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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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

Yes, well. IF, if one credited a sorta edited weaving together of the Appearances (which nobody but the Blindly Faithful should, once the 'trick has been explained') then Jesus did appear to the disciples, even though nobody was around when the thing happened. Well, it was Sabbath...even though Jesus had taught them the sabbath didn't matter.. and it was night -time, which would be the perfect time to open the tomb without anyone seeing and letting the women do whatever purpose they had in going there. Whatever it was, it could hardly have struck them at the last minute that they couldn't get in.

It's just darn fishy the tomb is open at all and Matthew has one of his dafter inventions to explain why it is all set up like...screenplay...so everything gets explained.

Yes, good ol' swoon theory makes more sense, except Jesus couldn't get out. No, induced swoon is the theory that fits, unplanned swoon doesn't work for me any more than it does for Lane - Craig, though I've thought about it and he hasn't. The crucifixion scenario - if true (and it might not be) not only makes more sense as a plan to save Jesus but only makes sense as a plan to save Jesus. I used to be convinced of that, but Lazarus NOT being true (1) on the best evidence shows that what looks like a plot (e.g a string of faked miracles to impress an assembled mob of supporters) and a deal done with Jesus' admirer Pilate, to save the apologists explaining the odd details (all totally ignored by centuries of Bible experts, so don't talk to me about the opinions of "Bible Scholars") is unintentionally fishy when they made them up....possibly.

Point is that, an induced swoon is better fitting the gospels than Believers ignoring the problems and swearing it's all true when it is all dubious to a high degree,

(1) though it could be explained that everyone but Luke left it out because it looked fishy. But a good story like that wouldn't be left out - they'#d fiddle it like the Temple bust up and anointing at Bethany as John and Luke did. No, regretfully, the best explanation is that John invented it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #0]

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!

I am certainly glad you want to deal with the Gospel of Luke because it happens to be my favorite, and the reason why is the fact that this author identifies his audience, and he also gives the reason for the letters he writes. It seems sort of strange how you do not want to quote the whole passage. You know, like beginning in the next verse he goes on to tell Theophilus,

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, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Well, would you looky there? He tells Theophilus that he had, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" as if he is there to do the investigation. Moreover, as I have already demonstrated we have very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul, which would be even more evidence this author would have been alive, and around the events in order to do such an investigation. And why does he tell Theophilus these things? Well, according to the author it is to give Theophilus certainty. So then, what we have is an author who sits down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, in order for this one individual to have certainty. In other words, this author is saying, I do not want what you have been taught to rest upon simply the teaching. Rather, I want you to understand that I have been on the scene, and I have done careful investigation from the beginning, and your certainty can rest upon knowing that I have indeed done such an investigation.

My friend, this is good stuff. Of course, I am not insisting that what the author says here demonstrates or proves the case, but it certainly is evidence which needs to be explained. You may have an opinion concerning what this evidence means, but I can assure you that you cannot insist that none of this matters, and has no need of explanation. I can also assure you that your scholars certainly understand what all this means, which is why they desperately look for some sort of alternative explanation.

Who are these scholars which you speak of?

That would be the Biblical scholars, who like you are desperately attempting to cast any sort of doubt they can. But here is the thing. I have no problem with those who doubt. My problem comes in with those who doubt, and act as if there would be no reason at all for anyone to believe the accounts, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. Because you see, I am not insisting that it can be demonstrated the accounts are indeed true, but I can also assure you that you, nor any of your scholars can demonstrate the claims to be false. All any of us can do is to examine the facts, and evidence we have, and come to our conclusions based upon the evidence.

And when have I mentioned the document Q?

Are you aware of the document Q?

[Realworldjack]

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.

Honest is what we should all be, and it is being honest to simply stick with the facts we have, and the fact is, although there may be evidence that two of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, this cannot be demonstrated. On the other hand, if one is honest, they would have to admit that it cannot be demonstrated that none of the authors were eyewitnesses.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #0]

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!

