Are Mark and Luke Compatible?

[POI]

By 'compatible', I mean (alternative facts) may be presented. Which would then mean these two publications are not 'compatible'. Was it merely a differing perspective, issued from differing witnesses and viewpoints, (or), were there instead irreconcilable changes -- which makes these two documents no longer logically compatible with one another?

For debate:

1) Is the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke compatible with one another?
2) If you state (yes), please address the video below, as I do not want to write up a "text wall" -- in which few might read. In a nutshell, the video demonstrates that these two Gospels are not logically compatible with one another.
3) If you state (no), then please do not even bother engaging this discussion, except to challenge any folks who answer (yes) to question 2)

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes, I get your point. Here is my point(s)....

1. We do not know who wrote it, so it becomes a non-starter.

I understand your assertion..but I've responded to this numerous times and my answer will not change.

2. Even if it was verified to be from 'Luke', it looks to possible be "corrupt" regardless. (The video explains).... It reads of "fake news",....

Opinions.

It is merely the first, of three synoptic Gospels, which propose very similar problems, while not validating the claim(s) of Paul's assertion(s), because we do not know of the authorship to begin with....

Opinions.

Scholarship agrees Mark is the first. And yes, the claim would identify 'Luke' as the second. But it is a one-way street. Paul mentions stuff which would coincide with others. But, 'Luke' does not return the favor, in the sense that we do not know if the author is actually responsible for his own investigation? Again, it is a non-starter.

Not so fast.

Depends on what you mean by "coincide".

I need specifics, not generalizations.

In fact, you've spent most of the entire thread not being specific and speaking in general terms.

Everything you've offered is a cross between an over-the-top sensationalized video that seems to revise history, to vague and wishy-washy responses on this thread.

I expect more from you.

It's quite possible 'Luke' is merely a corrupt claimed 'second source' to make things fit, and to also make both the Romans and Jesus look better.

Opinions.

See the comprehensive video for details.

If you are drowning in the middle of the ocean, that video is the brick that's tied to your ankles.

It's not actually helping the situation.

Preserving the text would at least confirm/remove the first point I made above. All you would then need to demonstrate is why 'Luke' itself is not merely a corrupt document, which was also not edited from its original source for over 100 years to boot.

1 Corinth 15:3-7.

"We" know the Gospel of Luke has likely been edited because there are no original copies of the text

Moot point, considering we don't have original copies of any ancient text.

only later copies that show variations between them, indicating different versions were circulated and potentially edited over time; scholars also identify patterns in these variations, suggesting deliberate changes made by scribes, with some early church leaders like Marcion being known to edit the text to fit their theological views.[/i]

My sources tells me that the NT is 99.5% textually accurate...and this is considering all versions and translations, thousands upon thousands of them.

This, again, represents the one-way street. We have no corroboration of these claims by others

, going back to Paul, in that we only have the anonymous Gospel accounts, which may very well also be corrupt.

So, no corroboration from others, and anonymous Gospels.

Yet, they all seem to line up.

As I keep mentioning, the 'Gospel of Luke' was not as thing until centuries later. Meaning, it carried no authority.

Hmm.

So in essence, Christianity was spreading and growing for centuries before the biographies (the Gospels) of the central figure of the religion (Jesus of Nazareth), was even a thing?

Cool..I'll take it

And I don't even agree with you, but even based on your false attestation, I'll take it.

Which means, it was not canonized until centuries later. Which means it was not protected.

I simply disagree.

Many people write many things. It's not like we have the original, with Paul's co-signed signature, to verify he saw it.

If we had it, would you believe?

Remember, we are only debating what could be the most important set of claims known to man here....

Tell me something I don't know.

[POI]

Cutting to the meat and potatoes....

If we had it, would you believe?

This response is telling, as you have to admit we do not. Unlike Paul.

Aside from Paul's writings, which I believe he both wrote and believed, and for which evidence suggests, IF we also had other verified independent sources to claims of a "resurrection tour", I would not have raised this topic to begin with. And yes, it would then be up to each individual to believe it or reject these multiple independent claim(s). However, since you understand we have no way to verify authorship to 'Luke", like we do with Paul, it really is a non-starter.

What we are left with, is a document which props up both Romans and Jesus quite a bit more than Mark. Is it enough to discard? Well, it is up to the one who examines the two and compares. The video explains. The reason I mention the video is that these 15-minutes provides a neat a tidy list of supposed questionable objections. It is up to the reader to determine if they jive with one another. As I told Bjs1, the person on the left raises the concerns of the skeptic, while the one on the right rationalizes how they complement one another. Well, who is more on point, the one stage-left, or the one stage-right? Each individual can watch to determine.

