Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[oldbadger]

I am not going to get into a long and drawn-out debate on each and every issue because the conversation goes all over the place. Therefore let's attempt to tackle one issue at a time.

Having tried to tell me how much you know about detectives, I am happy to continue addressing your points directly, as before.

This is simply nonsense! It is a fact that Paul would have spent years in one town with the Church he was planting at the time. It is a fact that in those years, Paul would have been teaching this Church orally.

....... in which case Paul would have been teaching the new congregations about ............. Jesus!
And I don't think he was, because (apart from his constant repetitions about communiion and resurection) his letters to the congregations he didn't bother to mention the words and actions of ......Jesus.

Again, this is nonsense! Exactly what did Paul gain by converting to Christianity? We know that in his former life Paul was advancing in Judaism, and that Paul was very well educated,

Paul was probably contracted to put down the Northern communities that were failing to attend and pay tax to the Temple. It seems to me that he saw an opportunity with the new movement. And how does your post above answer his total disinterest in the life and times of Jesus?

I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

Constant repetition of 'I' shows us all just how transfixed Paul was...about himself. Now beat that for EGO!

Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Now, if you believe this could have been a false report, you need to keep in mind the audience he is addressing would have known very well if these things would have been true or not, also keeping in mind the fact that we have another report of Paul's life from another author with evidence this author traveled with Paul and would have witnessed these events and he reports on some of what Paul is saying here, ending his account of the life of Paul being in prison. The point is, if Paul was all about Paul, then certainly Paul must have had a death wish.

And you must keep in mind that you are telling me that Paul took the message to these communities, and therefore that they only knew what he had told them.
It was all about Ego with Paul.

[oldbadger]

Allow me to give you an example of how the conversation ends up going all over the place.

No........ it was you who tried to show how clever you are.... I simply showed you that you are not.

I mentioned detectives simply to demonstrate the fact that folks can witness the same exact event, and they can and do report some things exactly while also having variances, and contradictions. I make this point which you ignore, and then want to go off debating how a good detective should operate. The point is, if we know for a fact that folks who witness the same exact event can, and do report some things exactly while having variances, and contradictions, then this demonstrates that the variances, and contradictions you point out between the Gospel accounts does not in any way demonstrate the accounts would be false.

Look....you can try to support plagiarism all you like, and then you can try to pretend that all plagiarism is 'conspiracy', but you got all that wrong.

I think it is clear why you want to go off debating the job of a detective, because in that way you do not have to deal with the fact that the variances, and contradictions you point out does not in any way demonstrate the reports are false.

You tried to get clever with your mentions of how detectives think, it was sad.
Two non witnesses copied G-Mark's verses, sometimes almost word for word.
And you surely don't pretend that Luke was a witness?!! Luke never claimed to be!
And Matthew couldn't have been or he would have stuck to his own deposition.

[oldbadger]

Now, let us consider that if the authors of the Gospels are indeed those they have been attributed to, then these authors would have spent much time together telling, and or hearing these same stories over, and over, to different folks day after day, for years before there would have been a need to write the accounts out, and you have a very good explanation.

You tell us about how much you know, now please read Luke's opening sentences from G-Luke:-
Luke {1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, {1:2} Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

.......................So there's Luke for you....... no eye witness himself! He was honest about needing to copy all!
And the author of Matthew's gospel? He was copying as well!

However, the scholars understand this does not explain the whole thing, and therefore they now have two of the authors who not only have their own copy of another's writing, they also both have a copy of someone else they call Q because they have no way to determine who the author of this unknown source would be. I can tell you this, it has not been demonstrated in any way that any of the authors had a copy of one of the other Gospel accounts, and it certainly has not been demonstrated that there was ever any source they refer to as Q. But, since the scholars are considered the authorities, there are those who simply accept what they have to say, and go on to regurgitate whatever it is they say.

Who are these scholars which you speak of?
And when have I mentioned the document Q?

Your're rambling. Truly.

[oldbadger]

Great! But I have not argued that any of the authors would have been eyewitnesses.

Well thank goodness for that.
That was very honest of you.

But one was a partial witness. Definitely imo.

[oldbadger]

That is a fine opinion and you are entitled to it, and we all have opinions. However, if Mark is indeed the "true account" as you say, then we are left with an empty tomb, along with a report that Jesus has risen.

Correct. Empty tomb and Jesus well enough to rise and leave. He even saw all his friends again, up North, no long afterwards.
Josephus wrote about he saved a friend who was being crucified, so it did happen, you know.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's the thing. Christian apologists will appeal to the basic claim as the evidence for the claim.

But that is the basic claim, after all. The tomb was empty and Mary Magdalene (and another, apparently) had no idea what had happened to the body. Remember that John has no handy angel posted there to explain everything so that original "Mark" aspect is invention, copied by the other synoptics. We have only an empty tomb and (again referring to "Mark", since present Mark is clearly NOT the original version) no story after that. If one does not buy the various excuses as to why "Mark" would not say what happened after that. (The freerlogion is a known add -on invention; in fact two attempts at an invention).

