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]

1985 Ok, so I will trade your blank, empty assertion with one of my own. The Gospels are trustworthy.

POI You are almost there. Yes, address why skeptics believe the 4 Gospels are not trustworthy. Don't instead only attack the 'cherry also on top of the whip cream', unless that's all you've got?

1985 Which is a good thing. The more copies you have, the larger the sample size you have to date the material and adequately piece together what was originally written.

POI You have missed my point here. The earlier copies demonstrate more deviation between them than the later copies. Once the Bible was official, we then only have later scribing errors. (The church) had already doctored them up by this point. As the video suggests, "Luke" was written to attain membership of the Romans. Rome was still the primary influencer, so they needed a Gospel to get them on board, as a theocracy was still very much a thing. The later copying errors exist merely because we did not yet have a printing press, until the 1500's. "Luke's" deviation from "Mark" had already been completed. It deviates too much so from Mark. The later deviations were merely scribal errors, due to copying mistakes. As mentioned prior, also see benchwarmer's response from post 131 (i.e.):

to summarize:

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.

1985 I recall asking you a question about your belief in Christianity.. pertaining to whether you believed that history supports Jesus' followers belief in his resurrection. It corresponds to what you are willing to accept within the given story and will nip this selective cherry picking in the bud.

POI No. You asked if I believed he exists. Not only do I believe he existed, but that he probably was a homeless preacher and worked as a carpenter. I don't see what the authors would have to gain in fabricating this part alone? However, I doubt some of the parts of his told death and also the parts pertaining to his 'supernatural' abilities. These parts are required to fit a told prophetic narrative from the OT. As I stated to you, and others, the writings suggest there probably was a man who did some of this and that? However, there is nothing lost for me if he did not exist in reality, just like with AtG or Muhammad. However, since the stories do not align, they are not very trustworthy, as benchwarmer also explained in post 131. The rest is all questionable, for differing reasons, as the 'facts' differ widely, per Gospel. So, you can stop with the 'taxi cab' bit now.

1985 If all the the authors of the Gospels said something along the lines of.. "I, Matthew, saw the risen Jesus". "I, John, saw the risen Jesus"
and so on.. Basically, they are giving you what you are claiming we don't currently have; direct eyewitness testimony of seeing the risen Jesus.

POI My point being that we do not know WHO wrote the Gospels. Hence, we have no starting point. At least with Saul of Tarsus, we do. We can discern, because we know a little about him, that he probably really did feel he had a vision, and proselytized his cause. But, he never saw the resurrection tour, did he... Further, we then ask why Jesus's messages and advice to Paul differs from the Gospels? Hmm?

1985 Would you become a Christian?

POI The entire point of this topic is to merely demonstrate that the 4 Gospels vary a lot. Nothing more. You ask this question a lot. I myself have threads which touch upon what you are asking. Heck, you are already addressing one of them.

1985 So back to my original point...damned if they do, damned if they don't. It doesn't matter what we have, if people are hell-bent on disbelieving anyway.

POI Being skeptical of a perpetually asserted 'invisible agency' does not hinge upon whether or not the Gospels are consistent. This topic instead demonstrates that the Gospel writers were likely deceptive. See the 15-minute video for details. This is a topic worthy of debate. Why DO the Gospels vary SO much?

1985 We've just established that we have copies upon copies..which means that stuff that was added or molested can be exposed, which is why most Bibles are heavily footnoted throughout with things like "verses 14-15 are not in the earliest manuscripts", with prime example being Mark 16:9-20.

POI Yes, for the ones not missing, lost, or destroyed, the church does have to "explain".

1985 Genetic fallacy.

POI Not in this case. We know the church canonized the Gospels. We also know there exists irreconcilable differences between the 4 Gospels in which the church is responsible for canonizing. So, yea, consider the source. And yes, sure, even a liar can state something that is true from time to time. But in this case, it is the status quo... It is the norm, not the exception. If I want unbiased reporting's about all true acts of Muhammad, Jesus, Xenu, or other, would I ask the same individuals who's goal it is to convert me? Sure, FOX and MSNBC report some objective factual stuff too. Maybe just like the Bible. Maybe Jesus was born, preached, sentenced to blasphemy, and hung on a cross? Seems reasonable enough and also mundane in and of itself, that some/all of these events are maybe true? But, if these things are also false, it is really no skin off of my butt either. But, we also know the Gospel writers are also set upon assuring a 'prophecy' has been fulfilled. And here is where we start to see irreconcilable differences.

1985 For example, the videos that you guys have been sharing on here...I can discount and disregard them as being biased against Christianity...but that doesn't stop you from using them as a source, does it.