Tell me something I don't know.

Great, then asking why Jesus bothered not to preserve things is a very logical first question to ask

[SiNcE_1985]

Cutting to the meat and potatoes....

Cool, and I'll also cut to the meat and potatoes by not responding to 99% of what you just said..

Anyways, am I gonna get specifics as I requested..or vague generalisations?

[POI]

am I gonna get specifics as I requested..or vague generalisations?

I already tried that, and you gave a "nuh-uh" and/or irrelevant response (i.e.):

POI: "We" know the Gospel of Luke has likely been edited because there are no original copies of the text, only later copies that show variations between them, indicating different versions were circulated and potentially edited over time; scholars also identify patterns in these variations, suggesting deliberate changes made by scribes, with some early church leaders like Marcion being known to edit the text to fit their theological views.

1985: My sources tells me that the NT is 99.5% textually accurate...and this is considering all versions and translations, thousands upon thousands of them.

************************

And I add..... Since the first complete copy located is some 200 years after Jesus, this leaves more questions than answers.

[SiNcE_1985]

I already tried that, and you gave a "nuh-uh" and/or irrelevant response (i.e.):

POI: "We" know the Gospel of Luke has likely been edited because there are no original copies of the text, only later copies that show variations between them, indicating different versions were circulated and potentially edited over time; scholars also identify patterns in these variations, suggesting deliberate changes made by scribes, with some early church leaders like Marcion being known to edit the text to fit their theological views.

1985: My sources tells me that the NT is 99.5% textually accurate...and this is considering all versions and translations, thousands upon thousands of them.

Short answer: Nuh-uh.

Long answer: Nuh-uh. My sources says otherwise.

You have your sources, and I have mines.

And I add..... Since the first complete copy located is some 200 years after Jesus, this leaves more questions than answers.

Jesus is the only way to salvation.

That has never been a question amongst believers, and has always been the answer.

And it's been that way 200 years after Jesus, and 2,000 years after Jesus.

[bjs1]

The guy on the right tells the guy on the left to make it "less Jewish", to gain a much larger crowd. -- To make the Romans look better.... Luke wasn't written to gain converts among the Orthodox Jews. It was to appeal more-so to Romans, which is a much larger audience. Spinning Mark's account looks to have ultimately achieved this task. Further, if 'Luke' was written to resonate with the elites, didn't the elites run the empire? Further still, truth has no bias between the rich and the poor.

Some of this is true. Luke wasn’t written to gain Jewish converts. There were more Romans than Jews. The elites ran the Empire.

But the first statement is false. Luke is not less Jewish than Mark. Both were written to a Greek culture. Both recognized that Jesus was Jewish, and both focused on the universal nature of Jesus’ message. The idea that Luke made Jesus less Jewish is fictional.

This is the reason that I was unable to finish the video, and I assume others had similar motivations. This video was a frustratingly dishonest approach to history, designed to mock rather than inform. The video was painful to watch, and I will not devote any more time to it.

LOL! I think you instead let your emotions get the better of you here. Luke clearly attempted to make the Romans looks better, verses Mark. Among other things aforementioned which "manipulate" the story line.

Emotions certainly played into it. I was distraught by the dishonest nature of this video. The false claim Romans look better in Luke than in Mark, and the conspiracy theory that Luke did this on purpose, were painful to watch.

However, we have more support for the authorship of Luke than we do for the vast majority of documents from antiquity.

Do tell? How so?

We could compare Luke to the works of Plato, the most important philosopher in history. The earliest manuscript of Luke is from about 130 years after the original was written. The earliest manuscript of any of Plato’s works is from 1,300 years after the original was written. The earliest fragment of something written by Plate is from 500 years after the original was written. There are less than 250 ancient copies and fragments of Plato’s works. There are thousands of copies of Luke’s gospel.
The oldest document that identifies Plato is a copy of Aristotle from the 9th century. The oldest document that identifies Luke as the author of his gospel is either Marcion of Sinope or Justine Martyr in the 2nd century (we aren’t sure who wrote first).
There will always be debate about who wrote the Gospels, but there is much more evidence in favor of Luke’s authorship than we see for other ancient documents.

[POI]

You have your sources, and I have mines.

But your response addresses nothing of mine. To address your response, the Gospel of Luke contains 19,482 words. Differing comparative manuscripts can be ~95+% the same. The question becomes, which parts differ? Meaning, the vast majority of these manuscripts can be mostly the same, sure. But it's the parts that vary or have been altered, which can make all the difference in the world. Scholars see deliberate changes among scribed copies. Marcion, for instance, is just one example. Since we know not of the actual root source for the version of 'Luke' in which was ultimately canonized, we have absolutely no starting point. So que the God-faith, or wishful thinking, where needed.

