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.

[oldbadger]

We (Christian apologists) are out here.

Yes. It can be fun to debate with them.

We are warriors for Christ and when you go against us, you cannot win because we have the backing of higher powers and forces..

That really sounds very strange. Well you're all failing where I live, because churches are closing all around, secular celebrants have a very secure trade and I don't know a Christian household within twenty doors of my home.

What ever does 'warrior for Christ' mean? .......possibly that your posts get so long?

Of which you cannot possibly comprehend.

True.
Jesus the person I can comprehend.
Christ the god I cannot.

[TRANSPONDER]

We (Christian apologists) are out here.

Yes. It can be fun to debate with them.

We are warriors for Christ and when you go against us, you cannot win because we have the backing of higher powers and forces..

That really sounds very strange. Well you're all failing where I live, because churches are closing all around, secular celebrants have a very secure trade and I don't know a Christian household within twenty doors of my home.

What ever does 'warrior for Christ' mean? .......possibly that your posts get so long?

Of which you cannot possibly comprehend.

True.
Jesus the person I can comprehend.
Christ the god I cannot.

I am constantly seeing the kind of apologist where you don't know whether they are joking or doing a wind -up or they really believe what they are saying. It's worth keeping in mind that the point is not to get the Believersto admit anything as they will deny what is right in front of their faces - like chattel slavery in the Bible.

The point is to present the better case, and posting stuff about 'Jesus is on our side'and 'We are warriors for Christ' just makes the mor reasonable browser think "These aren't rational arguments". Having the better case is what will win, noty by claiming that Jesusugod will help them to win.

And the message IS getting out - we have over 140 in today, reading the posts of the ungodly when the others are in church being asked for money to fund Maga.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes. It can be fun to debate with them.

If that's what makes you happy.

That really sounds very strange. Well you're all failing where I live, because churches are closing all around, secular celebrants have a very secure trade and I don't know a Christian household within twenty doors of my home.

Matt 7:13-14.

What ever does 'warrior for Christ' mean? .......possibly that your posts get so long?

I say what I say.

True.
Jesus the person I can comprehend.
Christ the god I cannot.

Gen 1, I can/will accept.

A mindless, blind process that created life (nature), I cannot.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. It can be fun to debate with them.

If that's what makes you happy.

That really sounds very strange. Well you're all failing where I live, because churches are closing all around, secular celebrants have a very secure trade and I don't know a Christian household within twenty doors of my home.

Matt 7:13-14.

What ever does 'warrior for Christ' mean? .......possibly that your posts get so long?

I say what I say.

True.
Jesus the person I can comprehend.
Christ the god I cannot.

Gen 1, I can/will accept.

A mindless, blind process that created life (nature), I cannot.

it makes me happy to be here putting up the case that will never get heard if religion is allowedto have the only voice.For me, it's the most worhwhile thing I have ever done and I learn a lot, too, and it a lot of fun.

As to the closing churches, if things are deteriorating, rather than just changing, I don't see religion as contributing anything.

And that you cannot see a blind mindless process (it is a known one called chemical evolution) at least as a possibility means the problem is with your thinking, not with the hypothesis.

(just lifted off the internet The modern theory of chemical evolution is based on the assumption that on a primitive earth a mixture of simple chemicals assembled into more complex molecular systems, from which, eventually came the first functioning cell (have always said that if an when abiogenesis is considered validated it WILL become partof evolution -theory so a'Fault'of atheist apologetics is to protest that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution -theory.

The point at which Life started is when a complex molecule replicated. It is at least a hypothesis.Creation just as an unexplained act of magic and it doesn't tell us which god anyway, and even if one says 'YHWH that still doesn't validate Jesus as tgod which was an invention of Christians. There is no Real evidence for any of that, only faithclaims.