The discrepant, indeed terminally contradictory, accounts in Matthew, Luke and John tell us there was no original resurrection story, and different ones were made up. The lack of one in Mark tells us, like the ascension, what is missing is not 'Left out', forgotten or too well known to be repeated (which has to be the most miserable excuse of a crowded pack of them) and the evidence is clear, except to Denialists, that the later stories were invented additions.

But suppose the empty tomb was real and someone does not know or does not want to tell what happened after. Matthew hints at the story going round in his day - the Jews say the disciples took the body. Isn't that the most probable explanation? The apologists, desperate to rule out any other explanation as 'impossible' so a miracle is the only option, say the disciples were too panicked to do anything like that, but clearly the disciples Arimathea and Nicodemus weren't.

What they did with the body or - as you suggest -the still alive Jesus (1) is omitted - rather as, by an odd coincidence, Paul doesn't tell us much about what happened to earthly Jesus or his body, only that after crucifixion he resurrected. In a visionary way, if we consider what Paul wrote. It clearly NOT the Gospel order of appearances. But never mind, the Believers will take the basic Claim 'the resurrected Jesus was seen' and ignore anything that doesn't fit. And what matters is that version is the only version fed to the Public.

The conclusion could equally well be taken as the body survived (was intended to) and recovered in Amiathe'as house, or was in fact dead and was taken to Galilee for burial.

A miracle is not the First option that Bible apologists would like to suppose that it is.

(1) the apologists try to rule out survival by appeal to the spear thrust, but that is (on evidence) also invented, as the synoptics have no such thing. Let them wish that problem away with 'witness error' or 'It wasn't important' or 'They forgot' and the like pitiful denialist excuses. I get it - they have to deny the Actual way the evidence points or consider...it might not be a reliable account. Those not already in Faithbased denial will see 'it was invented' as at least a decent alternative story, if not a better.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #45]
Good ole swoon theory! Where have you been?

Or something entirely else comes to mind:

(If Jesus was historic and crucification happened)

Sect believes in its Boss. Believes that he is a Messias and will conquer the world for them.

Then Boss croaks.

Perfect time for cognitive dissonance to win the day.

(He came alive again. We, the cognitive dissonant group - and no critic or neutral - even met him after he rised!)

He didnt exactly look his old self. We had trouble recognizing him. Took him for the gardener et cetera.

But must be him risen. Why? Dont ask?

What? You want to shake his hand? See and met him yourself?

Uh, no luck for you with that. He flew off into space six weeks after leaving tomb and meanwhile he would only talk to true believers.

Last time we saw him up there sitting on a cloud.

"Next stop Zarahemla!" he shouted

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #41]

As is clearly evident, I continue to deal with the facts, and evidence we have while you continue to give us your opinion. As an example here is what you say,

in which case Paul would have been teaching the new congregations about ............. Jesus!
And I don't think he was

You do not think he was, because this is what you would like to think, but the evidence suggest this could not have been correct. First, Paul was indeed the biggest missionary the world has ever known, and he was responsible for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time which has caused this Jesus who you "think" Paul did not preach to become the most well-known name in the history of the world. We know it would have been a fact that Paul would have spent years in each town, and he would have certainly been teaching these Churches something, and again the fact that Jesus is the most well-known figure the world has ever known sort of demonstrates what Paul was teaching. However, if that is not enough allow us to let Paul himself tell us what he was teaching these congregations he spent years with.

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Do you notice here where Paul says, "I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you". This seems to mean; this is what I was teaching you the whole time I was with you. If that is not enough Paul also says,

For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

So then, as you can see, what you "think" is not adding up. I have my doubts that this is what you truly "think", but I am certain this is what you would rather "think", however the math simply does not add up to the facts, and evidence.

I want to be clear here is saying that I really do not care what you choose to believe, and I am not in any way attempting to change your mind. Rather, I am simply demonstrating that you are attempting to cause doubt concerning the Gospel accounts, but you are not really giving us any reasons for doubt. As we have seen, and we will see again in a moment, your goal should be to eliminate the extraordinary, but what you end up doing is to simply exchange one extraordinary tale for another, which sort of demonstrates one who goes with what they would rather believe.

I can assure you that I am not going with what I would rather believe. I certainly would not rather believe Christianity to be true. I mean, who would want to believe Christianity to be true? I can only imagine it would be one who does not truly understand what Christianity teaches.

Paul was probably contracted to put down the Northern communities that were failing to attend and pay tax to the Temple. It seems to me that he saw an opportunity with the new movement.

And here we go again with you simply giving us your opinion while I continue to deal with the facts. Watch how this works.

And how does your post above answer his total disinterest in the life and times of Jesus?

You see, what you are saying here simply does not add up to the facts, and evidence we have. We know for a fact that Paul is the cause of the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time, and we know that Christianity is about Jesus Christ. Moreover, we have just seen with our own eyes what Paul was teaching these Churches he spent years with. Let us add to this the fact that the life of Paul after conversion was not a very good life at all. You see? All the facts and evidence adds up to Paul preaching exactly what he claimed to preach everywhere which was "Jesus Christ and Him Crucified".

