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.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #140]

The Gospels are not trustworthy, so your "points" are moot. We have no original preserved copies to boot.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #140]

The Gospels are not trustworthy, so your "points" are moot. We have no original preserved copies to boot.

1. We do not have any original preserved copies of the Gospels.

2. Therefore, the Gospel's are not trustworthy.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Your logic is faulty, is what I am trying to to say.

And based on the fact that we don't have ANY original preserved copy of ANY ancient writing of antiquity, your point is moot and thank goodness historians dont judge the validity of ancient writings on whether they is the original copies.

Otherwise, there would be no history to judge.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #140]

The Gospels are not trustworthy, so your "points" are moot. We have no original preserved copies to boot.

1. We do not have any original preserved copies of the Gospels.

2. Therefore, the Gospel's are not trustworthy.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Your logic is faulty, is what I am trying to to say.

And based on the fact that we don't have ANY original preserved copy of ANY ancient writing of antiquity, your point is moot and thank goodness historians dont judge the validity of ancient writings on whether they is the original copies.

Otherwise, there would be no history to judge.

Nice strawman. You missed the part "to boot". Which means "also" in this context. You also left out some stuff:

1. We do not have any original preserved copies of the Gospels.
2. The ones we do have demonstrate a lot of conflict.
3. The earlier copies have more conflict than the later copies.
4. Irreconcilable differences also exist between differing accounts,
5, Therefore, the Gospel's are not trustworthy.

So, though the Gospels might still be enough to verify the existence of such a said human, if ALL we have are the Gospels to confirm what he really did or did not actually do, we are up a creek without a paddle.

[oldbadger]

What 'best evidence' showed that John BarZebedee wrote G-John before 70AD?

............Let's deal with the dating of the book(s) first.

No! Please just focus on G-John!
Mangling all the gospels and letters together just makes a messy, confusing jumble, which I expect is what you need in order to hide from just answering the one straight question as asked above.
Most researchers date John' gospel to between 90 & 110 AD, so please put your case for a pre70AD G-John.

[SiNcE_1985]

No! Please just focus on G-John!
Mangling all the gospels and letters together just makes a messy, confusing jumble, which I expect is what you need in order to hide from just answering the one straight question as asked above.

First off, had you taken time to actually, not only read what I said, but also comprehend what I said...

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are capable of comprehending; you just didn't read it.

And the same thing applies to POI, because his response was much too quick and not nearly comprehensive enough for him to have taken the time to read and address what I said.

Which is a pity, because I feel as if I wasted my TIME with it.

That aside, had you actually read it, you would see that I quoted both you and POI..he wanted to know about the case made for the dating of all four Gospels...while you wanted to focus only on John.

That wasn't a problem for me and I covered BOTH of your questions, as the same argument is/can be used for all four Gospels.

So, your question was addressed and unless I see something from you addressing my case for John (which is in the post), my argument stands.

Most researchers date John' gospel to between 90 & 110 AD, so please put your case for a pre70AD G-John.

Again, this was addressed...so you are basically confirming the fact that you did not read what I said.

So, I wasted my time...and it won't happen again.

[SiNcE_1985]

Nice strawman. You missed the part "to boot". Which means "also" in this context. You also left out some stuff:

Oh, I wasn't aware of that..and in fact, I'm still not.

1. We do not have any original preserved copies of the Gospels.

Neither do we of any other piece of ancient literature, most of which are still viewed as authentic by scholars.

So, to accept those others while dismissing the Gospels when/if the same thing applies to all, is the taxi cab fallacy.

2. The ones we do have demonstrate a lot of conflict.

To you, they do.

To us, they don't.

3. The earlier copies have more conflict than the later copies.

How so? Are you comparing earlier copies to other copies of the same time period?

I'm curious as to how you can demonstrate this.

4. Irreconcilable differences also exist between differing accounts

Such as?

5, Therefore, the Gospel's are not trustworthy.

Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.

So, though the Gospels might still be enough to verify the existence of such a said human, if ALL we have are the Gospels to confirm what he really did or did not actually do, we are up a creek without a paddle.

Accepting Jesus "the man", but not accepting Jesus "the risen Messiah" is the taxicab fallacy.

All of the information is from the same source material so to accept one and not the other is a selective bias.

[POI]

1985 Oh, I wasn't aware of that..and in fact, I'm still not.

POI That's too bad for you. You based a strawman argument on an "on top of all that" statement. Which means I don't even need to mention it to discredit the claim. But it's just a cherry on the whip cream. In no particular order, I only listed some of the reasons I state the 4 Gospels are B.S.

1985 Neither do we of any other piece of ancient literature, most of which are still viewed as authentic by scholars. So, to accept those others while dismissing the Gospels when/if the same thing applies to all, is the taxi cab fallacy.

POI My turn... Please stop with the strawman. See my response above.

1985 To us, they don't.

POI Yes, and I already started to explain why in another response. And I will be happy to elaborate upon them if you care to know.

1985 Are you comparing earlier copies to other copies of the same time period?

POI Yes

1985 Such as?

POI Watch the video. And I will then evaluate the "critical thinking" vs. the spin. It's not really much different than politics.

1985 Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.

