckily, we don't.

 

[MWinther]

You seem to think that the Bible is loaded with errors. Why do you give it any place of authority?

Again, who cares what Augustine held? Do you think that God put errors in the Bible?

Two examples of errors in the Bible:

In Galatians 1:17–18 Paul says that after his conversion he "went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus and only after three years went to Jerusalem. Acts says nothing about Arabia but claims that he went directly to Jerusalem, with no mention of Arabia or a three‑year gap.

In Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:14–15, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a single young donkey. But Matthew 21:2–7 says the disciples "brought the donkey and the colt … and he sat on them."

Matthew has two animals because he misunderstands the prophecy from Zechariah 9:9: "Behold, your king comes to you … riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Zechariah uses two lines describing the same animal. Matthew, however, interprets it literally as two animals. He made this error because he wanted to show literal fulfillment of Zechariah.

Ancient writers shaped their narratives for theological, literary, and rhetorical purposes rather than modern chronological precision. This is not a big problem, because the Bible is a spiritual text, not a 21st‑century biography.

 

[Right Divider]

Two examples of errors in the Bible:

In Galatians 1:17–18 Paul says that after his conversion he "went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus and only after three years went to Jerusalem. Acts says nothing about Arabia but claims that he went directly to Jerusalem, with no mention of Arabia or a three‑year gap.

Again, you op for logical fallacies: the argument from silence.

You seem to think that Luke is somehow obligated to mention the time in Arabia... he's not. Also note what else Luke does NOT say. Luke does NOT say that Paul IMMEDIATELY went to Jerusalem. It simple says "WHEN Saul was come to Jerusalem".

Acts 9:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:26) And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.​

So there is no conflict or discrepancy between those two accounts. There is just you showing an extreme bias against God's Word and looking for problems that are not there.

In Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:14–15, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a single young donkey. But Matthew 21:2–7 says the disciples "brought the donkey and the colt … and he sat on them."

Matthew has two animals because he misunderstands the prophecy from Zechariah 9:9: "Behold, your king comes to you … riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Zechariah uses two lines describing the same animal. Matthew, however, interprets it literally as two animals. He made this error because he wanted to show literal fulfillment of Zechariah.

I'll let Gemini handle this one for me:

The supposed issue regarding Jesus riding into Jerusalem involves a perceived contradiction between the Gospel of Matthew and the other three Gospels. Critics often point to the number of animals mentioned and the specific wording of how Jesus rode them.

The Number of Animals​

Matthew 21:2 and 21:7 mention two animals: an ass (a mother donkey) and a colt (her young). Mark 11:2, Luke 19:30, and John 12:14 mention only the colt.
The resolution is that Matthew provides a more detailed account of the event to demonstrate a literal fulfillment of prophecy. The presence of the mother ass served a practical purpose. Mark and Luke note that the colt was one "whereon never man sat." An unbroken colt is typically more manageable and stays calm when its mother is present and leading the way. The other Gospel writers focused on the specific animal Jesus sat upon, while Matthew recorded the presence of both.

The Wording of Matthew 21:7​

A common critique involves the phrasing in Matthew 21:7:
"And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon."
Critics suggest this implies Jesus sat on both animals at once. However, the text resolves this through simple grammar:

• The Clothes: The first "them" refers to the two animals because the disciples placed their garments on both.
• The Seat: The word "thereon" refers to the clothes, not the animals. The disciples prepared both animals with their garments, and Jesus sat on the garments placed upon the colt.

Prophetic Fulfillment in Zechariah 9:9​

Matthew's inclusion of both animals relates directly to the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."
The "and" in this prophecy uses a Hebrew poetic form called parallelism. It identifies the "colt" as "the foal of an ass." Matthew records the physical presence of both the mother and the foal to show that every detail of the prophecy was met. The King did not just ride a random animal; he rode the specific type of animal designated by the prophet.

Summary of the Resolution​

The accounts do not contradict each other. They differ in focus.

