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 Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

What is the fallacy called?

Please, tell me.

It is the Sour Grapes Fallacy.

You are unable to present good arguments.

The feeling is mutual.

Give an example.

Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

Well, think about it...

If the idea is..

1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.

then on the flipside, it seems to me that..

2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.

The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.

You prove again again to have striking resemblances with banned user We_Are_VeNOM !

Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.

This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.

SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !

viewtopic.php?t=39542

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

What is the fallacy called?

Please, tell me.

It is the Sour Grapes Fallacy.

You are unable to present good arguments.

The feeling is mutual.

Give an example.

Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

Well, think about it...

If the idea is..

1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.

then on the flipside, it seems to me that..

2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.

The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.

You prove again again to have striking resemblances with banned user We_Are_VeNOM !

Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.

This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.

SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !

viewtopic.php?t=39542

I guess it is kinda like being in the Gotham City universe and finding out the Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person.



It was nice to be able to come back here and intellectually slap you atheists around, just like old times.

Before I go on another hiatus..

Special shout outs

tam (sister in Christ. Much love to her)

onewithhim (A JW of whom I respect)

Bust Nak (probably the only worthy adversary on here)

Transponder (the kid is ok with me)

And the Scotsman dude, forgot his name (cool dude).

No comment to anyone else.

Now, moderators..do y'all thang.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]
[Replying to The Tanager in post #212]
[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #216]

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

What is the fallacy called?

Please, tell me.

It is the Sour Grapes Fallacy.

You are unable to present good arguments.

The feeling is mutual.

Give an example.

Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

Well, think about it...

If the idea is..

1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.

then on the flipside, it seems to me that..

2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.

The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.

You prove again again to have striking resemblances with banned user We_Are_VeNOM !

Same approach, same attitude, grammatical resemblances in forum name.
Also you are fond of PM with debate aversarys. We_Are_VENOM got himself banned for uncivil PM.

This suspicion firstly arose within me, when I recogniced that in the same situation as him you also use the Sour Grapes Fallacy for saving face, because you both are incompetent to reasonably defend the gospels.

SiNcE_1985 ; I, Ronan the Accuser . . . uh I mean . . . I, The Nice Centurion, the detective of divine misterys hereby accuse you to be the same person as banned user We_Are_Venom !

viewtopic.php?t=39542

I guess it is kinda like being in the Gotham City universe and finding out the Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person.



It was nice to be able to come back here and intellectually slap you atheists around, just like old times.

Imagine then, how unexpectedly embarassing it must feel to get outed by a Hard Polytheist, of all kinds of people.

Before I go on another hiatus..

Special shout outs

tam (sister in Christ. Much love to her)

onewithhim (A JW of whom I respect)

Bust Nak (probably the only worthy adversary on here)

Transponder (the kid is ok with me)

And the Scotsman dude, forgot his name (cool dude).

No comment to anyone else.

Now, moderators..do y'all thang.

And another case solved by The Nice Centurion, detective of divine misterys!

This is horrible advice. I guess this means I need to reject anything any everything said about AtG, because I do not believe he really is the son of Zeus.

Maybe he is, for all you know.

Now, if just someone would be so kind to tell me quick, what in the world is meant by "AtG" ???

[oldbadger]

Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?

I believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.

Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.

It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.
[quote
Was John an actual witness? [[/quote]
The authors of G-John were not witnesses.

What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.

So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.

With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.

Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!

[oldbadger]

Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?

I believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.

Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.

It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.

Was John an actual witness? [

The authors of G-John were not witnesses.

What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.

So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.

With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.

Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't think any of the authors were witness to the temple clearance, not only because they all predict the jewish war, which means they wrote their verions later, but they differ in what they tell.Even gMark has the angelic message and John does not, being evidence there was just an empty tomb and an angel had to be parked there to explain everything.

Given (Mark made changes) that g Mark it iself a copy of a (lost) synoptic original, that itself hast to post -date the Jewish war (unless one believes predictions). So to cut to chase, we are looking at the original story which had no nativities, no sermon, no miracle haul of fish, no raising of Lazarus, no resurrection appearances or angelic message - just an empty tomb found open by the women 'So He must have risen from death' (just as Christian belief said). But that does have the coming Jewish war, which (I would argue) is after the Jewish war, and it's all Christianised too. The nonsesne of the blasphemy charge, the Passover exchane that doesn't exist, and trying to blame the Jews for what Rome did.

We hare looking at a post - war Christian adaptation of the original story.

I think there was one. but it wasn't one that Christians or for that matter Rome, liked. And the constant hints of rebellion against Rome, hastily and clumsily patched and painted over are very frequent. I hear it shouted behind the Christian clamour of "Was Jesus a robber (bandit or zealot) that they had to come out to ghrab with swords and clubs? Absolutely not!!" "Yes he was, and Luke knows it well "We hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel" But he was caught and banged up in the worst way.

So not to go further into that we are at the original story, the 'Real' Jesus, before Paul recast the risen messiah who would come again and sort the Romans out as a redeeming messiah who would make the Romans God's people as much as the Jews. And the early churches (before the jewish war) were lready rewriting the rebel Jesus to make him Pauline Christian Jesus, and that's the 'original gospel'. None of the Jerusalem wrangles, and miracles and absolutely not the sermons in Johnbut not even hinted at in the synoptics. None of the Galilean material sermon on the mount or the parables not ever hinted at in John.

We don't even get the most memorable parablesof Luke in the other synoptics let alone in John.

The other must decide but i suggests - yes, for all to leave out out important and memorable stuff especially given the common synoptic source anyway is screaming 'he wrote all that himself'.

