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)

[JehovahsWitness]

That would depend on what is meant by "compatible" ; while there are obviously differences between the two narratives, there are none that cannot be reconciled (reconciled as in: both be considered truthful descriptions of the same narrative)


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Are OMISSIONS contradictions [legion]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6#p1005966

Ten or Eleven? How many Apostles Witnesses Jesus first group appearance?
viewtopic.php?p=1063528#p1063528

Why did Jesus not write any gospels himself?
viewtopic.php?p=1158277#p1158277

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[POI]

That would depend on what is meant by "compatible" ; while there are obviously differences between the two narratives, there are none that cannot be reconciled (reconciled as in: both be considered truthful descriptions of the same narrative)


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Are OMISSIONS contradictions [legion]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6#p1005966

Ten or Eleven? How many Apostles Witnesses Jesus first group appearance?
viewtopic.php?p=1063528#p1063528

Why did Jesus not write and gospels himself?
viewtopic.php?p=1158277#p1158277

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

The video explains.

[1213]

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.

1) Obviously yes.
2) I don't want to waste my time to watch poor video, so please give one example of not compatible. If you can give one, then I might watch the video. I don't believe you can give even one example.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Gotta agree with the J-Dubs here.

Ain't nobody trying to comb through a video..especially as if we can't post videos ourselves which agrees with our positions, which is that those Gospels are compatible.

If you have specific points/concerns you'd like to debate or discuss, then kindly present your case and we'll address it accordingly.

Or rather, I'll speak for myself; I'll address it accordingly.

[POI]

I don't want to waste my time to watch poor video,

Makes no sense that you can pass judgement upon a video you have not watched.

please give one example of not compatible. If you can give one, then I might watch the video. I don't believe you can give even one example.

1) In Mark 1:41, was Jesus a) angry/annoyed (or) was he instead b) compassionate? You cannot logically be both, as these two traits are simultaneously incompatible. The earlier manuscripts depict Jesus as being angry/annoyed. However, later manuscripts change his character.

Which one is right, a) or b)?

2) Mark 16:6-7 stated a) Jesus went into Galilee to start his 'resurrection tour'. However, Luke 24 instead states b) Jesus's 'resurrection tour' starts in Jerusalem. Which one is it, a) or b)? It cannot be both.

[POI]

Ain't nobody trying to comb through a video..

Interesting... You posted a 2+ hour video here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41715), and offered no direction in post #2. I took the liberty in addressing the first failed point, for which you abandoned. So yes, I combed a much larger video, found flaw. and you immediately aborted.

If you have specific points/concerns you'd like to debate or discuss, then kindly present your case and we'll address it accordingly.

The video presents many differing points to discuss. Rather than getting into the meat and potatoes, we can instead fast-forward, if you wish, to the following....

Do you agree, or disagree, that Luke copies some of Mark, word for word, and changes other stuff, sometimes a lot? If you agree, we can logically chuck Luke out, since we know Mark came first. We can then move on to Mark itself....

[SiNcE_1985]

Interesting... You posted a 2+ hour video here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41715), and offered no direction in post #2. I took the liberty in addressing the first failed point, for which you abandoned. So yes, I combed a much larger video, found flaw. and you immediately aborted.

Yeah, interesting.

First off, the difference between what happened then and what is happening now is...

On that thread^, you were the one asking for the information.

You asked for alleged lies in the text books pertaining to evolution, and I provided a video seminar that is literally based on alleged LIES in the text books.

Then you requested specifics as to which lie, and I simply did/do not feel obligated to provide it for you, nor discuss (no offense).

Now, you've created a thread where you've posted a video of an alleged incompatibility between Mark and Luke...something that did I ask for...but since this is a subject of interest of mines, I'm asking you to provide a brief summary of any alleged incompatibility.

However, if I made a thread asking "Can someone point out any incompatibility between Mark & Luke", and you provided the video, then I would watch it because you are providing me with something that I asked for.

That to me is a big difference.

That aside, I addressed you in post #27 of that thread^.

..............................

Side note: I don't want anyone to think I am being harsh when I said "I do not feel obligated to provide it for you, nor discuss".

Although I do not feel obligated, it isn't meant in a harsh way.

When it comes to certain topics, sometimes, I simply have no desire to discuss it at the time.

For example, as of now, I have no desire to discuss evolution....it is almost as if my desires are based on where the Holy Spirit directs me

But I digress.
...........................

The video presents many differing points to discuss. Rather than getting into the meat and potatoes, we can instead fast-forward, if you wish, to the following....

First off, shout to you for not being stubborn. I will act in kind should a situation like this arise in the future.

Do you agree, or disagree, that Luke copies some of Mark, word for word

I agree, as that is what the evidence suggests. One thing I love about Luke is, the preface.

The preface comes across as genuinely honest, and off-the-cuff.

Luke 1:1-4

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Without even knowing the succeeding subject matter of what Luke will discuss, what information can be drawn from these verses?

Verse 1: There was an event that took place, of which many have taken upon themselves to draw up an account for. There is no exact number for "many", nor does Luke tell us. Luke also doesn't state the method of the account...was it many written accounts, or many oral accounts?

Nevertheless, it was one or the other....and the keyword is "many".

Conclusion: More than one person gave an account of event X.

Verse 2: The source information of event X was handed down, first from eyewitnesses. So, of those whom were the first to witness event X, they transmitted (handed down) the information to others. Also, these eyewitnesses were servants of someone identified as the "word".

Conclusion: The information began with servants eyewitnesses of the "word", and it was spread from these servants and eyewitnesses.

Verse 3: Luke stated that he carefully investigated everything that happened, and just like the "many" mentioned in verse 1, he would also write an orderly account (which may answer the question of which method of transmission was used).

