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 More confusion than clarification.

POI Okay, let's try this way... I'll repost the original, and then explain it to you again below:

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

A) The Gospels are not trustworthy.
B) Aside from the Gospels not being trustworthy (for many reasons), we also have no originals to evaluate -- only copies of copies of copies of copies.

You are only attacking B), and not addressing anything with A). This is a strawman argument.

1985 I did, and I'm standing by my allegation of you committing the taxicab fallacy.

POI Then all you are doing is doubling down.

1985 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 Who says I believe every part of every written story in antiquity? I don't. I gave you two big examples already.

1985 I don't recall.

POI Post 139:

You act as if both positions stand upon equal footing. They don't. Does the 'evidence' more-so suggest direct deposed eyewitnesses to this claim of the "extraordinary", or not? Like I stated prior, with haunted house claims, without eyewitnesses, in which we can depose, the claim then has no legs. It has no real starting point. Why? Such sightings are based solely upon a one-time claimed event which leaves little else behind for verification. If no one really saw it first-hand, but merely report, through circulating oral tradition alone, that such an event took place, then why should any logical and reasonable human decide to apply faith to such a collection of claims, manufactured from hearsay? My vote is then for indoctrination leading to specific conformation bias, and/or cognitive dissonance, and/or evolutionary processes which propel humans to apply possible type 1 errors.

1985 Then all we need to do is stick to the earliest sources, of all early sources.

POI The earliest preserved complete sources, which were likely molested by the church, or, just the small scraps from prior? There's a big difference. When events are written by an extremely biased source politically or other, it tends to be less trustworthy. Imagine if you only got your news from Fox or, alternatively, MSNBC. Consider the source.

1985 Videos are pointless..because I can just as easily post a video supporting my side of things.

POI I do not have the time or the energy to list all the contradictions again. I do not have them neatly archived. But the video author does. The video lists many of them in a neat and tidy package. You have spent much more time dodging it, then just watching it.

1985 Well, according to you..all we need is the original preserved copies of the stories...and we will be golden from there.

POI Still rock'n the strawman. Nice.

1985 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 excepted with AtG. Taxicab fallacy.

POI More of the doubling down.... Yet again, I accept Alexander was a dude who acquired land and died of fever. I do not accept he had supernatural powers. In order not to be a victim of this 'taxicab fallacy" I guess this means you reject the prior existence of Alexander and Mohammad

[oldbadger]

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

You see? So you couldn't focus upon the one gospel with a clear concise brief list of reasons for your very strange claim that G-John was written before 70AD.

We already know that Paul died circa mid century, probably in Nero's pogrom of mass executions. So we also know that a nbrr of letters attributed to him were written by others.

The synoptic gospels were written much earlier than G-John, you're mixing them all up in some attempt to bamboozle us, methinks.

[TRANSPONDER]

Whenever John was written, it contradicts the other gospels. There are two choices - either John and the synoptics predict the Jewish war or they were written afterwards. Occam's razor (or at least, the materialist default) says that they were written later, when the Jewish was was seen as a punishment for not accepting Jesus.

I'd argue that Matthew and Luke were written later than John because they have nativities (contradictory) to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, while John only notes the problem - Jesus Ought to have been born in Bethlehem but wasn't. John just tries to bluster his way out of it. Mark hasn't even thought of the problem.

Believers will of course deny everything. That doesn't matter; what matters is that there is evidence that the gospels are fabricated because contradictory and are not eyewitness, reliable or written before 70 AD. There is no scrap of a good reason to take them as true other than dearly wanting to and ignoring and dismissing all the problems.

[SiNcE_1985]

POI Okay, let's try this way... I'll repost the original, and then explain it to you again below:

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

Ok, so I will trade your blank, empty assertion with one of my own.

The Gospels are trustworthy.

we also have no originals to evaluate -- only copies of copies of copies of copies.

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.

You are only attacking B), and not addressing anything with A). This is a strawman argument.

When you give specifics of B, then I'll address it.

POI Who says I believe every part of every written story in antiquity? I don't. I gave you two big examples already.

Um, 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.

You act as if both positions stand upon equal footing. They don't. Does the 'evidence' more-so suggest direct deposed eyewitnesses to this claim of the "extraordinary", or not? Like I stated prior, with haunted house claims, without eyewitnesses, in which we can depose, the claim then has no legs. It has no real starting point. Why? Such sightings are based solely upon a one-time claimed event which leaves little else behind for verification. If no one really saw it first-hand, but merely report, through circulating oral tradition alone, that such an event took place, then why should any logical and reasonable human decide to apply faith to such a collection of claims, manufactured from hearsay? My vote is then for indoctrination leading to specific conformation bias, and/or cognitive dissonance, and/or evolutionary processes which propel humans to apply possible type 1 errors.