• Matthew emphasizes the legal and prophetic requirements for the King of Israel by documenting both animals.
• Mark, Luke, and John focus on the specific animal used for transport.
• Grammar clarifies that Jesus sat on the clothes provided by the disciples, not two animals simultaneously.

Ancient writers shaped their narratives for theological, literary, and rhetorical purposes rather than modern chronological precision.

That is truly laughable, since YOU were trying to force Luke into "chronological precision".

This is not a big problem,

No, it is not a problem at all.

because the Bible is a spiritual text, not a 21st‑century biography.

Again, your "logic" seems to be completely faulty. You seem to think that because "the Bible is a spiritual text", that it can be full of mistakes and that's OK with you. You don't seem to know what "spiritual" even means. When the Bible records history, it does so accurately.

 

[MWinther]

Here are some more errors:

- Luke places Jesus' birth during the census under Quirinius (6 CE).
- Matthew places Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 BCE).

These dates are ten years apart. No known historical reconstruction can reconcile them.

---

- Matthew 27:5: Judas hangs himself.
- Acts 1:18: Judas falls headlong, bursts open, and his intestines spill out.

Two incompatible accounts.

---

- John has Jesus call Andrew and another disciple near the Jordan before returning to Galilee.
- Synoptics have Jesus call them while fishing in Galilee.

Different settings, different chronology.

---

- Synoptics: Jesus eats the Passover meal and is crucified on Passover day.
- John: Jesus dies before the Passover meal, at the hour the lambs are slaughtered.

This is a deliberate theological reshaping by John.

---

Different lists of women at the tomb in:

- Mark 16
- Matthew 28
- Luke 24
- John 20

Not harmonizable without inventing details.

---

Did the disciples go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem?

- Matthew: Jesus appears in Galilee.
- Luke/Acts: Jesus appears only in Jerusalem and tells them not to leave.

Two incompatible resurrection geographies.

---

Leviticus 11:6 says rabbits "chew the cud."

They don't; they practice coprophagy, which looks similar but is not ruminating.

---

Can God be seen?

- Exodus 33:20 — "No one can see me and live."
- Genesis 32:30 — Jacob: "I have seen God face to face."
- Exodus 24:10 — The elders "saw the God of Israel."

Different theological traditions.

---

Does God change His mind?

- Numbers 23:19: God does not change His mind.
- Exodus 32:14: God changes His mind after Moses intercedes.

Two incompatible conceptions of divine immutability.

---

Salvation by Faith or Works?

- Paul: "Justified by faith apart from works” (Romans 3:28).
- James: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

Two different soteriological frameworks.

---

Two Flood Narratives Interwoven:

- One says Noah takes two of each animal.
- Another says seven of the clean animals.

The text preserves both.

---

Two Introductions of David to Saul:

- 1 Samuel 16: David is Saul's musician, known to him.
- 1 Samuel 17: Saul asks, "Whose son is this youth?" as if he's never met him.

Two traditions spliced together.

 

[Right Divider]

Here are some more errors:

How many times do you need to be proven wrong before you'll admit the error of your ways?

How about first acknowledging that your first two attempts were proven FALSE.

- Luke places Jesus' birth during the census under Quirinius (6 CE).
- Matthew places Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 BCE).

These dates are ten years apart. No known historical reconstruction can reconcile them.

Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:1-2 present a chronological discrepancy of approximately ten years. Matthew places the birth of Jesus during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke associates the birth with a census conducted while Cyrenius (Quirinius) governed Syria, which secular records date to 6 CE. You can reconcile these records through three primary historical and linguistic interpretations.

---

1. The Greek Grammar of Protos​

The verse in Luke 2:2 uses the Greek word prote. While translators commonly render this as "first," the word can function as "before" when followed by a noun in the genitive case.

• The Translation: "This taxing was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria."
• The Result: This reading removes the conflict by stating the census occurred prior to the 6 CE administration of Quirinius.