Constant repetition of 'I' shows us all just how transfixed Paul was...about himself. Now beat that for EGO!

Again, you need to deal with the facts, because Paul deals with exactly what you are saying. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness". What is he saying? Well, he is acknowledging he is boasting, but he is asking them to put up with it for a moment in order to demonstrate to them they are listening to others who are boasting, and he is demonstrating to them exactly what he has endured in his life in order to bring them the message of Christ. Paul goes on to say,

I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast.

As you can see, Paul is acknowledging exactly what you say, which sort of demonstrates Paul is not use to talking about himself, but rather Christ.

And you must keep in mind that you are telling me that Paul took the message to these communities, and therefore that they only knew what he had told them.
It was all about Ego with Paul.

Again, the facts, and evidence simply does not add up to what you say. Paul is addressing the fact that there were other so called "super apostles" who had come after him, which demonstrates they knew more than simply what Paul had told them, and he is attempting to demonstrate to them that these other apostles do not have their best interests in mind by demonstrating to them what all he had been through as opposed to these other apostles. You attempt to paint a picture of Paul as if he had an "ego" when the facts and evidence demonstrates something far different. How can anyone live the life Paul lived and have an ego? GOOD GRIEF! I mean, he was repeatedly stoned, beaten, whipped, shipwrecked, and in prison. Yeah, that's a life to hang your hat on.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #42]

No........ it was you who tried to show how clever you are.... I simply showed you that you are not.

How in the world one is being clever by pointing out the fact that folks can witness the same event and can and do report some things exactly while having variances, and contradictions is beyond my imagination. The fact remains that this is a fact, and you have yet to deal with this fact. Rather, you continue to want to debate the job of a detective which really has nothing to do with it. But again, it is completely understandable why you would want to divert the conversation.

Look....you can try to support plagiarism all you like, and then you can try to pretend that all plagiarism is 'conspiracy', but you got all that wrong.

My friend, you nor your scholars have demonstrated in the least that plagiarism was involved, and the evidence suggest otherwise. This is what occurs when one allows others the think for them.

Two non witnesses copied G-Mark's verses, sometimes almost word for word.

You continue to state an opinion as if it were a fact, and as I have said, it has not been demonstrated in the least that any of the Gospel writers had a copy of another.

And you surely don't pretend that Luke was a witness?!! Luke never claimed to be!

My friend, whomever authored the Gospel of Luke also authored the second letter addressed to Theophilus. In that second letter, the author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" as if he is there with Paul to witness the events he records, which would mean this author was alive at the time of Jesus, and would have known the original apostles, and would have heard their firsthand testimony. My friend, that is pretty strong!

And Matthew couldn't have been or he would have stuck to his own deposition.

You need to demonstrate that this author did not stick to his own deposition, and simply pointing out the fact that he records the same events as others almost word for word does not demonstrate this. Rather, what a statement like this demonstrates, is one who is allowing others to do their thinking.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

I am not going to get into a long and drawn-out debate on each and every issue because the conversation goes all over the place. Therefore let's attempt to tackle one issue at a time.

If Paul was communicating with churches, then and truly interested in Jesus, the son of his God, then every other sentence would have been explaining what he said and did.

This is simply nonsense! It is a fact that Paul would have spent years in one town with the Church he was planting at the time. It is a fact that in those years, Paul would have been teaching this Church orally. Therefore, when Paul moved on to another town and heard of issues in the former Church Paul would have wrote to that Church concerning that issue. He would not have wasted time going over what he had already taught. My friend, writing letters at that time would have been a long and drawn-out process which could have taken days to accomplish. With this being fact, Paul surely would stick to the issues at hand not using this time to use "every other sentence" in order to write out what he had already explained to this Church orally over the years he was with them.

Paul couldn't have cared a hoot about what Jesus said or did..... Paul was all about Paul!

Again, this is nonsense! Exactly what did Paul gain by converting to Christianity? We know that in his former life Paul was advancing in Judaism, and that Paul was very well educated, and yet Paul turns his back on all of this in order to travel the world planting Churches having to work with his hands in order to supply his needs, all the while being chased down not only by the Roman authorities, but also the religious authorities as well. In fact, let us take a look at how Paul describes his life after his conversion,

I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Now, if you believe this could have been a false report, you need to keep in mind the audience he is addressing would have known very well if these things would have been true or not,

I am beginning to Translate "Not the Impossible Faith" today


And I use some argumentation logic from the book to say thee nay; The "audience" wouldnt know and wouldnt be able to ascertain if Paul spoke true or not.

Religious leaders tend to ridiculously overexegerrating tales about their careers a as they go.

Think about Joseph Smiths three first visions.

also keeping in mind the fact that we have another report of Paul's life from another author with evidence this author traveled with Paul and would have witnessed these events and he reports on some of what Paul is saying here, ending his account of the life of Paul being in prison. The point is, if Paul was all about Paul, then certainly Paul must have had a death wish.

More like that Paul split from the jewish ortodox sect, 'cause he wanted to be Boss over his own sect.