POI I see your point, but, there's a huge difference here. I've read the Bible. I continue to read it now. You have not watched the video. Hence, you have no grounds to critique what may or may not actually be incorrect. I still watch legacy news from time to time, but my B.S. detector remains on higher alert when doing so

[TRANSPONDER]

Our pal seems to miss the point. Sure the Bible may be written by people with a bias to make their case, and so are atheist videos, but Bias is not a reason to dismiss the Bible or video but a reason to considert the validity of their content.

That is what Bible criticism does and it fails because it is wrong, contradictory and bad advice, asoften as not.

I think we already did the one about copying vs.eyewitness. The clues of repeated blocks of wording argues that the synoptics are copied from an original Gospel document (now lost) which was a bit like Mark (no nativity, no resurrection appearance of Jesus) but no material shared with matthew and of course none of marks additions and edits. They are copied, but of course we can see what was added or changed. This is not difficult.

As to John, clearly, there is no question of copying the synoptic original, but the basic story is there but a VERY basic one. I was somewhat astonished to find that John has NONE of the Galilee material but fromarrival in Capernaum (having left Nazareth) he gets right on with the loaves and fishes and everything in Galilee is left out - except the palsied man, but in John, that story isn'tin Galilee with the man let down through the roof, but it is in Jerusalem by the pool of Siloam.

That is where concocted the idea of the 'floating story' - Christian miracle -claims that could adapted into the gospels in totally different ways, which is of course what Matthew and Luke did with "Q" - the sermon material, mostly. Which it shows by Luke's only being half the sermon.

Other Floating stories could be the miracle draft of fish which turns up in three different places and contexts, perhaps the blind man, placed in Jericho in the synoptic and in Jerusalem in John, the dead man raised to life, (Son of Nain in Luke, Lazarus in John) Jesus appearing to the disciples Sunday night, the healing at a distance in Cana in John but in Capernaum in the synoptics. And just possibly the walking on water, in John but also in the gospel used by Matthew and mark but not Luke, which might explain why there is no walking on water in Luke.

[SiNcE_1985]

Not (reasonably) if they are the same story and they contradict. Not unless one can come up with a valid explanation, and you have failed to do so.

That is nonsense.

When you read both accounts it is clear that both criminals started off ridiculing Jesus, but one later repented.

That is a valid response, whether you accept it or not.

Even if the invented explanations were adequate, other examples of persistent contradictions when all should have learned the facts by the time the gospels were (supposedly) written makesreal contradictions (inventions and alterations) the go -to hypothesis and the excuses....just excuses.

You set'em up, I'll knock'em down.

Well you have attempted to answer with some stock invented excuses, but looks to me like you are dismissing, ignoring and deny them without addressing them, which is pretty much what Bible - apologists do when theyr evasions, excuses and inventions fail.

Oh, please.

No attempt appears to be made by you to answer my point which ought o be understandable to anyone who can read and has two braincells to bang together. Simply the later information from converted Roman soldiers or (e.g) Temple guards explaining what they said to the High priests about the angel opening the tomb (all of which is invented excuses), should have become known to all, and so does not explain why it was not all recorded in Mark and Matthew, which
en they should have heard the story during the scriptural talks we hear of in Acts.

1. X was not recorded in Mark or Matthew.

2. Therefore, Mark or Matthew did not know about X.

Illogical reasoning.

And not only that, even if they didn't know, that doesn't take away from Luke's knowledge.

You: Hey Luke, Mark or Matthew didn't know about or record X, Y, Z.

Luke: So what? What does that have to do with me?

I love that bit of (not untypical) bit of Bible apologetics trickery.

Taking a flawed bit of logic (assuming the updates are true, which is a faithclaim and ignores the evidence), cast sit as though it was a logical proposition.

Yeah, just like you assume that the updates are false.

here's similar false one.

Anyone who claims what is wrong is true is a liar
Christians claim the Bible is true when it isn't
therefore Christians are liars.

Yeah, sure.

Go with that.

Simple enough. I don't believe that you are dumb, I think you are smart enough, so only blind denial can account for your refusal to address the point.

I am prepared to address anything I can understand.

Based on the text -evidence, that is a more probable explanation than 'they didn'tknow' plus the contraqdictory 'a convert told them everything' later on. Either theh all knew the big events and so should have written them or they didn't in which case how do they know minor or secret details,like what Jesus prayed while they were asleep? You cannot have it both ways. Not honestly.

They wrote what they wrote.

Luke is not a person to buy a used car from. Apart from his very dubious pretence of dedicating his books to a Roman patron,we can pretty much see the sourses he used.The synoptics, "Q",Paul and Josephus. The rest he altered, fiddled and made up.

A list of inventions
Announcement in the synagogue in Nazareth.
Miraculous draft of fish at the calling of disciples.
Antipas involved in the trial

Yup. He just made it all up.