2. The Dual Administration of Cyrenius​

Historical evidence suggests Cyrenius served in the region on two separate occasions. While his 6 CE governorship involved a famous tax census, he was active in the Roman East during the reign of Herod.

• Military Campaigns: Cyrenius led military campaigns against the Homanadensians in nearby Cilicia between 12 BCE and 1 BCE.
• Administrative Presence: Historical inscriptions, such as the Lapis Tiburtinus, indicate a high-ranking official served as legate of Syria twice. If Cyrenius held a military or joint administrative role in the region during the final years of Herod, Luke’s reference accurately describes an earlier registration.

3. Registration versus Implementation​

Roman taxation often involved a multi-stage process that spanned several years. The initial decree and registration of names did not always coincide with the final assessment and collection of money.

• The Decree: Augustus Caesar may have ordered a general registration around 8 BCE to 5 BCE to coincide with his 25th anniversary as Emperor.
• The Assessment: The census mentioned by the historian Josephus in 6 CE likely represents the final implementation or the specific taxation that followed the transition of Judea into a formal Roman province. Luke’s phrasing distinguishes this specific census as the "first" one of its kind under Cyrenius, which accounts for the complexity of Roman bureaucracy.

---

Chronological Alignment​

When you apply these interpretations, the timeline aligns in the following manner:

Event	Estimated Date
Augustus Caesar orders a general census	8 to 5 BCE
Jesus is born in Bethlehem	6 to 4 BCE
Herod the Great dies	4 BCE
Cyrenius concludes the census and taxation	6 CE

These approaches allow the narratives in Matthew and Luke to exist together as historically accurate records of the same period.

 

[Right Divider]

Different lists of women at the tomb in:

- Mark 16
- Matthew 28
- Luke 24
- John 20

Not harmonizable without inventing details.

The variations in the lists of women at the tomb do not constitute contradictions. Instead, they reflect the individual focus of each author and the reality of a large group of women arriving at the site.

Comparative List of Women at the Tomb​

The following table identifies the specific women named in each Gospel account:

Gospel	Women Specifically Named	Mention of Others
Matthew 28:1	Mary Magdalene, the other Mary	No
Mark 16:1	Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome	No
Luke 24:10	Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James	Yes ("other women")
John 20:1-2	Mary Magdalene	Yes (implied by "we")

---

Principles of Reconciliation​

To reconcile these accounts, apply these three historical and textual observations:

1. Partial Reporting vs. Exclusion​

None of the Gospel writers claim to provide an exhaustive list. Each author selects specific individuals to emphasize based on their narrative focus or the witnesses they personally interviewed.

• Matthew and Mark focus on the primary witnesses known to the early church.
• Luke provides the most comprehensive list, explicitly stating there were "other women that were with them" (Luke 24:10). This indicates a group larger than any single list suggests.
• John focuses exclusively on Mary Magdalene's personal encounter with the risen Christ, yet he acknowledges she was not alone. In John 20:2, Mary says to the disciples, "we know not where they have laid him." The use of the plural "we" confirms she was part of a larger group.

2. The Identity of "The Other Mary"​

The "other Mary" mentioned in Matthew 28:1 is the same person as "Mary the mother of James" mentioned in Mark and Luke.

• Matthew 27:56 identifies her earlier as "Mary the mother of James and Joses."
• Mark 15:40 refers to her as the mother of "James the less and of Joses."
  This consistent identification across the Synoptic Gospels confirms that the "other Mary" was a specific, well-known figure among the disciples.

3. Different Times and Arrivals​

The women likely traveled in smaller clusters from different locations in Jerusalem, arriving at the tomb at slightly different moments around sunrise.

• Mary Magdalene appears to have reached the tomb first or was the primary figure to run back and alert Peter and John.
• Salome (mentioned by Mark) and Joanna (mentioned by Luke) were part of the broader circle of women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and provided for his ministry.

By combining the accounts, you find a group consisting of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and several unnamed women. Every Gospel agrees on the presence of Mary Magdalene, establishing her as the consistent primary witness of the empty tomb.

