Are the four gospels consistent ?

[polonius]

There are four gospels supposedly named after their authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

They are supposed to have been dictated by God. Do they contain any contradictions? If so, does this show that God contradicts himself?

[Difflugia]

As for what I am asserting regarding the passages in question if you are not sure you have but to ask.

What are you asserting?

[JehovahsWitness]

As for what I am asserting regarding the passages in question if you are not sure you have but to ask.

What are you asserting?

I am asserting that there is no contradiction between the events described at Matthew 4 and Luke 4.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

For details please see post # 32
viewtopic.php?p=1016583#p1016583

RELATED POSTS

Are the conjunctions in the text describing the temptations of Christ contradictory?
viewtopic.php?p=1016643#p1016643

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

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[Difflugia]

As for what I am asserting regarding the passages in question if you are not sure you have but to ask.

What are you asserting?

I am asserting that there is not contradiction between the events described at Matthew 4 and Luke 4.

Well, that clears it right up.

Let's try this a different way. I have absolutely no idea what distinction you're trying to make between "order" and "chronological order" or how "then" is supposed to imply one but not the other. How about you just straight up tell us what you think happened such that both descriptions are accurate, instead of making us guess what you mean and then telling us we don't get it?

[JehovahsWitness]

NOTE: "WHICH CAME FIRST: A Word on Sequencing"

Many critiques are rather liberal with the word "first"; it should be noted that this expression is rarely employed in the gospel descriptions of events and even when it is, is not necessarily used in an absolute sense. More often than not, it is not possible to give a definitive answer as to the chronological order of events although an appraisal of all four gospels can provide a probable sequence. It's reported, for example, that Jesus appeared on multiple occassions over a period of over a month to many different individuals after his resurrecton and few of the writers explicitly state nothing happened PRIOR (or FOLLOWING) or state the date and time of events, thus questions as to which event came "first" are largely redundant.

ORDER: The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

CHRONOLOGICAL : of, relating to, or arranged in or according to the order of time
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... onological

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER: If things are described or shown in chronological order, they are described or shown in the order in which they happened
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... onological

RELATED POSTS

HOW MANY : Does the bible contain "numerical contradictions"?
viewtopic.php?p=1016246#p1016246

What are copyist errors ?
viewtopic.php?p=1058539#p1058539

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

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives



¤ Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

[brunumb]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #44]

How about you just straight up tell us what you think happened such that both descriptions are accurate, instead of making us guess what you mean and then telling us we don't get it?

Seconded.

[Difflugia]

I'm sure some people do, but I personally do not do so and neither does anything published by the Watchtower Society. If you are accusing me of departing from the accepted meaning of any word you have but to explain what said departure is with the direct quote included if you be so kind . If you claim either writer states his account is presented in chronological order then you have but to point out that affirmation in the text. If you believe that any of the conjunctions in the text imposes the aforementioned conclusion you have but to present a case.

Otherwise your assumptions have been duly noted. Have a most excellent evening,


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

It looks like you pasted an extra "[quote=TRANSPONDER post_id=1058763 time=1638949656 user_id=15510]" in there and then saved it by mistake. Since you otherwise spend a lot of effort revising and editing your old posts, I'm assuming that's important to you and you may want to re-revise it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. That doesn't look like a post of mine that JW is quoting. But I'd propose letting it drop.

I noticed the familiar problem - how many angels, which the apologists can easily get over with "If there were two, there was one". Even pointing out that they were in different places, witness error can be cited and even if it is argued that God wasn't proofreading, the accounts are broadly correct. This is why I point up 'the biggies'.

A number of those are big things that one source mentions and the others (inexplicably) don't. Not in chronological order but in significance, no transfiguration in John. No murder attempt other than in Luke. No penitent thief other than in Luke. No tomb -guard other than in Matthew. No Temple - cleansing in John.

These are significant because the same times are covered and why these significant events are omitted is inexplicable - other than a basic story elaborated and edited independently and diverging. And diverging in ways that does significantly affect the 'core doctrines', as apologists put it.

The principle established, others go down the tube. The nativities, the angelic message at the tomb, the omission of the memorable parables in Luke, and any parables in John. Multiple contradictions in the resurrection and the lack of any Sanhedrin trial in John. from any other gospel

The significance of secondary discrepancies made to stand up, even more problems look less easy to dismiss. No spear thrust in the synoptics, No sermon in either Mark or John, the contradictory deaths of Judas, no appearance before Antipas other than in Luke. The differing 'Last words', and so the pretty much established 'all put together' looks more doubtful when so many contradictions have stood up against attempts to explain them ( I can promise you that Dead Silence has been the usual apologist resort). There are many, many more and even the different number of angels or what the grave cloths were like become less easily explainable when unsafe testimony has become established.

And finally we get the Other explanation. The test case being Luke altering the angelic message because the disciples should not go to Galilee as per Matthew. The lack of a sinking Simon other than in Matthew, though John has something similar after the resurrection and Luke has something similar at the calling of disciples, those also being linked with the 'draft of fishes'. Similarly, the man carrying his bed in in Galilee in the synoptics but Jerusalem in John. The suspicion is that we have miracle stories used in different places in the various gospels, and these cannot be eyewitness. Inescapable conclusion, even if Matthew's two donkeys din't make that pretty clear..