Mark DOES mention the thieves reviling Jesus but nothing about one rebuking the other. Supposed chapters that mark didn't write does not address discrepancies in what he did write.

Avalid question when the event is too big, public and memorable to be excused by 'everyone else missed it'. Denialist, blinkered dismissal of unwelcome evidence on your part.

Well, the big, memorable part he did mention..

"He is risen".

That is the part he didn't miss.

Actually, it is the most important part and Christians owe our faith to that part.

Luke has been caught fiddling before. The angelic message is altered by him. Plainly altered; undeniably altered. Yet I can't recall a single Bible - apologist that even acknowledged that, never mind addressed it.

Luke has simply provided an account according to his investigation.

No one altered anything.

You are just denying. In Mark and Matthew the angel says Jesus has gone to Galilee, and the disciples would see him there (which in Matthew is just what happens). But in Luke it is altered to what Jesus said in Galilee, and the disciples stay in Jerusalem, which Luke knows because he has read Paul's letters.

It is not a different version of the same message but an alteration to convey a different message altogether. Shall I post it or do you even have a Bible to look at for yourself?I'm sure our readers do and they will see who is telling what the bible says and who is in denial about it.

Nonsense.

Luke does not record the angel telling the women where the disciples are to meet Jesus.

It clearly states in Luke that Jesus appeared to the "Eleven" in Jerusalem, but it does not state how many members of the Eleven were present during that appearance...the Eleven (minus Judas) was apparently a name given to Jesus' disciples as a collective unit, but the "Eleven" doesn't necessarily have to include all 11 at any given time.

In the same way I can say I went to a Lakers game and took a picture with the team, even though every single member of the team does not have to be present in the picture for the statement to be true.

It doesn't seem as if Peter was present during Jesus' Jerusalem appearance, considering Luke 24:33-34...

"...it is true, the Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon".

That doesn't strike me as a statement that would be made Peter was present.

But it does strike me as a statement that would be made if Jesus appeared to Peter first (and alone, which corroborates Paul in 1Cor 15:5)...also considering the fact that Jesus' appearance to Peter isn't even mentioned in Luke, which leaves the reader to ask himself "Wait, when did this happen?"
....

So, what seems to have happened was, after Jesus' crucifixion and burial, the disciples (for whatever reason) were scattered/split during the chaos and grief.

There was a group that involved Peter and John, and there was another group that involved some other disciples.

Jesus told the women to tell Peter and John's group to go to Galilee, which is what they did.

The Galilee group was a different group than the Jerusalem group, which is why the story reads different.

Different group, different locations, different events.

The "contradiction" occurs when it is assumed that the same group was present during both Galilee/Jerusalem encounters...and it would be, if the assumption was true.

But, it isn't.

It is par for the course for Bible apologetics to dismiss pretty serious contradictions in this way - by brushing them off as unimportant. The residue is (to anyone with an open mind) the Bible scholars have been ignoring concealing and denying strong evidence that the Gospels are not eyewitness, not reliable and and not coherent. The antics of Bible - apologists are clearly excusing, denying and dismissing this unwelcome evidence.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even mentioned the Decapolis material "Q" material and the Holy Week cover -up. The gospels are full of contradiction all the way through.

Again, you set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

[SiNcE_1985]

POI You are almost there. Yes, address why skeptics believe the 4 Gospels are not trustworthy. Don't instead only attack the 'cherry also on top of the whip cream', unless that's all you've got?

I've been addressing this throughout our entire discourse.

POI You have missed my point here. The earlier copies demonstrate more deviation between them than the later copies.

No matter how far you go back..all traditional oral accounts, and all traditional written accounts; as it pertains to the Gospels, are certainly clear...

1. Jesus lived, died, was buried.

2. Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by his followers.

3. Jesus' followers believed that not only had he'd resurrected from the dead, but that had seen him.

No deviation from the earlier accounts there.

Once the Bible was official, we then only have later scribing errors. (The church) had already doctored them up by this point.

The Bible we have now are from the earliest sources...any doctored up books/versions can be identified as such.

As the video suggests, "Luke" was written to attain membership of the Romans. Rome was still the primary influencer, so they needed a Gospel to get them on board, as a theocracy was still very much a thing.

Genetic fallacy.

It doesn't matter why X was written. The only thing that matters is whether X is true.

Luke's inspiration for writing X has no bearing on its true value.

The later copying errors exist merely because we did not yet have a printing press, until the 1500's. "Luke's" deviation from "Mark" had already been completed. It deviates too much so from Mark. The later deviations were merely scribal errors, due to copying mistakes. As mentioned prior, also see benchwarmer's response from post 131 (i.e.):

A deviation in itself does not entail..

1. A deceptive alteration.

2. A mistake.

3. A contradiction.

You need more than that, amigo.

to summarize:

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.