 

[JudgeRightly]

CE

BCE

There's no such thing as "CE" and "BCE."

As for the actual year of Christ's birth, it was likely in 4 BC, probably late December, due to the positions and movements of certain stars that were the "Star of Bethlehem," Jupiter and Regulus.

Which puts Christ's crucifixion around 30 AD, at around 33 years of age, around early April, most likely on a Thursday.

But those are a topic for a different thread.

 

[MWinther]

Here is a list of the internal tensions inside the Pauline corpus, which drive theologians mad:

Contradictions About the Law (Torah)

- Romans 7:12: "The law is holy, righteous, and good."
- Romans 7:10: "The commandment… proved to be death to me."
- 2 Corinthians 3:7: calls the law "the ministry of death."

---

The Law is abolished vs. the Law is upheld

- Ephesians 2:15: Christ has "abolished the law of commandments."
- Romans 3:31: "Do we overthrow the law? By no means! We uphold the law."

Two incompatible postures: abolition vs. confirmation.

---

Circumcision is nothing vs. circumcision is valuable

- 1 Corinthians 7:19: "Circumcision is nothing."
- Romans 3:1–2: "What advantage has the Jew? Much in every way."

Paul alternates between radical relativization and strong affirmation of Jewish identity markers.

---

Contradictions About Justification

Justified by faith apart from works vs. judged by works

- Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
- Romans 2:6–13: God "will repay each according to his works… the doers of the law will be justified."

Romans 2 sounds like James, not Paul.

---

Abraham justified by faith vs. Abraham justified by works

- Romans 4:2–3: "If Abraham was justified by works… but he wasn't."
- James 2:21 (not Paul, but relevant): "Was not Abraham justified by works?"

But even within Paul:

- Philippians 3:6: Paul says he was "blameless" in righteousness under the law, which contradicts his claim that no one can be righteous by the law.

---

Paul expects to be alive at the Parousia vs. Paul expects to die

- 1 Thessalonians 4:17: "We who are alive… will be caught up."
- 2 Corinthians 5:1–4: Paul anticipates death and being "unclothed."
- Philippians 1:20–23: Paul expects to die and be with Christ.

Early Paul: imminent return. Later Paul: resignation to death.

---

The resurrection is spiritual vs. the resurrection is bodily

- 1 Corinthians 15:44: "It is sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body."
- Romans 8:11: God will "give life to your mortal bodies."

Paul oscillates between a transformed physical body and a spirit‑animated body.

---

Women must be silent vs. women prophesy in church

- 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: "Women should keep silent in the churches."
- 1 Corinthians 11:5: Women pray and prophesy publicly.

These cannot both be universal rules. Most scholars think 14:34–35 is a later interpolation, but as the text stands, it's contradictory.

---

Contradictions About Eating Meat Offered to Idols

- 1 Corinthians 8:4–8: Idols are nothing; eating is fine.
- 1 Corinthians 10:20–21: Idol sacrifices are to demons; you cannot partake.

Two incompatible positions within the same letter.

---

Contradictions About Paul's Own Apostleship

- Galatians 1:16–17: "I did not consult any human being."
- Galatians 2:2: Paul goes to Jerusalem "to lay before them" his gospel.
- 1 Corinthians 15:3: "I delivered to you what I received," implying tradition.

Paul alternates between radical independence and reliance on earlier authorities.

---

Paul never received support vs. Paul received support

- 1 Corinthians 9:15: "I have made no use of these rights."
- 2 Corinthians 11:8–9: Paul says he accepted support from other churches.

A shift in tone and practice.

---

Humans can fulfill the law vs. humans cannot fulfill the law

- Romans 2:14–15: Gentiles "do by nature what the law requires."
- Romans 3:10–12: "No one does good, not even one."

Two incompatible anthropologies.

---

Christ is subordinate vs. Christ is equal with God

- 1 Corinthians 15:28: The Son will be "subjected" to God.
- Philippians 2:6: Christ is "in the form of God."