Ok, so..

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.

Would you become a Christian?

Probably not.

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 The earliest preserved complete sources, which were likely molested by the church, or, just the small scraps from prior? There's a big difference.

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.

When events are written by an extremely biased source politically or other, it tends to be less trustworthy.

Genetic fallacy.

Imagine if you only got your news from Fox or, alternatively, MSNBC. Consider the source.

Just because a source is biased, doesn't mean that they favor lies.

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.

No, it doesn't.

So again, genetic fallacy.

POI I do not have the time or the energy to list all the contradictions again. I do not have them neatly archived. But the video author does. The video lists many of them in a neat and tidy package. You have spent much more time dodging it, then just watching it.

And again, the video is from a biased source. So I am going to disregard it, and anything related to it...in the same way you disregard the Gospels.

Again, we are gonna play ball fair today, fellas.

POI More of the doubling down.... Yet again, I accept Alexander was a dude who acquired land and died of fever. I do not accept he had supernatural powers. In order not to be a victim of this 'taxicab fallacy" I guess this means you reject the prior existence of Alexander and Mohammad

Then please articulate why you are willing to accept AtG for everything but his alleged supernatural powers.

Why?

[SiNcE_1985]

You see? So you couldn't focus upon the one gospel with a clear concise brief list of reasons for your very strange claim that G-John was written before 70AD.

I did.

You just have to exert a little effort into reading.

We already know that Paul died circa mid century, probably in Nero's pogrom of mass executions. So we also know that a nbrr of letters attributed to him were written by others.

The synoptic gospels were written much earlier than G-John, you're mixing them all up in some attempt to bamboozle us, methinks.

Okey dokey.

[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.

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.

You haven't even got near warmed up. You are pushing away the discussion before it starts. No discrimination or expertise is applied.

Yes, IF the synoptics were written differently but told the same story, Copying would not be an issue. But they are identified as being dependent on an original synoptic source. In fact Matthew and Luke are often cited as being based on Mark. If you are not aware of scholarship..that is why you can't get warmed up.

Similarly, if John told the same story differently, critics would have no leg to stand on, but his story is wildly discrepant.

Thus you should (and I invite you to understand) know that synoptic similarity does 'ding' them as a copied (and elaborated) single source and John dinged and - not being different, but wildly contradictory.

Appeal to dubious histories is not going to help you Historians are well aware of dubious history and clues that validate it. Take the battle of Kadesh. Ranesses' boasting is surely overdone, but the battle was surely real, and Hittite records confirm it.

Take Alexander. His empire was surely real and his coins have his image on. But the Gordian Knot? A dubious story. So historians evaluate; they do not dismiss or accept on faith or bias as you seem to think.

The Gospels are not so supported despite apologetics appeals to extra biblical history. That can be discussed if you wish, as you clearly have much to learn, so do try to catch up. Quite apart from a 'believe - or not' false mindset, it appears that you are following (if not using) the universal theist fallacy "If history can be debunked, God - claims remain the default hypothesis". No. If history is not valued, the Bible certainly is not.

Elaboration of my two points, same really, in John the (evidently more than one) women report back to the disciples that they found the tomb empty and have no idea what happened to the body.

This not only contradicts Mark (who probably is closest to the synoptic original) with an angel telling them what happened to Jesus, but Luke who changes what the angel says so the disciples are NOT instructed to go to Galilee (slam dunk falsification there) but Matthew claims the women actually met Jesus going back to to the disciples.

These are Biggies that you failed to understand. The penitent thief is a medium discrepancy, which you excuse with other chapters of Luke (whatever that means) for which you have no evidence. Even if you did, it would not alter the fact that neither Mark, Matthew, nor John knew anything about that. I have seen various miserable attempts at excuses to explain why nobody but Luke (who has already been caught falsifying the text) was the only one who knew about that. What's yours?

[SiNcE_1985]

You haven't even got near warmed up. You are pushing away the discussion before it starts. No discrimination or expertise is applied.

I've addressed all of your points, sir.

Yes, IF the synoptics were written differently but told the same story, Copying would not be an issue. But they are identified as being dependent on an original synoptic source. In fact Matthew and Luke are often cited as being based on Mark. If you are not aware of scholarship..that is why you can't get warmed up.

Not only am I aware of it, but I also acknowledged it in prior posts.

And I find it remarkable that Matt and Luke are said to have been based on Mark, yet both of their books are noticably longer than his.

