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]

[Replying to POI in post #50]

Yes, that's the gist of it.

It is clear where the evidence is pointing, and it is pointing to Luke.

[bjs1]

When you actually WATCH the video, the guy on the left represents the skeptic's position and response to the guy on the right. The guy on the right provides 'apologetic' responses. to make it all fit, via "a differing perspective or viewpoint or something". The guy on the left argues these two narratives are not "compatible." The guy on the right argues that they are "compatible." Add to this, the fact that we cannot even verify WHO is responsible for Luke or WHEN it was written, which also means we cannot identify the actual source(s) of "Luke", and the story line swifty looks to lose credibility. Unlike the writings of Paul.

I disagree with your assessment of the video.

The video exists solely to support what you have termed the "skeptic's" point of view. The guy on the left provides the "skeptics" point of view. The guy on the right is there to show how foolish Christians are for not agreeing that the "skeptic" is completely correct.

To take one example, the guy on the right is shocked when the skeptic says that Luke's gospel will remove the Jewish nature of Jesus found in Mark. Anyone who has read both these Gospels knows that this claim is false. Mark and Luke were both written to a Greek audience. Mark was written to the lower-class working Romans, while Luke was written to the Roman elites. Both recognized that Jesus was Jewish, but neither saw that as the most important aspect of his work. Both explained Jewish tradition when they came up, and both described Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was opening the faith to the Gentiles. The idea that Luke was making Jesus less Jewish than Mark did is not grounded in reality.

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.


Also, we cannot verify history by nature. However, we have more support for the authorship of Luke than we do for the vast majority of documents from antiquity.

[Difflugia]

Depends on what you mean by "unknown and unverified".

We don't know who wrote Luke's Gospel and there's no verification for who you think did.

If you base it off the author not naming himself as the author, then ok, sure. Go with that.

Despite your repeated wishful thinking that my conclusions are based on so little, no such luck.

But you can build a case, based on both internal/external evidence, it seems to point towards Luke, friend and physician of Paul.

You're right. I probably could. I'm not going to make your case for you, though.

I acknowledge this can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but based on the preponderance of evidence, I am convinced.

I'll be interested to see this evidence and its preponderance.

[1213]

Since you admit the newer version changes the meaning, how are you able to remove <the possibility> that this acknowledged changing of the meaning was not done so in an attempt to make Jesus look better, to gain new converts?

Best we can do is to look the most original version. After that, I think the context also shows what is the correct meaning. For example in this case, if Jesus would have been angry to the person and if he would not have been compassionate, he likely would not have healed the person. I think the compassionate is a logical word in this case and doesn't really make any meaningful difference.

[SiNcE_1985]

We don't know who wrote Luke's Gospel and there's no verification for who you think did.

We (believers) have our reasons for why we believe Luke wrote what he wrote.

We (believers) cant guarantee that unbelievers will accept those reasons, nor do we care whether they will.

As long as those reasons are good enough for us, that's all that matters.

We (believers) understand that even if Luke's Gospel have him saying "I, Luke, am writing this Gospel", that won't get unbelievers any closer to belief in the Gospel's material..just like it doesn't with 1Corinthians, as even unbelievers recognize that Paul wrote it, yet they aren't jumping into Christianity from that acknowledgement.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who wrote what.

Let unbelievers remain in their unbelief, and let believers continue believing.

Despite your repeated wishful thinking that my conclusions are based on so little, no such luck.

?

You're right. I probably could. I'm not going to make your case for you, though.

Nor were you being asked or requested to.

When I said "you", I was speaking in general, not to you specifically.

I don't need you to make the case for me, I can handle that myself.

I'll be interested to see this evidence and its preponderance.

No charge for the lessons.

[POI]

We (believers) understand that even if Luke's Gospel have him saying "I, Luke, am writing this Gospel", that won't get unbelievers any closer to belief in the Gospel's material..just like it doesn't with 1Corinthians, as even unbelievers recognize that Paul wrote it, yet they aren't jumping into Christianity from that acknowledgement.

We unbelievers do not doubt Paul wrote ~40% of what we now call the "NT". This unbeliever, (POI), believes Paul believed. The question remains, is his belief justified to others? Aside from Paul, we have no other verified authorship of any bonafide and/or certified investigators, who earnestly gathered independent eyewitness accounts of an actual "resurrection tour". 'Luke' is likely deemed the earliest 'attested' Gospel account, as it supposedly links directly up with Paul. However, the earliest actual located "Gospel of Luke" came way after Paul's death. I guess the first question would be...

Why didn't Jesus at least assure that these claimed original Gospel accounts were preserved? We know, for a fact, edits have been made. If the original had been written 100+ years before the first recopy was found, how would we know how many edits were placed prior to this time? Remember, the Gospels were not deemed official until canonization, more than 100 years after this subsequent recopy was located. Which means they were likely not protected/preserved.

[POI]

When you actually WATCH the video, the guy on the left represents the skeptic's position and response to the guy on the right. The guy on the right provides 'apologetic' responses. to make it all fit, via "a differing perspective or viewpoint or something". The guy on the left argues these two narratives are not "compatible." The guy on the right argues that they are "compatible." Add to this, the fact that we cannot even verify WHO is responsible for Luke or WHEN it was written, which also means we cannot identify the actual source(s) of "Luke", and the story line swifty looks to lose credibility. Unlike the writings of Paul.

