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.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #120]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #120]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

Trying to price the atheist argument out of the market with a strawman of their position.

Great jonb of making Christian apologetics look dishonest.

I will be honest, as atheists have to be.

If the Bible was corrct on science, history and non contradictory, within reason, atheists would not have a very good case. They might try to doubt and argue but Bible apologetics would floor them.

"Which god?" would be answered by "The one with with the book that not only agrees with science and history, but predicts it" Which Bible apologists actually try, but only by fiddling and dishonesty. It is wrong on science, medicine, a lot of history and more problems (e.g Exodus) are popping up all the time.

That's before we get to the terminally contradictory record of the gospels, which, as we have seen, is denied and lied about by apologists.

So while you raise a fair point, it fails, because atheists would have a weak case,if any even existed, if the Bible was that good.

But it is not, not by a long way, and is worth no more than any other Holy Book. Which is why the atheist case is strong, and all the time people have open minds and are willing to look, listen and learn, atheism (or at least doubt and question) will become more and louder.

[SiNcE_1985]

Trying to price the atheist argument out of the market with a strawman of their position.

Great jonb of making Christian apologetics look dishonest.

What??

I will be honest, as atheists have to be.

If the Bible was corrct on science, history and non contradictory, within reason, atheists would not have a very good case.

There is not a very good case on abiogenesis, and macroevolution..which is the atheistic religion.

There is no history behind, and sure as heck isn't any science behind it.

So hey.

They might try to doubt and argue but Bible apologetics would floor them.

We do, and I'm leading the pack.

"Which god?" would be answered by "The one with with the book that not only agrees with science and history, but predicts it" Which Bible apologists actually try, but only by fiddling and dishonesty. It is wrong on science, medicine, a lot of history and more problems (e.g Exodus) are popping up all the time.

Tell ya what, get some threads popping on the Bible as it relates to history and/or science, and I'll meet you there.

Or, let's have an audio and/or video debate on those same subjects...and let's see how you can handle yourself.

That's before we get to the terminally contradictory record of the gospels, which, as we have seen, is denied and lied about by apologists.

Or, we can debate the validity of the Gospels/New Testament.

So while you raise a fair point, it fails, because atheists would have a weak case,if any even existed, if the Bible was that good.

It is.

But it is not, not by a long way, and is worth no more than any other Holy Book. Which is why the atheist case is strong, and all the time people have open minds and are willing to look, listen and learn, atheism (or at least doubt and question) will become more and louder.

A lot of talk.

[POI]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #120]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

You raise an interesting point in which I would like to expand upon. (i.e.):

A) If the Gospels agreed 100%, the skeptic could state they all copied one-another.

B) If the Gospels conflict, we can deem them all untrustworthy.

So yes, "damned" either way. But it goes deeper than this. Much deeper. And it's a point I recently made to another. In option B) above, it is not mere little insignificant differences. We instead have wide irreconcilable differences. Compare "Mark" to "Luke" alone. Some claimed events, when directly comparing the two Gospels together, demonstrate at least one of these two Gospels as completely untrustworthy. Some of the expressed storylines cannot line up in any way, when directly comparing the two narratives. And this is even before you bring in the other two Gospels as well.

Imagine you are a lawyer. Your job is to depose these 'witnesses'. You have four said "witnesses", which later turn out to likely not actually be direct eyewitnesses to the said event in question, via a claimed 'extraordinary event.' Further, their given stories present with irreconcilable differences. If it were in court, the case might simply be thrown out. To make things easy, these irreconcilable differences are presented here:

[POI]

There is not a very good case on abiogenesis, and macroevolution..which is the atheistic religion.

"atheist religion"? All atheists or just some? Isn't it possible to doubt the existence of the God you believe in while knowing very little about what these two topics teach or claim? In other words, is the study of these two topics the only reason people doubt God? I'd say no. I'd actually say no, by a long shot. Which then begs the next question...

Why do so many theists, in these forums, bring them up?

[SiNcE_1985]

You raise an interesting point in which I would like to expand upon. (i.e.):

A) If the Gospels agreed 100%, the skeptic could state they all copied one-another.

