Bible Fight!

[BlueCross]

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It always comes down to the Spanish, doesn't it...

[Solwyn]

Only if we're talking about Franco.

[BlueCross]

I declare me the winner.

[The SysMan]

Did you remember to declare that at customs?
They're a real stickler for that sort of thing

[Solwyn]

I declare me the un-not-anti-counter-winner.

[BlueCross]

You left out 'neg-'

[The SysMan]

=Lifts the rascism bat=

=slowly lowers the rascism bat=

Hmm... just in case... O.o

[BlueCross]

*pummels The Sysman back to the Stone Age*

OK, so it's not original.

But it is deserved.

[Solwyn]

Bombo!

[BlueCross]

OK......

[Hoopy Frood]

Mambo!?

[Solwyn]

So that's what Carson was talking about all those years.

[Sweetpea]

Lord Justice Bowen:

The rain it raineth on the just,
and also on the unjust fella.
but chiefly on the just, because
the unjust hath the just's umbrella.

[Thanatos]

The following "alleged" contradiction is not truly a contradiction due to the law of contradictions.

The two thieves reviled Christ.  (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.

The reason is because two witnesses corroborate that they saw two thieves, and a third confirms only one. For the purpose of legal documentation, this would not be a contradiction, as only a testament that a person is in another place counts as a contradiction (alibi).

I have to disagree with you here, Sol.  I think this is still a contradiction according to the law of contradictions due to the presence of the word "only" in the quote from Luke.  If the quote read,

One of the thieves reviled Christ.

Then I would agree with your analysis; Luke would be confirming that at least one thief reviled Christ, without commentary on the others.  However, the presence of the word 'only' coupled with the plurality of 'thieves' indicates that Luke is declaring that more than one thief was present, but that no more than one reviled Christ; thus, at least one thief was present that did not revile Christ.  It's a contradiction in the same way as your second quote;  Matthew and Mark claim that Thief #2 reviled Christ, and Luke expressly claims that he did not.

[Solwyn]

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact we are using a non-historical or non-corroborative method of examination.

Here's Matthew 27 according to my bible (NAB)
44:The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.

Here's Mark 15:
Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also kept abusing him

Here's Luke 23:
39  Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us."
40  The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation?


So it seems to me that the issue is not that Luke specifically mentioned it, it's that the other two (Mark and Matthew) did not specify, they just said "those who were crucified with him." According to the legal perspective, the truth would be that two witnesses claim everyone (in this case it doesn't show number just all inclusive words) reviled him but one witness was more specific in that one disagreed with another, which is not a direct contradiction but rather a disagreement in specificity of accounts. In a non-historical perspective, you'd just go back and get more specific testimony from both other witnesses. But in this case, since it's historical we take the more specific account to be the most likely to be accurate but also take into consideration the number of witnesses, and assume that most of them reviled jesus but there's a chance one spoke against the others.

The reason is because the other witnesses gave less specific testimony, not saying when or how they saw everyone abusing Jesus. This means that they could have witnessed the first half of the event, and missed the part where someone rebuked them, or their vantage point didn't allow them to see/hear it.

My personal opinion, after all the legalese and examination, is that it doesn't really matter,  you're supposed to make up your own mind either way. But the definition of a contradiction is tricky in this situation because of the differing levels of specificity.