Obviously, if the similar stories they share makes them similar...then the extra chapters that Matt/Luke have over Mark is what makes them different.

Similarly, if John told the same story differently, critics would have no leg to stand on, but his story is wildly discrepant.

Um, no.

John's account did not have to piggyback off of anything the synoptics said.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Thus you should (and I invite you to understand) know that synoptic similarity does 'ding' them as a copied (and elaborated) single source and John dinged and - not being different, but wildly contradictory.

Please share.

Appeal to dubious histories is not going to help you Historians are well aware of dubious history and clues that validate it. Take the battle of Kadesh. Ranesses' boasting is surely overdone, but the battle was surely real, and Hittite records confirm it.

Historians: Who was he (Ramesses) kidding? It did not happen that way.

Ramesses: Dude, I was there. It happened that way.

Take Alexander. His empire was surely real and his coins have his image on. But the Gordian Knot? A dubious story. So historians evaluate; they do not dismiss or accept on faith or bias as you seem to think.

Take Jesus Christ..

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". (John 14:6).

The Gospels are not so supported despite apologetics appeals to extra biblical history.

The Gospels are supported, by each other.

They don't need extra Biblical support, just like we don't need extra-Egyptian support to corroborate the existence of King Tut.

That can be discussed if you wish, as you clearly have much to learn, so do try to catch up.

Quite apart from a 'believe - or not' false mindset, it appears that you are following (if not using) the universal theist fallacy "If history can be debunked, God - claims remain the default hypothesis". No. If history is not valued, the Bible certainly is not.

History is valued, and history supports the resurrection of Jesus.

If there is evidence against it, I haven't seen it yet.

Elaboration of my two points, same really, in John the (evidently more than one) women report back to the disciples that they found the tomb empty and have no idea what happened to the body.

This not only contradicts Mark (who probably is closest to the synoptic original) with an angel telling them what happened to Jesus

Again (for the umpteenth time), you cannot ding them for being too similar but the moment they aren't telling the same exact story, word for word, they get dinged for being different.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Second, those differences (of which you call contradictions) are exactly what you claim we don't have, which is the same story being told in different ways.

Now, you can feel free to nitpick those insignificant particulars all you like, but all Gospels are clear; close women followers of Jesus arrived at his tomb and found it empty of his body.

If the differences are enough to invalidate the story, then the similarities should be enough to validate it.

At the end of the day, either you accept Christ or you don't...and you don't/won't, despite how the story goes and how it is told.

, but Luke who changes what the angel says so the disciples are NOT instructed to go to Galilee (slam dunk falsification there) but Matthew claims the women actually met Jesus going back to to the disciples.

Um, you are wrong.

1. Luke does not record the instructions for the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.

2. Therefore, the women were not instructed to tell the disciples go to Galilee.

Illogical, dubious reasoning.

As far as Matthew goes, Mary Magdelene may have been separated from the group after they fled from the tomb.

So she may not have been present once Jesus appeared to the rest of the women (in Matthews account) as they were in route to the disciples.

This seems likely, because it is obvious that Jesus' appearance to her after she went back to the tomb (in John's account) wouldn't have been such a huge, dramatic shocker to her had she had just seen Jesus earlier if she was present with the other women when he appeared to them (in Matthew's account).

These are Biggies that you failed to understand.

Yet, it was addressed.

The penitent thief is a medium discrepancy, which you excuse with other chapters of Luke (whatever that means)

It means that Luke could have only gotten so far with Mark, considering he has stories that Mark doesn't have... thus, extra chapters that Mark doesn't have.

for which you have no evidence. Even if you did, it would not alter the fact that neither Mark, Matthew, nor John knew anything about that. I have seen various miserable attempts at excuses to explain why nobody but Luke (who has already been caught falsifying the text) was the only one who knew about that. What's yours?

1. Mark, Matthew, John did not record the "thief" account at the cross.

2. Therefore Mark, Matthew, and John did not know about the thief account.

Illogical, dubious reasoning.

But, for arguments sake, let's say that Mark, Matt, and John didn't know about the thief account at the cross.

Suppose Luke (as his preface states) "carefully investigated everything from the beginning".

And in that investigation, he interviewed people who were there (perhaps spectators or Roman soldiers), and one of them reported this "thief" account and Luke included it in his Gospel.

Part of any investigation is interviewing and talking to people about the event in question, correct.. especially if they were there.

Maybe that is what he did, and thus was able to get information that the rest of the authors weren't privy to.

Now, you can either go with that explanation...or you can stick with the non sequitur that you keep committing.

Either way, the Gospels are solid.