With just the last thing, I do suspect that the Jesus story has a real basis and the donkey ride and temple kerfuffle is part of that, which is why some writers try to separate them and John removed the temple bust - up to a different time. They knew what it looked like. When it clicks that Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person, and the crucified 'robbers' are Barrabbas' Galilean zealots, and guess that the 'blood of the Galileans' is Barabbas' (aka Jesus) fracas with the 1000 strong Roman guard, and think we know what the original story was and what Paul absolutely did not want to talk about and is what the Christian gospel -0 writers needed to cover up. They knew. Luke certainly did.

That's my conspiracy theory anyway , believe it or not.

[SiNcE_1985]

Now, if just someone would be so kind to tell me quick, what in the world is meant by "AtG" ???

Alexander the Great.

[2ndpillar2]

Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?

I believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.

Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.

It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.

Was John an actual witness? [

The authors of G-John were not witnesses.

What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.

So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.

With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.

Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!

Well, the gospel of Yeshua, the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13), does not require a resurrection, other than the "son of man" returning after the "tribulation" (Mt 24:29-30). Only the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil", the gospel of lawlessness/grace/cross requires a resurrection.

And now you apparently want to delete the whole book of Revelation. Which blessing in that book do you think will be removed from yourself? The blessing of health? How are you doing by the way? The church of Paul would certainly not like the contents of the book of Revelation, for it is a message against that church. Luther didn't like the book of James for the same reason.

[2ndpillar2]

Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay?

I believe that the author of G-Mark was a witness to the temple clearance because that incident took place only four days before Jesus was arrested, and G-Mark contains strong evidence that the author was there at the arrest.

Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people.

It looks as if Luke was a doctor, a friend of Paul's, a capable journalist, who wrote a deposition for all the congregations which contained all that he had gathered from oral tradition, friends, any writings, plus a good wedge of church dogma.

Was John an actual witness? [

The authors of G-John were not witnesses.

What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck.

So there goes Christianity! There were no witnesses at all to the resurrection of Jesus.

With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.

Revelation? Written on a prison island off Ephesus, not accepted by the church until hundreds of years after Jesus, and that island with so many hallucinogenic mushrooms growing over it!

Well, the gospel of Yeshua, the "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 13), does not require a resurrection, other than the "son of man" returning after the "tribulation" (Mt 24:29-30). Only the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil", the gospel of lawlessness/grace/cross requires a resurrection.

And now you apparently want to delete the whole book of Revelation. Which blessing in that book do you think will be removed from yourself? The blessing of health? How are you doing by the way? The church of Paul would certainly not like the contents of the book of Revelation, for it is a message against that church. Luther didn't like the book of James for the same reason.

[POI]

Ok, so what method(s) are you using to determine historical facts? Please, tell me.

It depends on the claim. In the case for the Gospels, below would be my rubric:

- Are said event(s) independently corroborated? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels.
- Are such claim(s)/record(s) verified by relic(s)? No, not in the case for the (4) Gospels regarding <Jesus>. This is why 'The Shroud' later became a thing, to try and add "credibility" in around the 1,300's. Which, by no surprise, was later also deemed untrustworthy.
- Are said source(s) consistent in their narrative? No! Hence, are also deemed untrustworthy. Benchwarmer explained this quite well in post 131. Your response to his explanation did absolutely nothing to refute it, and the readers see this.
- Are said source(s) free from political/religious bias? No. "Luke" alone was written with intent to capture persuasive authority and to fulfill OT prophecy in which "Mark" could not.
- Are said sources(s) free of claims which defy natural law? No. Such claims are extraordinary, therefore, more easily dismissed/ignored when all other criteria- are also 'no'.
- Are said sources(s) produced from firsthand accounts? No. In this case, it is important since we are speaking about one-time 'supernatural' events from antiquity.
- Are said source(s) identified? No. Another pause for concern, regarding the (4) Gospels.

Right, he used Mark as a source, but added his own flavor to the story according to his investigation... thus, making it an independent account.

Negative. "Luke" changes some claims, from "Mark", to fit a differing intended narrative. The video cites the verses between the two Gospels which do so.

And guess what; you can spicen a story up with more truth added to the account, which is what he did...for the intended crowd.

You are either purposefully misrepresenting my argument, or still do not get what I am saying.

I would, if Luke was committing the genetic fallacy.

Another baseless rubberstamp. I'm not going to explain, again, because you will either likely still not actually get it, or, pretend not to.

That is the point, supernatural stuff will only need more if you are already against the idea of supernatural stuff.

How do we know AtG was a real person from antiquity? (vs) How do we know AtG was the son of Zeus? Further, does the second claims have to be true in order to support the first claim?

Did the apostle Paul believe that he saw the resurrected Jesus, based on his writings. Yes or no?

Yes.

How many nonreligious debate forums are you a member of?

I only have time for one debate forum, as I have a life outside of debating people of opposing views in my free-spare time. "Religion' already places me into countless categories for discussion.

Do you find it interesting that so many people believe that life came from inanimate material? Or are you cool with that?

LOL! I guess this means if you can discredit 'abiogenesis', then the Bible is true? Your question insinuates a binary proposition. Is it possible to continue to explore the concept of 'deism' without also having to accept what looks to be obvious claims generated from religious propaganda and/or dogma (i.e.) the Gospels?

As I've told you before, I have not studied abiogenesis enough to hold any position. Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't? If you can demonstrate it is nonsense, then maybe you will be next in line for a prize?

Maybe he is, for all you know.

Sure, just apply faith to all 'supernatural' claims. But then I would also have to accept ALL religions, not just the one for which you have opted to 'apologize' for....