I am certainly glad you want to deal with the Gospel of Luke because it happens to be my favorite, and the reason why is the fact that this author identifies his audience, and he also gives the reason for the letters he writes. It seems sort of strange how you do not want to quote the whole passage. You know, like beginning in the next verse he goes on to tell Theophilus,

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, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Well, would you looky there? He tells Theophilus that he had, "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" as if he is there to do the investigation. Moreover, as I have already demonstrated we have very strong evidence this author was a traveling companion of Paul, which would be even more evidence this author would have been alive, and around the events in order to do such an investigation. And why does he tell Theophilus these things? Well, according to the author it is to give Theophilus certainty. So then, what we have is an author who sits down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, in order for this one individual to have certainty. In other words, this author is saying, I do not want what you have been taught to rest upon simply the teaching. Rather, I want you to understand that I have been on the scene, and I have done careful investigation from the beginning, and your certainty can rest upon knowing that I have indeed done such an investigation.

My friend, this is good stuff. Of course, I am not insisting that what the author says here demonstrates or proves the case, but it certainly is evidence which needs to be explained. You may have an opinion concerning what this evidence means, but I can assure you that you cannot insist that none of this matters, and has no need of explanation. I can also assure you that your scholars certainly understand what all this means, which is why they desperately look for some sort of alternative explanation.

Who are these scholars which you speak of?

That would be the Biblical scholars, who like you are desperately attempting to cast any sort of doubt they can. But here is the thing. I have no problem with those who doubt. My problem comes in with those who doubt, and act as if there would be no reason at all for anyone to believe the accounts, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. Because you see, I am not insisting that it can be demonstrated the accounts are indeed true, but I can also assure you that you, nor any of your scholars can demonstrate the claims to be false. All any of us can do is to examine the facts, and evidence we have, and come to our conclusions based upon the evidence.

And when have I mentioned the document Q?

Are you aware of the document Q?

I wouldn't trust Luke (nor Acts) as far as I could kick them. Of course he puts on a show of addressing his gospel (and fantastic bio - novel of Paul) to a Patron, who would probably not thank him for targeting a Christian document at him. But no, I reckon it's an act tor a pose and that 'Theophilus' is not some Greek freedman made a million out of selling Garam, but mere'y means 'Theo -philus; lover of God. In other words, his spoof patron is the Christian reader.

As to careful investigation, we know his sources. The basic synoptic gospels, but not with the material common to Mark and Matthew. He didn't search very far, did he? Like Matthew, he appears to have come across Q document (mainly the Sermon - which he uses in a different way). And he has evidently got sight of Paul's letters, and altered the Synoptic gospel to fit, like changing the angel's message and having Jesus appear to Simon.

He also seems to use Josephus. He borrows Josephus for the death of James by Herod Agrippa and the account of the death of Agrippa, the Owl of death changed to an angel to be more Christian.

I guess that Gamaliel's speech owed much to Josephus, though oddly he seems to get confused about which revolt cane first, Judas or Theudas. I also see evidence of Josephus in the mechanism for Luke's nativity - the census of Quirinus. He wasn't to know it made no sense when applied to Galilee, still under Herodian rule at the time, never mind it was a a decade after Herod's death. I even suspect he had access to a lost history, as he knows about Pilate chopping up Galileans in the Temple. I suspect this is not what Josephus or Philo tells us about Pilate's misdeeds, but that event has been lost, or removed.

Yes, I think I can identify the sources he boasts about. But I suspect he was quite an inventor, too. The memorable parables, missing from any other gospel. He wrote them. The penitent thief; I would bet my left leg that is something he invented, not knowing that it would be contradicted by all the other gospels, though nobody seems to have noticed or cared if they did, right? It can always be waved away as a slip of the memory.

[Realworldjack]

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.

My friend, Josephus says 3 men were taken from the cross while they were still alive, and were taken care of by a physician, and even then two of them died, and yet you somehow want us to believe that Jesus went through the whole of the crucifixion and was able to show Himself to friends later on. Again, I have no problem with what it is you would rather believe. However, the problems for you do not end with this explanation of the resurrection. The rest of the problems begin with how those who followed Jesus were able to continue to proclaim the resurrection in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and they are successful to the point that this event is the most significant event in the history of the world? I can go on to tell you that you are indeed demonstrating that you understand that there are indeed very strong facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, which is why you understand that you must, and have to come up with some sort of alternative explanation, and the fact still remains that all you are doing is to exchange one extraordinary tale, for another.