Yeah, so...damned if they do..

2) Copied some of it word for word, but changed certain details that create contradictions.

Begging the question.

This assumes that there are contradictions in the first place, which has yet to be proven.

We would have a high degree of certainty they originate from a single source author, not separate people.

That is what you say.

But that is not what the early Church fathers say.

They were much closer to the events in question than skeptics who typing on Internet forums some 2,000 years later.

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.

Unconvincing to unbelievers.

Convincing to believers.

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.[/i]

Well, again..we (believers) are convinced.

None of the differences effect the overall story, or the Gospels.

As I said previously..

1. If the differences are what makes the entire thing invalid.

2. Then the similarities should make the entire thing valid.

It is clear which side both of us are on.

POI No. You asked if I believed he exists.

Oh, is that what it was?

Either way, it is a shame a simple question took that long to answer..yet you are practically begging for your question(s) to be answered in the other thread.

Not only do I believe he existed, but that he probably was a homeless preacher and worked as a carpenter. I don't see what the authors would have to gain in fabricating this part alone?

However, I doubt some of the parts of his told death and also the parts pertaining to his 'supernatural' abilities.

I ask again, do you believe history supports his close followers believing that they saw his resurrected body?

Yes or no?

These parts are required to fit a told prophetic narrative from the OT. As I stated to you, and others, the writings suggest there probably was a man who did some of this and that?

However, there is nothing lost for me if he did not exist in reality, just like with AtG or Muhammad. However, since the stories do not align, they are not very trustworthy, as benchwarmer also explained in post 131. The rest is all questionable, for differing reasons, as the 'facts' differ widely, per Gospel. So, you can stop with the 'taxi cab' bit now.

If the stories aligned to your specifications, would you be a Bible believing, God-fearing, Christ-worshipping Christian?

Probably not.

So, since it is obvious that you cannot please people who are hell-bent on unbelief..then the Bible simply unapologetically says what it says..and either you believe it, or you don't.

POI My point being that we do not know WHO wrote the Gospels.

Um, I said "if".

You were given a hypothetical that you blatantly dodged for the very reason I mentioned above.

Regardless of what was written or how it was said, nothing is good enough for the skeptic.

Hence, we have no starting point.

Yes we do.

Starting point: Genesis 1:1

Then work your way up from there.

At least with Saul of Tarsus, we do. We can discern, because we know a little about him, that he probably really did feel he had a vision, and proselytized his cause. But, he never saw the resurrection tour, did he...

He said he saw Jesus.

Further, we then ask why Jesus's messages and advice to Paul differs from the Gospels? Hmm?

Did Paul preach anything contrary to what Jesus preached?

POI The entire point of this topic is to merely demonstrate that the 4 Gospels vary a lot. Nothing more. You ask this question a lot. I myself have threads which touch upon what you are asking. Heck, you are already addressing one of them.

So basically, the answer is no.

Gotcha.

POI Being skeptical of a perpetually asserted 'invisible agency' does not hinge upon whether or not the Gospels are consistent. This topic instead demonstrates that the Gospel writers were likely deceptive. See the 15-minute video for details. This is a topic worthy of debate. Why DO the Gospels vary SO much?

Again..

Ding: Too similar
Ding: Too different

Can't have it both ways.

POI Not in this case. We know the church canonized the Gospels. We also know there exists irreconcilable differences between the 4 Gospels in which the church is responsible for canonizing.

So, if there are irreconcilable differences between the 4 Gospels, then why would the church canonize the 4 Gospels of which there are (in your words) irreconcilable differences.

If anything, they'd have done there best to not include those books in the canon.

Makes no sense.

So, yea, consider the source. And yes, sure, even a liar can state something that is true from time to time. But in this case, it is the status quo... It is the norm, not the exception. If I want unbiased reporting's about all true acts of Muhammad, Jesus, Xenu, or other, would I ask the same individuals who's goal it is to convert me?

Wow. Of all the fallacies which exists, the genetic fallacy seems to be your favorite..I can tell, because you just keep on committing it

Where the conversion attempts come from has no bearing on its truth value.

Even if a car salesman job is to sell you the car, and he put EVERYTHING into there attempt to sell you the car...that doesn't mean that the salesman's attempts are necessarily based upon lies, fraud, and deception.

Now, I know you and the genetic fallacy are a nice couple and all, but suppose that it is time for you two to go your separate ways.

Sure, FOX and MSNBC report some objective factual stuff too. Maybe just like the Bible. Maybe Jesus was born, preached, sentenced to blasphemy, and hung on a cross? Seems reasonable enough and also mundane in and of itself, that some/all of these events are maybe true? But, if these things are also false, it is really no skin off of my butt either. But, we also know the Gospel writers are also set upon assuring a 'prophecy' has been fulfilled. And here is where we start to see irreconcilable differences.