[TRANSPONDER]

I haven't seen any valid answers, either denial, claiming you answered where you haven't answered anything, and maintining the gospels are ok when I have shown they aren't.

How can you say, for example, that it is not a valid question why only Luke reported the penitent thief? Mark and Matthew (hang on...) yes, both of those record that the thieves reviled Jesus. Neither say that one repented and was saved. How could that be if they were eyewitnesses? You must at least admit that it is a valid question; is it an invention of Luke's? You haven't answered anything, you have dismissed,denied and ignored everything, and you are not the only Bible - apologists to do that.

Ok, at the end you tty the 'reporters' notebook' apoologetic combined with the 'campfires stories' apologetic. Which is, the discrepancies are explained by treating the gospels as though they were written down on the spot, but the stories related later on (by the Roman who was there and told them all, as an explanation conjured out of thin air (making stuff a up' as we call it) conveyed, as at memories told about the campfire to the writers...so why didn't they write it? If they didn't know at the time, why didn't they know later on?

Well, I can do that one. The soldier only converted later on and the other gospels were already written. Luke updated the synoptic version with the information the soldier gave to the Christians later on. But even if that excuse was in itself as good as 'Luke made it up'. 'it fails because of other discrepancies - the 'clean hands' principle. As you say, John doesn't have the thieves reviling Jesus at all, and yet the 'Eyewitness' must have been there as he records Jesus handing him mother over. And, as i said, Luke is known to alter gospel text.

Appealing to stuff that we do not have answers nothing. 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.

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. You did, but with a poor and denialist argument. It is not about what the women allegedly did or did not tell the disciples, but about the message given by the angel (which John didn't have) being altered by Luke. The contradictions,omissions and examples of alterations pile up, as do your inadequate excuses.

Ok, I know that all the time the Bible - apologists can make stuff up, they can tell themselves they have 'answered' everything. But to those who use reason rather than Faith, these excuses are not only without evidence and don't answer everything adequately. It comes down to what people think. I know the Faithful will never accept even undeniable evidence - like I said, Luke altered the angelic message, but I never saw a Bible -apologist acknowledge that. It does mean Luke doesn't have clean hands, and no amount of making stuff up can explain or excuse it.

The excuse about Mary Magdalene doesn't work either. Again, Luke says it was mary Magdalene and the others who reported the empty tomb and the angelic message (altered) to the disciples. She cannot have reported back to the disciples that she has no idea what happened to Jesus as John has it, never mind she ought to have been with the other women when they ran into Jesus. There is no reason why mary should have separated from the women, Surely they would have stayed together? But even if I I allowed this invention which is not reported in the gospels, it is confounded by the 'reporter'argument and campfire stories' point. When Luke, let alone John,was written, how could they not have known (from the disciples) that the women had actually run into jesus?The disciples would have heard this on the same day.

These excuses do not work, not to any reasonable person, not compelled by Faith to reject the more reasonable argument or even what the Bible actually says.

Incidentally, I've asked this before and never got an answer - did you think up 'The marys split up'argument yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics book or website?

[SiNcE_1985]

I haven't seen any valid answers, either denial, claiming you answered where you haven't answered anything, and maintining the gospels are ok when I have shown they aren't.

Unless what I said gets properly addressed..as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

How can you say, for example, that it is not a valid question why only Luke reported the penitent thief? Mark and Matthew (hang on...) yes, both of those record that the thieves reviled Jesus. Neither say that one repented and was saved. How could that be if they were eyewitnesses? You must at least admit that it is a valid question; is it an invention of Luke's?

Then taken together, it becomes obvious that at first both reviled Jesus but later, one repented.

Again, two things can be true at the same time.

You haven't answered anything, you have dismissed,denied and ignored everything, and you are not the only Bible - apologists to do that.

Looks to me as if all of your points were addressed..which is a lot more than what you've been giving me.

Ok, at the end you tty the 'reporters' notebook' apoologetic combined with the 'campfires stories' apologetic. Which is, the discrepancies are explained by treating the gospels as though they were written down on the spot, but the stories related later on (by the Roman who was there and told them all, as an explanation conjured out of thin air (making stuff a up'as we call it) conveyed, as at memories told about the campfire to the writers...so why didn't they write it? If they didn't know at the time, why didn't they know later on?

No sense appears to be made here.

Well, I can do that one. The soldier only converted later on and the other gospels were already written. Luke updated the synoptic version with the information the soldier have to the Christians later on.

1. As long as the updates are true, that's all that matters.

2. The updates are true.

3. Therefore, that's all that matters.

But even if that excuse was in itself as good as 'Luke made it up'. 'it fails because of other discrepancies - the 'clean hands' principle. As you say, John doesn't have the thieves reviling Jesus at all, and yet the 'Eyewitness' must have been there as he records Jesus handing him mother over. And, as i said, Luke is known to alter gospel text.