[POI]

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.

My friend, Josephus says 3 men were taken from the cross while they were still alive, and were taken care of by a physician, and even then two of them died, and yet you somehow want us to believe that Jesus went through the whole of the crucifixion and was able to show Himself to friends later on. Again, I have no problem with what it is you would rather believe. However, the problems for you do not end with this explanation of the resurrection. The rest of the problems begin with how those who followed Jesus were able to continue to proclaim the resurrection in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and they are successful to the point that this event is the most significant event in the history of the world? I can go on to tell you that you are indeed demonstrating that you understand that there are indeed very strong facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, which is why you understand that you must, and have to come up with some sort of alternative explanation, and the fact still remains that all you are doing is to exchange one extraordinary tale, for another.

Thought experiment....

1) Are all 'extraordinary tales' on equal footing? I'm not so sure they are?
2) When an extraordinary tale of this magnitude is placed forward, how many claimed eyewitnesses actually validates the claim in question? Example, there exists many claims to particular haunted houses. And yet, I still do not believe in any actual 'haunted houses.' Am I then unreasonable?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

My friend, Josephus says 3 men were taken from the cross while they were still alive, and were taken care of by a physician, and even then two of them died, and yet you somehow want us to believe that Jesus went through the whole of the crucifixion and was able to show Himself to friends later on. Again, I have no problem with what it is you would rather believe. However, the problems for you do not end with this explanation of the resurrection. The rest of the problems begin with how those who followed Jesus were able to continue to proclaim the resurrection in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it, and they are successful to the point that this event is the most significant event in the history of the world? I can go on to tell you that you are indeed demonstrating that you understand that there are indeed very strong facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, which is why you understand that you must, and have to come up with some sort of alternative explanation, and the fact still remains that all you are doing is to exchange one extraordinary tale, for another.

But as i recall they were up there for 2 days and still one survived. Jesus, the gospel strongly imply wasn't up there long enough to die. He should not have been dead and to put not too fine a point on it, his death had to be made a bit quick to get it over before Saturday evening staryed. In short, he should not have been dead, but it looked like he was. If one credits the account as reliable.

Comments?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #56]

1) Are all 'extraordinary tales' on equal footing? I'm not so sure they are?

I would have no way to know since I have not looked into the evidence concerning every extraordinary tale. However, I really do not believe equal footing would have anything to do with it? Rather, I would think each and every one should be evaluated on the facts and evidence involved.

2) When an extraordinary tale of this magnitude is placed forward, how many claimed eyewitnesses actually validates the claim in question?

A couple of things here. First, I do not believe an extraordinary tale is solely based upon the existence of eyewitness testimony. The fact of the matter is, an event could be true, whether eyewitnesses exist or not. Folks are convicted of crimes, when there was no eyewitnesses, yet the facts and evidence against the defendant is so strong the jury can find them guilty without an eyewitness.

Next, as for me, I am not suggesting the resurrection can be validated. Rather, I am arguing that there are facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, and the fact there are those who attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, sort of demonstrates there are facts, and evidence which need to have an explanation. The problem is, all the alternative explanations I have heard which attempt to explain away the extraordinary, still leave us with the extraordinary, and my mind simply cannot be satisfied with going with what would be the least extraordinary. Let's keep in mind that extraordinary is, out of the ordinary, and any way you look at the events surrounding the resurrection we are dealing with an event which has had the most significant impact the world has ever known, which means no matter how you slice it we are dealing with a most extraordinary tale.

Example, there exists many claims to particular haunted houses. And yet, I still do not believe in any actual 'haunted houses.' Am I then unreasonable?