Conclusion: Just like any responsible journalist, Luke did a thorough investigation before he gave an account of the circumstances leading to event X.

Verse 4: Seems like Luke was writing to a new Christian convert (or a potential convert).

Conclusion: Luke is saying, look, I've done the homework, and you can be certain that this new stuff that you were taught, it is the real deal.

So, I said all that to say this; if Luke carefully investigated everything as he said he did, and he used Mark as source material, then he viewed Mark as a reliable source...and so should we, in my opinion.

, and changes other stuff, sometimes a lot? If you agree, we can logically chuck Luke out, since we know Mark came first. We can then move on to Mark itself....

Changed stuff like what?

[POI]

Please re-read the OP. In point 2), I explain that most do not want to read a text wall.

First off, the difference between what happened then and what is happening now is... On that thread^, you were the one asking for the information.

You make repeated claims about how evolution is a lie, in multiple threads, in topics which are not discussing evolution. I told you I was going to create a separate thread about it. I did. I asked you for evidence. You provided a 2+ hour video diatribe. The end. I even went further and addressed the first claim made, from the video. The end, again.

Point? You ask.... Stop mentioning how "evolution is lie", unless you can back it up. Thnx! Otherwise, I will keep referring to this post I created, where you conveniently do not want to engage.

I agree

For context, allow me to post something by Benchwarmer. My position is essentially in red (more or less). Yours would likely jive, more or less, with the first part of option 4).

If the Gospels:

1) Copied each other word for word 100%, then we would clearly know they are just the same original author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing.

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions. We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. These are what we have in the Bible with the synoptic gospels.

3) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts, but had wildly different stories that contradicted. Although we could be fairly certain they were different authors (assuming textual analysis didn't betray them), we would not know which story to believe. This would not lend support to the stories and therefore make them unconvincing. We have some of this in the Bible to a degree with some authors other than the synoptic gospels.

4) Did NOT copy word for word any previous/other accounts and there were only minor details that were different that didn't effect the overall story. This is exactly what we expect to see if we have true separate witness accounts. This WOULD lend support to the stories being true. The more disconnected sources that are generally telling the same story the better. This is NOT what we have with the Bible and the reason we can discount the stories pretty easily. While the Bible provides an interesting look at what people thought at the time, what we have is not very convincing to those not already tied to a faith position.

Changed stuff like what?

When Jesus heals someone in Mark 1:41 vs Luke 24, was he compassionate or irritated?

[1213]

...
1) In Mark 1:41, was Jesus a) angry/annoyed (or) was he instead b) compassionate? You cannot logically be both, as these two traits are simultaneously incompatible. The earlier manuscripts depict Jesus as being angry/annoyed. However, later manuscripts change his character.

Which one is right, a) or b)?

Mark says
Being moved with compassion, he stretched out his hand, and touched him, and said to him, "I want to. Be made clean."
Mark 1:41

That obviously tells Jesus was moved with compassion and doesn't tell he was annoyed. So, did you have something from Luke that says the opposite?

2) Mark 16:6-7 stated a) Jesus went into Galilee to start his 'resurrection tour'. However, Luke 24 instead states b) Jesus's 'resurrection tour' starts in Jerusalem. Which one is it, a) or b)? It cannot be both.

Mark says:
...But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.'"
Mark 16:6-7

Luke says:
1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they and some others came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
3 They entered in, and didn't find the Lord Jesus' body.
4 It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing.
5 Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?
6 He isn't here, but is risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee,
7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?"
8 They remembered his words,
9 returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
11 These words seemed to them to be nonsense, and they didn't believe them.
12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. Stooping and looking in, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he departed to his home, wondering what had happened.
13 Behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was sixty stadia{60 stadia = about 11 kilometers or about 7 miles.} from Jerusalem.
14 They talked with each other about all of these things which had happened.
15 It happened, while they talked and questioned together, that Jesus himself came near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
17 He said to them, "What are you talking about as you walk, and are sad?"
18 One of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who doesn't know the things which have happened there in these days?"
19 He said to them, "What things?" They said to him, "The things concerning Jesus, the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
21 But we were hoping that it was he who would redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.
22 Also, certain women of our company amazed us, having arrived early at the tomb;
23 and when they didn't find his body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
24 Some of us went to the tomb, and found it just like the women had said, but they didn't see him."
25 He said to them, "Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Didn't the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"
27 Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 They drew near to the village, where they were going, and he acted like he would go further.
29 They urged him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is almost evening, and the day is almost over." He went in to stay with them.
30 It happened, that when he had sat down at the table with them, he took the bread and gave thanks. Breaking it, he gave to them.
31 Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished out of their sight.
32 They said one to another, "Weren't our hearts burning within us, while he spoke to us along the way, and while he opened the Scriptures to us?"
33 They rose up that very hour, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them,
34 saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
35 They related the things that happened along the way, and how he was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
36 As they said these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace be to you."
37 But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 While they still didn't believe for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.
43 He took them, and ate in front of them.
44 He said to them, "This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me must be fulfilled."
45 Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures.
46 He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
49 Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father on you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high."
50 He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 It happened, while he blessed them, that he withdrew from them, and was carried up into heaven.
52 They worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
53 and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Luke 24

I don't see Luke sating "Jesus's 'resurrection tour' starts in Jerusalem". Do you have some own version of the Bible?

Maybe you meant the "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem". I don't think it is in any way in conflict with the Mark's "But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.". Mark is not speaking about resurrection tour, nor about how the preaching should start.

And this is why it would be wasting my time to watch the video. I have watched little his videos and one of the most annoying things in it is that he didn't show the scriptures well, only flimsy arguments that are not well grounded. Sad thing is that they may sink well to lazy people who will not question or check anything they hear, especially if the message fits to their biases.