Makes no sense.

Appealing to stuff that we do not have answers nothing.

Yeah, just like you are appealing to this unsupported claim that Luke made stuff up.

The man claimed that he carefully investigated this stuff, and if what he recorded is a result of his careful investigation, then it doesn't matter what some skeptic typing on a religious message forum thinks some 2,000 years later.

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.

1. Mark does not mention X.

2. Therefore, X didn't occur.

Illogical, dubious reasoning.

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.

You are just reaching.

It was a different variation of the same message or at the very least, the angel said all of those things and it is up to the author to pick which part of what the angel said to record.

You are being overly skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical...and it is unwarranted.

Ok, I know that all the time the Bible - apologists can make stuff up, they can tell themselves they have 'answered' everything. But to those who use reason rather than Faith, these excuses are not only without evidence and don't answer everything adequately. It comes down to what people think. I know the Faithful will never accept even undeniable evidence - like I said, Luke altered the angelic message, but I never saw a Bible -apologist acknowledge that. It does mean Luke doesn't have clean hands, and no amount of making stuff up can explain or excuse it.

No one answered it, probably because it ain't a big deal and hardly worthy of addressing.

[TRANSPONDER]

I haven't seen any valid answers, either denial, claiming you answered where you haven't answered anything, and maintining the gospels are ok when I have shown they aren't.

Unless what I said gets properly addressed..as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

It has been all but debunked, never mind addressed.

How can you say, for example, that it is not a valid question why only Luke reported the penitent thief? Mark and Matthew (hang on...) yes, both of those record that the thieves reviled Jesus. Neither say that one repented and was saved. How could that be if they were eyewitnesses? You must at least admit that it is a valid question; is it an invention of Luke's?

Then taken together, it becomes obvious that at first both reviled Jesus but later, one repented.

Again, two things can be true at the same time.

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. 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 haven't answered anything, you have dismissed,denied and ignored everything, and you are not the only Bible - apologists to do that.

Looks to me as if all of your points were addressed..which is a lot more than what you've been giving me.

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.

Ok, at the end you tty the 'reporters' notebook' apoologetic combined with the 'campfires stories' apologetic. Which is, the discrepancies are explained by treating the gospels as though they were written down on the spot, but the stories related later on (by the Roman who was there and told them all, as an explanation conjured out of thin air (making stuff a up'as we call it) conveyed, as at memories told about the campfire to the writers...so why didn't they write it? If they didn't know at the time, why didn't they know later on?

No sense appears to be made here.

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.

Well, I can do that one. The soldier only converted later on and the other gospels were already written. Luke updated the synoptic version with the information the soldier have to the Christians later on.

1. As long as the updates are true, that's all that matters.

2. The updates are true.

3. Therefore, that's all that matters.

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.

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.

You know this is invalid and not logically sound. And the People will see a terrible poor attempt or bamboozleas a lack of any valid response.

But even if that excuse was in itself as good as 'Luke made it up'. 'it fails because of other discrepancies - the 'clean hands' principle. As you say, John doesn't have the thieves reviling Jesus at all, and yet the 'Eyewitness' must have been there as he records Jesus handing him mother over. And, as i said, Luke is known to alter gospel text.

Makes no sense.

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.

Appealing to stuff that we do not have answers nothing.

Yeah, just like you are appealing to this unsupported claim that Luke made stuff up.

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.

The man claimed that he carefully investigated this stuff, and if what he recorded is a result of his careful investigation, then it doesn't matter what some skeptic typing on a religious message forum thinks some 2,000 years later.

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

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.

1. Mark does not mention X.

2. Therefore, X didn't occur.

Illogical, dubious reasoning.

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.

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.

You are just reaching.

It was a different variation of the same message or at the very least, the angel said all of those things and it is up to the author to pick which part of what the angel said to record.

You are being overly skeptical just for the sake of being skeptical...and it is unwarranted.

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.

Ok, I know that all the time the Bible - apologists can make stuff up, they can tell themselves they have 'answered' everything. But to those who use reason rather than Faith, these excuses are not only without evidence and don't answer everything adequately. It comes down to what people think. I know the Faithful will never accept even undeniable evidence - like I said, Luke altered the angelic message, but I never saw a Bible -apologist acknowledge that. It does mean Luke doesn't have clean hands, and no amount of making stuff up can explain or excuse it.

No one answered it, probably because it ain't a big deal and hardly worthy of addressing

.

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.