I disagree with your assessment of the video.

The video exists solely to support what you have termed the "skeptic's" point of view. The guy on the left provides the "skeptics" point of view. The guy on the right is there to show how foolish Christians are for not agreeing that the "skeptic" is completely correct.

Not exactly. The video is inferring that the "Gospel of Luke" is likely a corrupt document, worthy of dismissal, based upon cumulative observed "incompatibilities". The video suggests that the guy on the right is likely corrupt.

To take one example, the guy on the right is shocked when the skeptic says that Luke's gospel will remove the Jewish nature of Jesus found in Mark. Anyone who has read both these Gospels knows that this claim is false. Mark and Luke were both written to a Greek audience. Mark was written to the lower-class working Romans, while Luke was written to the Roman elites. Both recognized that Jesus was Jewish, but neither saw that as the most important aspect of his work. Both explained Jewish tradition when they came up, and both described Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who was opening the faith to the Gentiles. The idea that Luke was making Jesus less Jewish than Mark did is not grounded in reality.

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.

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.

Also, we cannot verify history by nature.

Yes and no. Depends on the claim in history I reckon. I guess this is why the Bible props up faith so much, as even Jesus was not able to clearly demonstrate his claimed miracles. Jesus is just as bound to the major faults of ancient antiquity as all mere humans.

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?

[POI]

Since you admit the newer version changes the meaning, how are you able to remove <the possibility> that this acknowledged changing of the meaning was not done so in an attempt to make Jesus look better, to gain new converts?

Best we can do is to look the most original version. After that, I think the context also shows what is the correct meaning. For example in this case, if Jesus would have been angry to the person and if he would not have been compassionate, he likely would not have healed the person. I think the compassionate is a logical word in this case and doesn't really make any meaningful difference.

You, again, present only wishful thinking. Further, which version is the original version? Further still, how do you know the original version meant both anger and compassion without assumption alone? Please recall your own philosophy 1213. If it does not directly say it, then it does not necessarily mean it. One version says one thing, and another version says another thing.

[SiNcE_1985]

We unbelievers do not doubt Paul wrote ~40% of what we now call the "NT". This unbeliever, (POI), believes Paul believed. The question remains, is his belief justified to others?

To unbelievers, obviously not.

That is my point, even if we knew Luke wrote it, the question would be "Is his belief justified"?

Even if Jesus wrote it..

"Yeah, he wrote it, but is it true?"

So it doesn't matter who wrote it because no matter what, skeptical will be skeptics.

Aside from Paul, we have no other verified authorship of any bonafide and/or certified investigators, who earnestly gathered independent eyewitness accounts of an actual "resurrection tour". 'Luke' is likely deemed the earliest 'attested' Gospel account, as it supposedly links directly up with Paul. However, the earliest actual located "Gospel of Luke" came way after Paul's death. I guess the first question would be...

The prevailing view today is that Mark is the earliest Gospel account (depending on what you mean by 'attested').

And again, we can date Luke's Gospel being written before 70CE, just like the other 3.

Why didn't Jesus at least assure that these claimed original Gospel accounts were preserved?

My answer will not change.

We know, for a fact, edits have been made.

Who is "we"?

If the original had been written 100+ years before the first recopy was found, how would we know how many edits were placed prior to this time? Remember, the Gospels were not deemed official until canonization, more than 100 years after this subsequent recopy was located. Which means they were likely not protected/preserved.

Paul..1Corinth 15:3-7.

As mentioned to you more than once, that passage of Scripture demonstrates the preservation of the message from Paul's conversion (1-5 years after the cross), through his missionary travels, and up until his writing of the letter.

So there was a 25-30 year preservation of the message, leading up to the writing and circulation of the Gospels.

You've offered no viable response to this, and it isn't going anywhere and will be reemphasized as many times as needed, especially every time you use the word "preserve".

[POI]

To unbelievers, obviously not. That is my point, even if we knew Luke wrote it, the question would be "Is his belief justified"? Even if Jesus wrote it.. "Yeah, he wrote it, but is it true?". So it doesn't matter who wrote it because no matter what, skeptical will be skeptics.

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

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

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....

The prevailing view today is that Mark is the earliest Gospel account (depending on what you mean by 'attested'). And again, we can date Luke's Gospel being written before 70CE, just like the other 3.

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. 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. See the comprehensive video for details.

My answer will not change.

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.

Who is "we"?

"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.

Paul..1Corinth 15:3-7.

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.

As mentioned to you more than once, that passage of Scripture demonstrates the preservation of the message from Paul's conversion (1-5 years after the cross), through his missionary travels, and up until his writing of the book. So there was a 25-30 year preservation of the message, leading up to the writing and circulation of the Gospels. You've offered no viable response to this, and it isn't going anywhere and will be reemphasized as many times as needed, especially every time you use the word "preserve".

As I keep mentioning, the 'Gospel of Luke' was not as thing until centuries later. Meaning, it carried no authority. Which means, it was not canonized until centuries later. Which means it was not protected. Many people write many things. It's not like we have the original, with Paul's co-signed signature, to verify he saw it.

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