Genetic fallacy, yet again.

POI I see your point, but, there's a huge difference here. I've read the Bible. I continue to read it now. You have not watched the video. Hence, you have no grounds to critique what may or may not actually be incorrect. I still watch legacy news from time to time, but my B.S. detector remains on higher alert when doing so

And I see your point.

I doubt that the video's critique will not be anything new...as the same stuff is being regurgitated by skeptics, and have been addressed ad nauseum.

[oldbadger]

1. Jesus lived, died, was buried.

Wrong. Even Jesus' friends saw him later on, recovered and well. It says so on the gospels.

2. Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by his followers.

Of course it was! He was got clear away, alive and well.

3. Jesus' followers believed that not only had he'd resurrected from the dead, but that had seen him.

Wrong. The most honest account, G-Mark without the Christian fiddles and add-ons, ended with an empty tomb.

No deviation from the earlier accounts there.

If you cannot see the glaring obvious contradictions, I find that quite strange.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #165]

Until you provide an adequate response to my former post pertaining to the dating of the Gospels (John) which was at your request, then there is nothing else we can discuss.

[POI]

1. Jesus lived, died, was buried.

I have already acknowledged this much, and I have already explained why.

2. Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by his followers.

As I have already explained, here is where the agenda begins. The Gospel writers wanted to fulfill prophecy and start a religion. Getting "Rome" on board was a great way to accomplish this task.

3. Jesus' followers believed that not only had he'd resurrected from the dead, but that had seen him.

Later anonymous and unvetted Gospel writers writing whatever they want is not necessarily a trustworthy accounting of such said 'supernatural' event(s).

No deviation from the earlier accounts there.

The video already explains. "Luke" alone was written to procure the "Roman" audience and this is exactly how you start an official religion. The 'Gospel' narrative was spun to acquire them accordingly.

It doesn't matter why X was written.

In this case, it does matter. The video explains. I've explained prior. And, I will continue to explain below.

The only thing that matters is whether X is true.

That's always the case. So, are the Gospels trustworthy, where they COUNT?

A deviation in itself does not entail..

1. A deceptive alteration.

2. A mistake.

3. A contradiction.

In this case, it does though.

Yeah, so...damned if they do..

As Benchwarmer explains, this option would demonstrate only one source total, and the rest just copied it. That's it. And in regard to a said "supernatural" claimed event, the more independent sources, the better. But it looks like we do not have that, at all. Keep reading below.

Begging the question. This assumes that there are contradictions in the first place, which has yet to be proven.

The video explains them, by citing the passage in Mark, verses Luke. You, choosing not to address any of them, does not absolve them.

But that is not what the early Church fathers say. They were much closer to the events in question than skeptics who typing on Internet forums some 2,000 years later.

This response demonstrates a false equivalency. The 'Gospels' write about what others are said to believe. Some of them copy each other, word-for-word, and other parts deviate (a lot), as the video demonstrates when comparing "Mark" and "Luke". We can do a plain reading and see these. It's obvious, that when you compare Mark and Luke, that the author(s) of Luke coped some of Mark (word-for-word), and then changed other parts to "fulfill" prophecy, get Rome on board, and then start a religion.

Well, again..we (believers) are convinced. None of the differences effect the overall story, or the Gospels.

Which more-so demonstrates that it does not really matter what is pointed out to you.

1. If the differences are what makes the entire thing invalid.

2. Then the similarities should make the entire thing valid.

It is clear which side both of us are on.

Post 131, from Benchwarmer, explained all of this. And now, it is as if we did not just go over it (again). Again, if Mark and Luke have passages which are (word-for-word) the same, then Luke is not writing on his own accord. It is just another copy of Mark. And if the parts, which are different, are different enough as to contradict, then we can reasonably discard "Luke" altogether. In doing so, the Romans may had never come on board, which then might have meant this collection of beliefs would not have ever been the official religion to come.

Oh, is that what it was?

Yes, there's a big difference between believing someone existed, and then they died, (versus), believing they existed, and was also "supernatural". I trust AtG and Muhammad are still familiar examples.

do you believe history supports his close followers believing that they saw his resurrected body? Yes or no?

The question is a non-starter because I do not view the 'Gospels' as 'history' any more or less than I view the Quran as 'history'.

If the stories aligned to your specifications, would you be a Bible believing, God-fearing, Christ-worshipping Christian? Probably not.

I'm not sure why you keep going backwards here? I've already told you, more than once, that this topic is not why I (do or do not) believe. However, this topic still points out how the Gospels are not compatible with one another.

So, since it is obvious that you cannot please people who are hell-bent on unbelief..then the Bible simply unapologetically says what it says..and either you believe it, or you don't.

Ignoring your tantrum.