POI You would have to demonstrate that the accounts are not irreconcilable. Good luck

1985 Accepting Jesus "the man", but not accepting Jesus "the risen Messiah" is the taxicab fallacy.

POI Then I guess Alexander the Great was really the son of Zeus too. Or Muhammad really did fly to Heaven on a winged horse.

1985 All of the information is from the same source material so to accept one and not the other is a selective bias.

POI Negative. I can accept that Alexander was in war, and died of fever, while still rejecting the claim he had extraordinary powers.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems the taxicab fallacy tries to excuse Gospel contradictions as excusabl;e. My argument (which I commend to others) is that the "Biggies" are not. The bext explanation is that nobody else knew of them. The excuses have been tried, but the better explanation is that someone made them up.

Notably, the messianic announcement in the Nazareth synagogue. Only in Luke

the miraculous haul of fish at the calling of disciples; only in Luke - but in John after the resurrection and in Matthew as a sort of parable - explanation: a story the writers picked up and used in different ways, not eyewitness.
.

No transfiguration in John (I like that one ) No raising of lazarus in anyone BUT John. How could the synoptics not have known unless John made it up?

Penitent thief only in Luke and in John the women do not know what happened to Jesus. No angel or message. The synoptics not only have an angel or two explaining everything but Matthew has the women actually meeting Jesus. Not to mention Luke altering the whole story because the disciples should not go to Galilee but stay in Jerusalem, see the ascension (not mentioned by anyone else) and found the church.

This is just the start. When we know that the contradictions mean making stuff up, all the rest goes down the tube. Nativities, sermons, death of Judas...

And yeah...let's have it again.



You cannot escape. The shadow of truth moves despite the dark of denial.
You cannot escape it.

[SiNcE_1985]

POI That's too bad for you. You based a strawman argument on an "on top of all that" statement. Which means I don't even need to mention it to discredit the claim. But it's just a cherry on the whip cream. In no particular order, I only listed some of the reasons I state the 4 Gospels are B.S.

?

More confusion than clarification.

Moving on.

POI My turn... Please stop with the strawman. See my response above.

I did, and I'm standing by my allegation of you committing the taxicab fallacy.

Either every other piece of ancient literature gets dinged for not being an original, or no piece gets dinged.

Everything gets held to the same standard of scrutiny, or none at all.

We are gonna play ball fair while I'm here, fellas.

POI Yes, and I already started to explain why in another response. And I will be happy to elaborate upon them if you care to know.

I don't recall.

POI Yes

Then all we need to do is stick to the earliest sources, of all early sources.

POI Watch the video. And I will then evaluate the "critical thinking" vs. the spin. It's not really much different than politics.

Videos are pointless..because I can just as easily post a video supporting my side of things.

POI You would have to demonstrate that the accounts are not irreconcilable. Good luck

I can.

POI Then I guess Alexander the Great was really the son of Zeus too. Or Muhammad really did fly to Heaven on a winged horse.

Well, according to you..all we need is the original preserved copies of the stories...and we will be golden from there.

POI Negative. I can accept that Alexander was in war, and died of fever, while still rejecting the claim he had extraordinary powers.

Sure, despite the fact that..

We have no original preserved copies of Alexander the Greats life...which was a ding on the Gospels yet is accepted with AtG.

Taxicab fallacy.

[SiNcE_1985]

It seems the taxicab fallacy tries to excuse Gospel contradictions as excusabl;e. My argument (which I commend to others) is that the "Biggies" are not. The bext explanation is that nobody else knew of them. The excuses have been tried, but the better explanation is that someone made them up.

No amount of sense appears to be made here.

Notably, the messianic announcement in the Nazareth synagogue. Only in Luke

the miraculous haul of fish at the calling of disciples; only in Luke - but in John after the resurrection and in Matthew as a sort of parable - explanation: a story the writers picked up and used in different ways, not eyewitness.
.
No transfiguration in John (I like that one ) No raising of lazarus in anyone BUT John. How could the synoptics not have known unless John made it up?

This is laughable. So let me see if I get this straight..

The synoptics gets dinged for being too similar, as the same stories are told in all 3.

Yet..

John gets dinged for being different than the 3 that are already dinged for being too similar?

Hahahahahaha.

Penitent thief only in Luke

The penitent thief? Ohh, that.

In Luke, correct?

That story is told in one of the other 10 chapters of Luke that Mark did not share with us.

and in John the women do not know what happened to Jesus. No angel or message.

Elaborate.

The synoptics not only have an angel or two explaining everything but Matthew has the women actually meeting Jesus.

Elaborate.

Not to mention Luke altering the whole story because the disciples should not go to Galilee but stay in Jerusalem, see the ascension (not mentioned by anyone else) and found the church.

Again..

1. Dinged for being too similar.

2. Dinged for being too different.

Pick a side..can't have it both ways.

So pick which battlefield I need to meet you on.

This is just the start. When we know that the contradictions mean making stuff up, all the rest goes down the tube. Nativities, sermons, death of Judas...

And yeah...let's have it again.



You cannot escape. The shadow of truth moves despite the dark of denial.
You cannot escape it.

Escape it? I'm just getting warmed up.