Paul's Christology is not systematic; it oscillates between high and low.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here is a list of the internal tensions inside the Pauline corpus, which drive theologians mad:

Contradictions About the Law (Torah)

- Romans 7:12: "The law is holy, righteous, and good."
- Romans 7:10: "The commandment… proved to be death to me."
- 2 Corinthians 3:7: calls the law "the ministry of death."

---

The Law is abolished vs. the Law is upheld

- Ephesians 2:15: Christ has "abolished the law of commandments."
- Romans 3:31: "Do we overthrow the law? By no means! We uphold the law."

Two incompatible postures: abolition vs. confirmation.

---

Circumcision is nothing vs. circumcision is valuable

- 1 Corinthians 7:19: "Circumcision is nothing."
- Romans 3:1–2: "What advantage has the Jew? Much in every way."

Paul alternates between radical relativization and strong affirmation of Jewish identity markers.

---

Contradictions About Justification

Justified by faith apart from works vs. judged by works

- Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
- Romans 2:6–13: God "will repay each according to his works… the doers of the law will be justified."

Romans 2 sounds like James, not Paul.

---

Abraham justified by faith vs. Abraham justified by works

- Romans 4:2–3: "If Abraham was justified by works… but he wasn't."
- James 2:21 (not Paul, but relevant): "Was not Abraham justified by works?"

But even within Paul:

- Philippians 3:6: Paul says he was "blameless" in righteousness under the law, which contradicts his claim that no one can be righteous by the law.

---

Paul expects to be alive at the Parousia vs. Paul expects to die

- 1 Thessalonians 4:17: "We who are alive… will be caught up."
- 2 Corinthians 5:1–4: Paul anticipates death and being "unclothed."
- Philippians 1:20–23: Paul expects to die and be with Christ.

Early Paul: imminent return. Later Paul: resignation to death.

---

The resurrection is spiritual vs. the resurrection is bodily

- 1 Corinthians 15:44: "It is sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body."
- Romans 8:11: God will "give life to your mortal bodies."

Paul oscillates between a transformed physical body and a spirit‑animated body.

---

Women must be silent vs. women prophesy in church

- 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: "Women should keep silent in the churches."
- 1 Corinthians 11:5: Women pray and prophesy publicly.

These cannot both be universal rules. Most scholars think 14:34–35 is a later interpolation, but as the text stands, it's contradictory.

---

Contradictions About Eating Meat Offered to Idols

- 1 Corinthians 8:4–8: Idols are nothing; eating is fine.
- 1 Corinthians 10:20–21: Idol sacrifices are to demons; you cannot partake.

Two incompatible positions within the same letter.

---

Contradictions About Paul's Own Apostleship

- Galatians 1:16–17: "I did not consult any human being."
- Galatians 2:2: Paul goes to Jerusalem "to lay before them" his gospel.
- 1 Corinthians 15:3: "I delivered to you what I received," implying tradition.

Paul alternates between radical independence and reliance on earlier authorities.

---

Paul never received support vs. Paul received support

- 1 Corinthians 9:15: "I have made no use of these rights."
- 2 Corinthians 11:8–9: Paul says he accepted support from other churches.

A shift in tone and practice.

---

Humans can fulfill the law vs. humans cannot fulfill the law

- Romans 2:14–15: Gentiles "do by nature what the law requires."
- Romans 3:10–12: "No one does good, not even one."

Two incompatible anthropologies.

---

Christ is subordinate vs. Christ is equal with God

- 1 Corinthians 15:28: The Son will be "subjected" to God.
- Philippians 2:6: Christ is "in the form of God."

Paul's Christology is not systematic; it oscillates between high and low.

Man, you're all over the place.

Some of these aren't even contradictions.

Paul received his gospel directly from Christ and then "laid it out" before certain members of the Twelve.

He wasn't consulting anyone about it. He was explaining it to them, because it was so radically different from their own gospel they received from Christ.

This is all I have time for right now. I might address the rest or most of them later.