Starting point: Genesis 1:1 Then work your way up from there.

Hmm? Okay? Maybe then address the topic I just started (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41603)

Otherwise, I already explained the function and purpose of "Luke".

He said he saw Jesus.

Yes, I know. And we also know he is responsible for his own claims.

Did Paul preach anything contrary to what Jesus preached?

In searching for truth, that question may never be answered, as all we really have now to 'demonstrate' a resurrection are the 4 "Gospels".

So basically, the answer is no. Gotcha.

:lol I have already explained many times.

So, if there are irreconcilable differences between the 4 Gospels, then why would the church canonize the 4 Gospels of which there are (in your words) irreconcilable differences. If anything, they'd have done there best to not include those books in the canon. Makes no sense.

And now we have countless Christian apologetics

Wow. Of all the fallacies which exists, the genetic fallacy seems to be your favorite..I can tell, because you just keep on committing it Where the conversion attempts come from has no bearing on its truth value. Even if a car salesman job is to sell you the car, and he put EVERYTHING into there attempt to sell you the car...that doesn't mean that the salesman's attempts are necessarily based upon lies, fraud, and deception. Now, I know you and the genetic fallacy are a nice couple and all, but suppose that it is time for you two to go your separate ways.

It's as if you are not reading some of my replies. Why do I even bother? See below....

Genetic fallacy

Again, if I'm watching 24-hour legacy news, I soon find out what their agenda is. And sure, some stuff may be reported, which demonstrates objective facts, but some or more is also bias and personal opinion. We, as logical and critically thinking adults, are to sift through it accordingly. Not instead take it all-or-nothing. Just like I could also read the Quran and still get some nuggets of objective truth from it...

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #165]

Until you provide an adequate response to my former post pertaining to the dating of the Gospels (John) which was at your request, then there is nothing else we can discuss.

My responses to you have been concise, clear and adequate.
Your gospel dates have been dreamed up, SiNcE.

But, sure, Jesus was seen by his friends to be quite alive, and he clearly survived the cross.

[TRANSPONDER]

Not (reasonably) if they are the same story and they contradict. Not unless one can come up with a valid explanation, and you have failed to do so.

That is nonsense.

When you read both accounts it is clear that both criminals started off ridiculing Jesus, but one later repented.

That is a valid response, whether you accept it or not.

That is making stiff up and fails with the 'reporter notebook' fallacy. If those who heard the reviling were there, they ought to heave heard the repentance at the time or people talking about it later on. Your response is invalid whether you accept that or not.

Even if the invented explanations were adequate, other examples of persistent contradictions when all should have learned the facts by the time the gospels were (supposedly) written makes real contradictions (inventions and alterations) the go -to hypothesis and the excuses....just excuses.

You set'em up, I'll knock'em down.

You knock 'em down I'll knock down your attempted knockdowns.

Well you have attempted to answer with some stock invented excuses, but looks to me like you are dismissing, ignoring and deny them without addressing them, which is pretty much what Bible - apologists do when theyr evasions, excuses and inventions fail.

Oh, please.

No need to beg, I'll knock down the dismissing, denying and ignoring for free.

No attempt appears to be made by you to answer my point which ought o be understandable to anyone who can read and has two braincells to bang together. Simply the later information from converted Roman soldiers or (e.g) Temple guards explaining what they said to the High priests about the angel opening the tomb (all of which is invented excuses), should have become known to all, and so does not explain why it was not all recorded in Mark and Matthew, which
en they should have heard the story during the scriptural talks we hear of in Acts.

1. X was not recorded in Mark or Matthew.

2. Therefore, Mark or Matthew did not know about X.

Illogical reasoning.

And not only that, even if they didn't know, that doesn't take away from Luke's knowledge.

You: Hey Luke, Mark or Matthew didn't know about or record X, Y, Z.

Luke: So what? What does that have to do with me?

There ought to be a fallacy of lol. Anyone who puts lol at the end of an 'argument'knows it is hollow. Yes. That something quote important happens but only one person reports it is indeed a reason to think it was invented and I have the other examples, and can add that we can see he altered the angel's message to suit himself and the timing of the rejection at Nazareth,plus the rewrite of the anointing at Bethany. Even if you had to believe every word was true, you logically ought to admit that doubters have a darn good reason to doubt.

I love that bit of (not untypical) bit of Bible apologetics trickery.

Taking a flawed bit of logic (assuming the updates are true, which is a faithclaim and ignores the evidence), cast sit as though it was a logical proposition.

Yeah, just like you assume that the updates are false.

For valid reasons, which you ignore.
Thus proving what I say is true - ignore deny or dismiss.

here's similar false one.

Anyone who claims what is wrong is true is a liar
Christians claim the Bible is true when it isn't
therefore Christians are liars.