Chemical evolution is a known process, though. wiki Chemical evolution may refer to:

Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Astrochemistry, the study of the abundance and reactions of molecules in the universe, and their interaction with radiation
Cosmochemistry, the study of the chemical compositions in the universe and the processes that led to them
Evolution of metal ions in biological systems, incorporation of metallic ions into living organisms and how it has changed over time
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae

The mechanism was found to be thermo 2 which drove metallic elements to become more complex and ordered. And did not of course require a god any more than an internal combustion engine requires invisible engine -gnomes.

And now back to gospel contradictions,perhaps, as only Christian fundamentalists seem to thing that knocking evolution does a single thing to prove Christianity, but then, they do thing (I assure you) that they believe the only alternative to evolution is Jesus.

[SiNcE_1985]

it makes me happy to be here putting up the case that will never get heard if religion is allowedto have the only voice.For me, it's the most worhwhile thing I have ever done and I learn a lot, too, and it a lot of fun.

Getting baptized and exerting all of this pinned in energy for the Lord is the most worthwhile thing you can ever do.

As to the closing churches, if things are deteriorating, rather than just changing, I don't see religion as contributing anything.

People shouldn't go to church to seek religion, they should go to seek Christ.

And that you cannot see a blind mindless process (it is a known one called chemical evolution) at least as a possibility means the problem is with your thinking, not with the hypothesis.

(just lifted off the internet The modern theory of chemical evolution is based on the assumption that on a primitive earth a mixture of simple chemicals assembled into more complex molecular systems, from which, eventually came the first functioning cell (have always said that if an when abiogenesis is considered validated it WILL become partof evolution -theory so a'Fault'of atheist apologetics is to protest that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution -theory.

The point at which Life started is when a complex molecule replicated. It is at least a hypothesis.Creation just as an unexplained act of magic and it doesn't tell us which god anyway, and even if one says 'YHWH that still doesn't validate Jesus as tgod which was an invention of Christians. There is no Real evidence for any of that, only faithclaims.

Chemical evolution is a known process, though. wiki Chemical evolution may refer to:

Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Astrochemistry, the study of the abundance and reactions of molecules in the universe, and their interaction with radiation
Cosmochemistry, the study of the chemical compositions in the universe and the processes that led to them
Evolution of metal ions in biological systems, incorporation of metallic ions into living organisms and how it has changed over time
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae

The mechanism was found to be thermo 2 which drove metallic elements to become more complex and ordered. And did not of course require a god any more than an internal combustion engine requires invisible engine -gnomes.

And now back to gospel contradictions,perhaps, as only Christian fundamentalists seem to thing that knocking evolution does a single thing to prove Christianity, but then, they do thing (I assure you) that they believe the only alternative to evolution is Jesus.

Debate for another day.

[benchwarmer]

The point is to present the better case, and posting stuff about 'Jesus is on our side'and 'We are warriors for Christ' just makes the mor reasonable browser think "These aren't rational arguments". Having the better case is what will win, noty by claiming that Jesusugod will help them to win.

I'm actually quite happy when they claim "Jesus is on my side". When they make illogical, inconsistent, factually incorrect claims and arguments the reader can only have a few conclusions.

1. Jesus isn't helping them. (So they are lying).

OR

2. Jesus can only seem to create illogical, inconsistent, and factually incorrect arguments. That's not the kind of help anyone needs.

OR

3. Jesus might be trying to help them, but they are not even listening to Him and just making up or repeating what some other apologist said. Again, no real help to anyone.

So, I say bring it on. Claim divine help and keep making bad arguments. You are actually on our side at that point

[TRANSPONDER]

it makes me happy to be here putting up the case that will never get heard if religion is allowed to have the only voice. For me, it's the most worhwhile thing I have ever done and I learn a lot, too, and it a lot of fun.

Getting baptized and exerting all of this pinned in energy for the Lord is the most worthwhile thing you can ever do.

As to the closing churches, if things are deteriorating, rather than just changing, I don't see religion as contributing anything.

People shouldn't go to church to seek religion, they should go to seek Christ.

