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.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I’m taking one variance at a time, so feel free to bring this back up after we are done talking about chronological variances.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #28]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #29]

We are talking about variances in the gospel accounts. Which gospel claims Jesus didn’t die? Jesus very clearly dies in these narratives and then rises. No mention of this to prove some other miracle event.

If the authors of the time weren't concerned with chronology, why are they giving a very clear chronology? i.e. In this case the author is using the Passover as an anchor point in time and telling the readers where each of the events is based around that. Yet you now are telling us we should ignore this specific chronology because at the time authors weren't terribly concerned with timing/chronology?

I'm not buying it. If they weren't concerned with chronology, then the story would likely be told differently. i.e. perhaps in some order, but not referencing specific dates (the Passover) or giving amounts of time spent.

When presenting something in narrative form, you use chronology. But ancient writers would displace events. Even the same author would place the same event in different places in different writings. Check out Mike Licona’s Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? for a study of other ancient writings of the period and their comparison with the gospel writings.

Essentially, if we can't trust the author to at least be consistent with themselves when placing events according to time markers (like the Passover), then it basically renders the entire story questionable at best. Maybe Jesus was crucified in November, but was later seen with scars in April. If some of the anchored in time events can be moved freely around, then all of them can.

They are consistent with themselves and with their literary culture. They are inconsistent with different literary cultures, which should be expected. Different genres exist and do things differently. It is irrational to think these stories are questionable because you think they should be treated as modern day history.

[oldbadger]

(If Jesus was historic and crucification happened)

I think that Jesus was an historical figure.
But he might not have been crucified at all! The early copies of the gospels told about a 'Jesus son the Father' much loved by the people who led a rebellion in Jerusalem and was then captured, but who was so loved by the people that they stood up for him and his release. There are traditions that he went to Cornwall, England where he founded the fist church, the English even have a favoured hymn about that. And there are Traditions that he went to Kashmir, and also to Gaul.

So not everybody believes in a crucifixion.

[oldbadger]

Yes. And why do you know Jesus was a real person? Because the facts, and evidence is overwhelming.

But you don't have more than claims that he was/is a God.
G-Mark (without the Christian fiddles and edits) seems like a genuine deposition to me.
But there are no FACTS that are certain, only claims.

You seem to have turned a Faith in to a Certitude, or at least tried to.

[oldbadger]

GOOD GRIEF! So then, you are saying Jesus had a poor following, and somehow this poor following was somehow able to make this Jesus the most well-known figure in the history of the world some 2000 years and counting? That's incredible,........

It's all there is the gospel of Mark. Jesus sent his friends out in pairs to build a following up, and they failed, so he prepared to take his mission to Jerusalem where he failed again.

............and I don't care who you are.

I know.

First, you are now admitting we have facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, ...........................................

No. We have evidence that he lived!
And you don't have any FACTS at all, just a Faith.

[oldbadger]

My friend, we have evidence from the Bible itself that most folks spoke more than one language. As an example in Acts 22 we have Paul addressing a crowd of folks, and the account tells us,..........................

Paul was not a Northern Galilean Jewish peasant! He was a Levite Jew!

Now let us consider the fact that most of the NT was written in Greek, and now we have evidence that these folks could more than likely communicate in 3 different languages.

If you think that Galilean peasants could speak Greek then I can't help you.
They spoke Eastern Aramaic, that's a different dialect to Hebrew, and we know that from the gospels!

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

You end up with with nothing,in fact. The 'Facts' as you call them (the contradictions suggest they are tall tales rather than Facts) a quite feasible effort to save Jesus, given that survival after a dew days, never mind a few hours, has been recorded.

As to appeal to the 'success of Christianity' apologetic. That Christianity caught on means that it had great appeal, not that it has to be true. Other religions have caught on and been successful. That does not make them true.

[oldbadger]

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

True. But nowhere is there any record of his including the words and actions of Jesus in his communications. All he needed were the communion, execution and resurrection.

Do you notice here where Paul says, "I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you". This seems to mean.................

....seems to mean???

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.

Yes........ Paul's way of life! It was all about Paul.

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.

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

You don't have any facts! You have a faith!

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.

The church is what Paul was building. And the church introduced its own dogma to suit its needs.

Again, you need to deal with the facts, because Paul deals with exactly what you are saying.

Everything that Paul said and did was after the time of Jesus.

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.

But not Jesus. Paul's Christ had been raised up in to a God.

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.

The gospels came after Paul! And certainly Mark's gospel was trying to put the true account.
I can only think that it survived because it was connected to/with Cephas, who we know stood up to Paul.

[oldbadger]

We are talking about variances in the gospel accounts. Which gospel claims Jesus didn’t die? Jesus very clearly dies in these narratives and then rises. No mention of this to prove some other miracle event.

The gospel of Mark claimed that Jesus just went or was taken from the tomb.
There are a few traditions that he got clear away and survived.

[oldbadger]

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.

You introduced detection and how detectives think!! Don't blame me!
Luke was not a witness......... he never tried to tell Theophilus that he had been!
Matthew was not a witness...... he needed to plagiarize to complete his gospel.
The authors of G-John were not witnesses, even with their wild claims about this.
The author of G-Mark was a partial witness, because he wrote about experiences which on;y the writer could have perceived.