Yeah, sure.

Go with that.

I shall and will point up examples of it every time. You didn't do this, but one poster pasted the combined resurrections but omitted anything that contradicted, proving that he knew they were there and valid. The less obvious denial and fiddling is just the same.

Simple enough. I don't believe that you are dumb, I think you are smart enough, so only blind denial can account for your refusal to address the point.

I am prepared to address anything I can understand.

Well I'm sure others can understand my arguments (they'll tell me if not) and your failure to respond will look like ignoring and dismissal.

Based on the text -evidence, that is a more probable explanation than 'they didn't know' plus the contradictory 'a convert told them everything' later on. Either they all knew the big events and so should have written them or they didn't in which case how do they know minor or secret details, like what Jesus prayed while they were asleep? You cannot have it both ways. Not honestly.

They wrote what they wrote.

In o/w you belief what is demonstrably doubtful just because it is in the Bible. Thank you for showing, better than I could, what the problem with Bible apologetics is.

Luke is not a person to buy a used car from. Apart from his very dubious pretence of dedicating his books to a Roman patron,we can pretty much see the sources he used.The synoptics, "Q",Paul and Josephus. The rest he altered, fiddled and made up.

A list of inventions
Announcement in the synagogue in Nazareth.
Miraculous draft of fish at the calling of disciples.
Antipas involved in the trial

Yup. He just made it all up.

That is the logical conclusion. Test is alteration of the angelic message. This is undeniable - he altered it.

Mark DOES mention the thieves reviling Jesus but nothing about one rebuking the other. Supposed chapters that Mark didn't write does not address discrepancies in what he did write.

A valid question when the event is too big, public and memorable to be excused by 'everyone else missed it'. Denialist, blinkered dismissal of unwelcome evidence on your part.

Well, the big, memorable part he did mention..

"He is risen".

That is the part he didn't miss.

Actually, it is the most important part and Christians owe our faith to that part.

I ought to give you a thank for that. Utter denialism. The claim is not evidence of the claim and throwing out the (unwelcome) evidence does not help it.

Luke has been caught fiddling before. The angelic message is altered by him. Plainly altered; undeniably altered. Yet I can't recall a single Bible - apologist that even acknowledged that, never mind addressed it.

Luke has simply provided an account according to his investigation.

No one altered anything.

More denial. You stubbornly insist what he wrote is true because he wrote it, and wag about his claim of investigating everything, even though the case is that he altered what he 'investigated' as he saw fit. Look, you may think denying everything is a win for you, but to anyone with an open mind, denial and dismissal proves my case, not yours.

You are just denying. In Mark and Matthew the angel says Jesus has gone to Galilee, and the disciples would see him there (which in Matthew is just what happens). But in Luke it is altered to what Jesus said in Galilee, and the disciples stay in Jerusalem, which Luke knows because he has read Paul's letters.

It is not a different version of the same message but an alteration to convey a different message altogether. Shall I post it or do you even have a Bible to look at for yourself?I'm sure our readers do and they will see who is telling what the bible says and who is in denial about it.

Well, I'll post it (them) as I frankly can't trust an apologist to not tamper with them.

Matthew 28 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

This in itself differs from Mark, but still has the element that they go to Galilee, not part of them or just one, as you feebly attempt to argue as an excuse. Even though the point is what the message was, not what they did. Pitiful attempt at evasion. and misdirection. Very common in Bible apologetics excuses.

Luke 24 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

Clear difference in the message that was passed on. No instruction for anyone to go to Galilee, not Simon, not Thomas, not the 'Galilee' group (which was all the 12, anywayv (1). You are just inventing stuff that is not anywhere in the gospels and just makes for more problems. I am so thankful that I don't have to invent wretched attempts at excuses like that to prop us a tatty tale. and for the chance to correct a few typos.

Nonsense.

Luke does not record the angel telling the women where the disciples are to meet Jesus.

It clearly states in Luke that Jesus appeared to the "Eleven" in Jerusalem, but it does not state how many members of the Eleven were present during that appearance...the Eleven (minus Judas) was apparently a name given to Jesus' disciples as a collective unit, but the "Eleven" doesn't necessarily have to include all 11 at any given time.

In the same way I can say I went to a Lakers game and took a picture with the team, even though every single member of the team does not have to be present in the picture for the statement to be true.

It doesn't seem as if Peter was present during Jesus' Jerusalem appearance, considering Luke 24:33-34...

"...it is true, the Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon".

That doesn't strike me as a statement that would be made Peter was present.

But it does strike me as a statement that would be made if Jesus appeared to Peter first (and alone, which corroborates Paul in 1Cor 15:5)...also considering the fact that Jesus' appearance to Peter isn't even mentioned in Luke, which leaves the reader to ask himself "Wait, when did this happen?"
....