And that you cannot see a blind mindless process (it is a known one called chemical evolution) at least as a possibility means the problem is with your thinking, not with the hypothesis.

(just lifted off the internet The modern theory of chemical evolution is based on the assumption that on a primitive earth a mixture of simple chemicals assembled into more complex molecular systems, from which, eventually came the first functioning cell (have always said that if an when abiogenesis is considered validated it WILL become partof evolution -theory so a'Fault'of atheist apologetics is to protest that Abiogenesis is not part of Evolution -theory.

The point at which Life started is when a complex molecule replicated. It is at least a hypothesis.Creation just as an unexplained act of magic and it doesn't tell us which god anyway, and even if one says 'YHWH that still doesn't validate Jesus as tgod which was an invention of Christians. There is no Real evidence for any of that, only faithclaims.

Chemical evolution is a known process, though. wiki Chemical evolution may refer to:

Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Astrochemistry, the study of the abundance and reactions of molecules in the universe, and their interaction with radiation
Cosmochemistry, the study of the chemical compositions in the universe and the processes that led to them
Evolution of metal ions in biological systems, incorporation of metallic ions into living organisms and how it has changed over time
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae

The mechanism was found to be thermo 2 which drove metallic elements to become more complex and ordered. And did not of course require a god any more than an internal combustion engine requires invisible engine -gnomes.

And now back to gospel contradictions,perhaps, as only Christian fundamentalists seem to thing that knocking evolution does a single thing to prove Christianity, but then, they do thing (I assure you) that they believe the only alternative to evolution is Jesus.

Debate for another day.

It'll crop up for sure . Though you were the one that brought it up here as evidence for a god. That we both find worthwhile things to do is fine, even if we differ about which is worthwhile and which a waste of time, if not actually deleterious. Going to church, - I doubt the get religion, rather the confirmation of bias - that their ideas, beliefs and opinion are True, their own mind if 'Christ' and Religion which instructs the attendees what those beliefs ought to be,depending in which community they grew up. We know that is so. You know it.

[POI]

Which is still more than what you've given me.

The readers will see that you hand-waved away the top of post 231. A hand-wave is not a way to win a debate.

Yeah, you get a nun-uh response after paragraph upon paragraph have been dedicated to debunking your arguments and yet you've somehow remained lost in the sauce.

That could not be possible, being you have not watched the video which places many of the conflicts between "Luke" and "Mark" in a neat and tidy package. I've told you why I furnished the video. I don't keep them in my back pocket, as I do not have the interest or the time to collect all of them. Someone else did the dirty work and collected many of them for easy reach reference. It's just more hand-waving by you.

Dont know which is more important to you.. The viewing of the video.. or.. The reading of benchwarmer's post. I shall do neither, because.. A. Anyone can post a video supporting their position.. B. If I find anything from benchwarmer worthy of my attention, then I'll address it. I don't need your references (respectfully).

A: Anyone can respond here, like you are doing now, saying you've "debunked" another. Rise/repeat. I do not keep all the contradictions, between the Gospels, all in my back pocket. I've instead provided a source which lists the irreconcilable differences between "Mark" and "Luke". You do not want to address them, likely, because then your version of spin would then be revealed here publicly.

B. You did try to address it, and objectively failed miserably. Which is probably why Benchwarmer did not feel the need to respond. Your 'response' was given in post 161, for all the world to see.

Again, I've already addressed this. My answer will not change. Ok, Luke favored the Romans. I get it. I responded to it. You haven't added anything new of which offers a defeater of my answer. Luke favors the Romans. Cool. I get it. Moving on.