No, I do not believe this to be unreasonable as long as you stick to simply saying you do not believe. The problem would come in when you go on to insist there are no haunted houses, and there are no reasons to believe in haunted houses. You see, there are any number of things I simply choose not to believe, because I am not really interested in examining the facts and evidence involved and that is not unreasonable because we all do this because we could not possibly investigate every claim. What would be unreasonable is for me to insist that the belief I hold is true and anyone who holds to a different belief concerning this issue has no reason to believe as they do, unless I could validate the position I hold.

So then, as we turn our attention to the resurrection, I am not insisting the resurrection can be validated, nor that those who hold to a different view have no reason to believe as they do. However, I am insisting that those who hold to a different view, who insist I have no reason to believe as I do, who cannot validate the position they hold, are being unreasonable.

With all the above being said, I do not believe those who simply choose not to believe the claims of the resurrection are being unreasonable, because I understand we all simply choose to not believe certain claims simply because we are not interested enough to investigate the claims. Next, I am not suggesting that those who may have investigated the claims, and have come to a different conclusion than I have, have no reason to believe as they do. However, and again, I am insisting that those who simply choose not to believe, along with those who have investigated the claims and come to a different conclusion than I have, who go on to insist that I have no reason to believe as I do, who cannot validate the position they hold, are being unreasonable.

[POI]

I would have no way to know since I have not looked into the evidence concerning every extraordinary tale. However, I really do not believe equal footing would have anything to do with it? Rather, I would think each and every one should be evaluated on the facts and evidence involved.

Allow me to ask in a differing way. Is it, or is not, fair to say that any stated and/or given natural explanation is still less 'extraordinary' than any stated and/or given supernatural explanation? Shouldn't a supernatural conclusion be the absolute last resort, when gathering data? And IF so, have ANY/ALL plausible natural explanations been logically and/or rationally completely ruled out? Or is investigating all possible natural explanations even possible?

A couple of things here. First, I do not believe an extraordinary tale is solely based upon the existence of eyewitness testimony. The fact of the matter is, an event could be true, whether eyewitnesses exist or not. Folks are convicted of crimes, when there was no eyewitnesses, yet the facts and evidence against the defendant is so strong the jury can find them guilty without an eyewitness.

True, but the ancient tale told here in the NT relied upon 'eyewitnesses' for part of it's veracity. Hence, I ask, since none of us were there, how many validated eyewitnesses makes for a believable tale such as this one?

Next, as for me, I am not suggesting the resurrection can be validated.

Noted. Does this mean this claim requires some level of faith/trust? And if so, how much, and why should we apply these attributes here?

Rather, I am arguing that there are facts, and evidence in support of the resurrection, and the fact there are those who attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, sort of demonstrates there are facts, and evidence which need to have an explanation.

I'm not sure I'd go this far. Maybe an execution, leading to death, but maybe not much further than that really. The problem is we are to trust "the church", and I find these source(s) being possibly corrupted. Hence, for myself, the starting point, or the source(s), appears flawed. This explains, in a small part, why all the stories do not line up, as the OP topic suggests. Each story looks to have specific motivations.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57]

Sure! I'll give a comment. If this tale is indeed true it is quite an extraordinary tale. You have 3 folks who are taken down from the cross who are all attended to with great care by a physician, two of them go on to die, while one survives, and this is given as a way to attempt to explain away the resurrection accounts of Jesus. Well, I guess this could be a possibility in that Jesus was indeed crucified, survived the crucifixion, and then was later well enough to show himself to His followers.

The first thing I will point out is the fact that this sort of demonstrates those who understand there is enough evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, that they understand that they must, and have to come up with some sort of alternative explanation of the facts we have, no matter how extraordinary, in order to explain away the facts, and evidence we have.

Next, this would only be the beginning, because no matter the explanation given, we are dealing with an event which has had the most significant impact the world has ever known. This would mean, the most significant impact upon the history of the world, hinges upon the idea that a man survived Roman crucifixion, to go on to walk around to present himself to those who thought he was dead, and these folks who thought he was dead, go on to continue to proclaim he was alive, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put this sort of thing down, and not only could they not put it down right then and there, this hoax goes on to have the most significant impact the world has ever known.

The point I am making is, no matter how you slice it, you end up with an extraordinary tale, which has had the most significant impact the world has ever known.