So, what seems to have happened was, after Jesus' crucifixion and burial, the disciples (for whatever reason) were scattered/split during the chaos and grief.

There was a group that involved Peter and John, and there was another group that involved some other disciples.

Jesus told the women to tell Peter and John's group to go to Galilee, which is what they did.

The Galilee group was a different group than the Jerusalem group, which is why the story reads different.

Different group, different locations, different events.

The "contradiction" occurs when it is assumed that the same group was present during both Galilee/Jerusalem encounters...and it would be, if the assumption was true.

But, it isn't.

Good old making stuff up. Just as the Marys splitting up is invented, and just as the old 'disciples went to Galilee and then came back to fit in with Luke' is invented. And the even older 'just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen' is a miserable excuse. The putrid excuse that the eleven became a generic name is nonsense because they were still referred to as the twelve (Paul I recall) and another was elected to fill the post. There is no reason by piffling excuses to claim that 'the eleven' became the generic name, ever. They were ALL told to go to Galilee, not just one of them (eg Thomas, which is why he wasn't there - I'll give you that one for free ), and it makes no difference to the fact that the message is altered in Luke.

I won't give you the excuse that Peter wasn't there. If he wasn't, how could Jesus have appeared to him? Furthermore, why do none of the other gospels mention that remarkable appearance? I maintain the pure and simple explanation is that Luke read it in Paul and wangled it into his gospel and logic (Occam's razor) supports that and your excuses don';t even raise their feeble heads, let alone stand up.

It is par for the course for Bible apologetics to dismiss pretty serious contradictions in this way - by brushing them off as unimportant. The residue is (to anyone with an open mind) the Bible scholars have been ignoring concealing and denying strong evidence that the Gospels are not eyewitness, not reliable and and not coherent. The antics of Bible - apologists are clearly excusing, denying and dismissing this unwelcome evidence.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even mentioned the Decapolis material "Q" material and the Holy Week cover -up. The gospels are full of contradiction all the way through.

Again, you set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

You can try but they fall over by themselves.

(1) Matthew himself says thge 'eleven' went to Galilee. "16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go" Do you know what is in your own Bible? Do you even care?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #165]

Until you provide an adequate response to my former post pertaining to the dating of the Gospels (John) which was at your request, then there is nothing else we can discuss.

My responses to you have been concise, clear and adequate.
Your gospel dates have been dreamed up, SiNcE.

But, sure, Jesus was seen by his friends to be quite alive, and he clearly survived the cross.

Says you! But I say that christian apologetes are right that the swoon theory sounds ridiculous. For some cognitive confusion is far more plausible.

In some other thread
viewtopic.php?t=41588
(where no one wants to debate with me) I wrote about the little known problem with the three Witnesses of the angel with the Golden Plates. When asked for details it seems to have come out that the important witnesses, their witnessings being pillars of the church, rather only had an impression in their hearts that an angel with Golden Plates had to be there.
This is NOTHING!

Of them three, David Whitmer was the one who got the most thuroughly interviewed guy.
https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/ ... tatements/

One day a man named John Murphy asked him about details.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... _June_1880

[Murphy]: "First of all, I heard you saw an angel. I never saw one. I want your description of [the] shape, voice, brogue and the construction of his language. I mean as to his style of speaking. You know that we can often determine the class a man belongs to by his language."

[Whitmer]: "It had no appearance or shape."

[Murphy]: "Then you saw nothing nor heard nothing?"

[Whitmer]: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

[Murphy]: "How, then, could you have borne testimony that you saw and heard an angel?"

[Whitmer]: "Have you never had impressions?"

[Murphy]: "Then you had impressions as the quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?"

[Whitmer]: "Just so."

When David Whitmer read the Murphy interview, he published a rebuttal to John Murphy's portrayal of his witness experience.
But it was a rebuttal in name only. For since it hold no substance and didnt even try to finally give out details about the angel with the Golden Plates Haircut, Clothing, Eyecolor et cetera, the pseudo-rebuttal in fact reassured that Whitmer really saw nothing. Empty Phrases;

Unto all Nations, Kindreds, tongues and people unto whom this present Shall come.

It having been represented by one John Murphy of Polo Mo. that I in a conversation with him last Summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

To the end therefore, that he may understand me now if he did not then, and that the world may know the truth, I wish now standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public Statement;

That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.

He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.

We know that the three witnesses were real alive humans who were interviewed many times by al kinds of people.
Yet NOTHING HARD came out of it.

The apostles (perhaps themselves nonexistent) are mentioned in old worked over hearsay narratives that they met a hard to recognice jewish undead !???!

Even if some narrative behind that story is true; Why should that have been more than some Walking Death Fans getting an impression in their hearts that the resurrected Jesus is near ?!!!?