No, you clearly don't get it. At this point, you either are not comprehending what I'm actually saying at all, <or>, you are instead deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'll still assume the former, and continue giving you the benefit of doubt. But this may change soon.

a) In places, "Luke" copies "Mark" word-for-word, meaning this could not be "Luke's" own account, but merely just another direct re-copy of "Mark", just like a printing press. Hence, "Luke" is not an independent perspective at all, but a mere direct plagiarism of "Mark".
b) In another places, "Luke" puts Jesus in differing places than "Mark's" account. The author clearly does this to be more in line with OT prophecy. But, at best, one of the (2) Gospels HAS to be false, unless you wish to argue Jesus was in two places at one. One of the two has to be 1) ignored or 2) spun. Take your pick. Of the (2) options, I would predict you would try to 2) spin it, rather than 1) ignore it.
c) "Luke" deliberately omits some action(s), described by 'Mark", which would place both the Romans and/or Jesus in an unfavorable light. "Luke" to the rescue!

As stated prior, "Mark" was not going to convert folks. 'Luke' was needed to do so. And by obvious manipulation, the other Gospels accomplished their task. A theocracy was very much still a thing during this era and in this location. "The church" knew what they were doing.

Ohhh, the ole "Constantine" bit The problem with it is simple; Christianity was already in full effect by the time Constantine came to power in the 3rd century CE. Sure, the emperor tolerating Christianity didn't hurt, but Christianity had already swept the Roman empire by then. Skeptics appeal to the whole Constantine thing as a way to put cherry on the top of their argument...or they appeal to it as a filler...and it falls flat every time. I know the game, and watch it unfold.

Wow, your methodology is much easier... 'Unwarranted opinion". Or maybe, "I disagree". Or how about, "I already debunked this."

But seriously, you kind of already put your proverbial foot in your proverbial mouth here. The Romans ruled the roost. The Romans controlled religious dogma in their territory. Further, was Christianity the dominate religion before or after Constantine?

Making Christianity the official religion, and placed under the ruling theocracy, is likely why we have so many here today apologizing for all of this poo poo. Otherwise, Christianity would be like many other religions, where many people today have either never heard of it, or, maybe do not give a it second thought. Sure, you would have sects who believe, but likely not you.

Genetic fallacy.

Another baseless rubberstamp. We all read them from you.

The (4) Gospels are objectively filled with poo poo. Sure, you can maybe gleam some truths from it, like one even does from the 'National Inquirer', but taking it too seriously would be another matter -- likely hinged upon faith alone.

I also stated that anyone can claim anything..and with Jesus, it wasn't just the claims...but rather, the actions behind the claims.

The 'supernatural' claims come from the Gospels themselves, and we know the Gospels are filled with poo poo in many places. Got anything else?

That is the difference between a 5'2 guy just merely claiming he can dunk a basketball, and the guy claiming it, and then actually doing it.

Then I guess no one needs faith then, huh? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Do you require faith to believe a man rose from his grave, or not? I do not need faith, in any capacity, that Spud Webb could dunk. Remember, this photo was taken before the invention of Photoshop.

[IMG]]

Um, no. You rejected the Gospels, so moved to Paul. Nothing more, nothing less. Because as you were about to find out (had you actually answered the question), my point can be made just as effective with Paul. But, you blatantly dodged the question...a kind of "dodge" that would make even Stellantis proud.

I acknowledge Paul and his claim(s). But the (4) Gospels are not really worth the paper they are printed upon. Think, National Inquirer, in that some truth may exist there, but maybe just try another publication. But in this case, all we have for the claims of Jesus rising is basically the "National Inquirer".

Yeah, but deism it is still a form of theism. "A deist believes this deity no longer exists" Makes no sense.

I suggest you look into this a little more. There exist all sorts of beliefs, even here in this forum arena. It is not as narrow as you may want or think it be...

Fine.

I trust, and now hope, you will not try this tactic again. The Bible's claims both rise and falls upon its own merits alone. Just like the topics of abiogenesis and/or evolutionary biology being rendered true/false would still do nothing to validate any particular faith-based collection of religious dogma(s).

if abiogenesis is negated, then theism is the only game left in town..as the origins of life must still be explained..and if not naturally, then what else is there?