You see, it is both logical and practical to approach such claims of the supernatural with skepticism. Only after enough overwhelming evidence has been presented, should the skeptic no longer retain as much skepticism. Thus far, you acknowledge we have no starting point for THE source(s) for "Luke", aside from some direct cited copying from Mark.

Further, when we compare Mark to Luke, and see a clear pattern of "Luke" propping up both Rome and Jesus, it reads instead as a 'fake news' piece to cater to Romans. The video systematically explains, and also cites the many specific verse(s) in question by the remaining skeptic.

Here is the million-dollar question... Aside from Mark, who was the source(s) for "Luke"?

Jesus is the only way to salvation. That has never been a question amongst believers, and has always been the answer. And it's been that way 200 years after Jesus, and 2,000 years after Jesus.

Thanks for the sermon.

[SiNcE_1985]

But your response addresses nothing of mine. To address your response, the Gospel of Luke contains 19,482 words. Differing comparative manuscripts can be ~95+% the same. The question becomes, which parts differ? Meaning, the vast majority of these manuscripts can be mostly the same, sure. But it's the parts that vary or have been altered, which can make all the difference in the world. Scholars see deliberate changes among scribed copies. Marcion, for instance, is just one example. Since we know not of the actual root source for the version of 'Luke' in which was ultimately canonized, we have absolutely no starting point. So que the God-faith, or wishful thinking, where needed.

You see, it is both logical and practical to approach such claims of the supernatural with skepticism. Only after enough overwhelming evidence has been presented, should the skeptic no longer retain as much skepticism. Thus far, you acknowledge we have no starting point for THE source(s) for "Luke", aside from some direct cited copying from Mark.

Further, when we compare Mark to Luke, and see a clear pattern of "Luke" propping up both Rome and Jesus, it reads instead as a 'fake news' piece to cater to Romans. The video systematically explains, and also cites the many specific verse(s) in question by the remaining skeptic.

Here is the million-dollar question... Aside from Mark, who was the source(s) for "Luke"?

You said all of that, to say nothing.

No disrespect, but that is my point...you made a claim that Luke was altered/edited and the textual variations proves as much..yet you've offered not one single example of anything.

All I see is opinions, generalizations.

Nothing specific.

Are you going to offer anything specific or do I have to keep on begging?

Thanks for the sermon.

Dont thank me, thank the early church and all the early believers who ensured the preservation of the message.

[POI]

But the first statement is false. Luke is not less Jewish than Mark. Both were written to a Greek culture. Both recognized that Jesus was Jewish, and both focused on the universal nature of Jesus’ message. The idea that Luke made Jesus less Jewish is fictional.

You've missed the point of the video here. It has nothing to do with what you are saying. Luke attempts to make the Romans look better -- by way of both a) downplaying things which paint the Romans in a negative light as well as b) omitting said negative actions which are claimed to be committed by the Romans -- when reading Mark. The intent was to paint the Romans in a better light. This makes Luke "less Jewish" and instead "more Roman".

Emotions certainly played into it. I was distraught by the dishonest nature of this video. The false claim Romans look better in Luke than in Mark, and the conspiracy theory that Luke did this on purpose, were painful to watch.

But we know the Gospel of Luke has likely been edited because there are no original copies of the text, only later copies that show variations between them, indicating different versions were circulated and potentially edited over time; scholars also identify patterns in these variations, suggesting deliberate changes made by scribes, with some early church leaders like Marcion being known to edit the text to fit their theological views.

We could compare Luke to the works of Plato, the most important philosopher in history. The earliest manuscript of Luke is from about 130 years after the original was written. The earliest manuscript of any of Plato’s works is from 1,300 years after the original was written. The earliest fragment of something written by Plate is from 500 years after the original was written. There are less than 250 ancient copies and fragments of Plato’s works.

If anyone was to start to worship Plato, or if Plato was to assert he interviewed reliable folks who saw supernatural stuff, then maybe you would have a point. My life is not changed in the slightest, nor does it hinge upon the existence of Plato. For all we know, he never existed.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot identify 'Luke', which also means we certainly cannot question his source(s) for the claims to a 'resurrection tour'. Nothing concrete points Luke back to Paul's claim(s).

There are thousands of copies of Luke’s gospel.

The ones done before canonization varied in their stories, as stated above. But, most were actually done after it was canonized. -- Which would then be no different than if the printing press was never invented today, and someone has to hand write 1,000's of the duplicate copies for any book or textbook.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #68]

Here is the million-dollar question... Aside from Mark, who was the source(s) for "Luke"?