You still have to contend with Cosmology. If the universe is indeed eternal, further, if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then there exists no actual 'creator', but instead a 'change agent'.

?

In THIS context, the use of the term faith means to apply hope/trust that the claim is true, while ignoring reason/logic to the contrary. You are asking me why I discard AtG as being the son of Zeus. Well, its for the exact same reason I discard the claim that Jesus rose from his grave. They are both claims from antiquity, and have no basis for reality, as I began to point out when stating the specific criteria used in the historical method, in which you merely hand-waved away.

[LittleNipper]

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.

I would suggest rereading all the accounts once more. There are marked differences between the details of the accounts. I believe that you will see that these are reports of different events and not reports of the same event. Is it impossible to imagine that JESUS the MESSIAH could not have cleansed the Temple both at the beginning of HIS ministry and again just before HIS crucifixion? This is neither strange nor an impossibility. People have been noted for doing things more than once out of necessity.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I would suggest rereading all the accounts once more. There are marked differences between the details of the accounts. I believe that you will see that these are reports of different events and not reports of the same event. Is it impossible to imagine that JESUS the MESSIAH could not have cleansed the Temple both at the beginning of HIS ministry and again just before HIS crucifixion? This is neither strange nor an impossibility. People have been noted for doing things more than once out of necessity.

I don't think that excuse will wash with anyone with a mind open to reason. I have seen it before (I've seen 'em all before ) On my Other forum one poster argued that ..I think it was the synoptic donkey ride being done when Jesus and the disciples arrive, sometime around noon from Jericho I'd guess, while in John it is clearly after a nights' rest and breakfast, which has knock - ons as finding the donkey is not a prediction but something arranged with the breakfast. And Jesus would not be hungry to forage for figs. In other words, contradictory accounts.

So he tried to claim they were two different events, when clearly they are the same but discrepant..hang on...I need to quote you as I'm on a new page.. Of course this will not do with the death of Judas so they HAVE to be the same events passed off as one reporter says he was hanged and the other says he fell over and burst open, and apologists fiddle them together even though they still contradict. Nor will the messianic event at Bethsaida be passed off as two separate events.

The synoptics have a magical Transformation; John has Jesus escaping the 5,000 Bethsaidan men who want to make him a king. Shades of Jesus seeing the disciples whip out swords and shrinking away in horror: "Enough! Enough! No violence! A rebel I absolutely am not!."

Nor would the rejection at Nazareth (about halfway into the mission in Mark and Matthew, but in Luke it is at the very start) with a messianic declaration and attempted murder that nobody else saw fit to mention. It really won't wash as a separate event any more than the calling of disciples is done twice with Luke adding the miraculous draft of fish. This excuse will not answer, and nor (of course) would the women going twice to the tomb and finding an angel there twice giving the same message, but changed "Sorry, Jesus changed his mind, the disciples don't go to Galilee, but should stay here and found the Church" no more than the women running to the disciples twice, meeting Jesus one time and not meeting him (Luke) the other time.

They are not credibly different events but the same story altered by the writers. And so are the anointing at Bethany which is not in Luke and,in Luke, an anointing in Galilee, which is known to nobody else, nor is the healing of the palsied man (Take up your pallet and walk) in Galilee in the synoptics but in Jerusalem in John.

Nor (I would say at this stage) are the sermons in Matthew and Luke the same sermon given twice, but the same material used in different ways. That's what is happening and explains why the draft of fish (after the resurrection in John, but at the calling of disciples in Luke and used as a parable in Matthew) must be a tale or claim used in different ways, and not separate events.

That excuse will not wash, really. No more than the 'same event described in different ways', nor 'written from different points of view' or 'they forgot' or didn't think kt important. And never mind "It doesn't matter as it isn't doctrinal' (but it does prove invention,contradiction and false claims).

The obvious and correct explanation, but of course not what Believers want to hear, is they are common material used in contradictory ways by writers who were not witnesses to the events and just changed and invented what they wished.