B) If the Gospels conflict, we can deem them all untrustworthy.

So yes, "damned" either way.

Pretty much, yeah.

That's what I got out of it.

But it goes deeper than this. Much deeper. And it's a point I recently made to another. In option B) above, it is not mere little insignificant differences. We instead have wide irreconcilable differences.

Irreconcilable differences, aka; contradictions.

Sure, there are some passages in the Bible that admittedly needs explaining.

But nothing a little critical thinking can't handle.

But as far as blatant, irreconcilable contradictions..

Nah.

Compare "Mark" to "Luke" alone. Some claimed events, when directly comparing the two Gospels together, demonstrate at least one of these two Gospels as completely untrustworthy. Some of the expressed storylines cannot line up in any way, when directly comparing the two narratives. And this is even before you bring in the other two Gospels as well.

I need specifics.

Imagine you are a lawyer. Your job is to depose these 'witnesses'. You have four said "witnesses", which later turn out to likely not actually be direct eyewitnesses to the said event in question, via a claimed 'extraordinary event.'

I gotta stop your strawman right there...because no one claimed that the Gospel authors came from four eyewitnesses of claimed extraordinary events.

The claim has always been that..

Matthew: Direct eyewitness, Apostle of Jesus.
Mark: Not an eyewitness, but friend of Peter.
Luke: Not an eyewitness, but friend of Paul.
John: Direct eyewitness, Apostle of Jesus.

As we can see, two of the alleged authors weren't even Apostles of Jesus.

If we are just attaching names to holy books, wouldn't Peter or James as the alleged authors give either of the books more credibility?

Why the lesser known Luke or Mark?

Because, the truth is the truth, regardless of where it's coming from.

Further, their given stories present with irreconcilable differences. If it were in court, the case might simply be thrown out. To make things easy, these irreconcilable differences are presented here:

No need for videos.

We both can post videos supporting our positions.

I just choose not to.

[SiNcE_1985]

"atheist religion"? All atheists or just some?

Most.

Isn't it possible to doubt the existence of the God you believe in while knowing very little about what these two topics teach or claim? In other words, is the study of these two topics the only reason people doubt God? I'd say no. I'd actually say no, by a long shot. Which then begs the next question...

I don't quite understand your question.. however, the argument from consciousness (which I am highlighting) does not point to a specific God.

So as for which "god", take your pick.

The argument simply points to the necessity of a god...and if a god is necessary, that itself is a a defeater of atheism.

Why do so many theists, in these forums, bring them up?

Bring what up?

[oldbadger]

Well, let me put it to you this way; if the Gospels agree on every little detail, much to your desire, would you be any closer to accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Probably not.

If the gospels all agreed with G-Mark, and were free of the later Christian fiddlings and additions, I probably would not accept your Christ. But I do accept Jesus the man.

Why would I accept 'Christ'? Jesus never even heard of such a word, he spoke Eastern Aramaic!

If the books are damned if they do, damned if they don't..then pointing out and/or arguing particulars is irrelevant.

Wrong. Deists like me don't believe in damnation, or Hell.

Not to mention the fact that your accessments of the books are wrong anyway...but that aside.

That's not up for you alone to decide.
Do you understand how debating works?

[SiNcE_1985]

If the gospels all agreed with G-Mark, and were free of the later Christian fiddlings and additions

Empty, baseless assertion.

, I probably would not accept your Christ.

My point exactly.

But I do accept Jesus the man.

Close, but no cigar.

Why would I accept 'Christ'? Jesus never even heard of such a word, he spoke Eastern Aramaic!

Then he used an Aramaic equivalent.

And besides, to think that God incarnate (Jesus), the Creator of the universe, is limited to one language.

Laughable.

Wrong. Deists like me don't believe in damnation, or Hell.

You don't have to believe in Hell in order to go to it.

That's not up for you alone to decide.
Do you understand how debating works?

It may not be up for me alone to decide, but I do have a vote.

[POI]

(U) Irreconcilable differences, aka; contradictions.

Sure, there are some passages in the Bible that admittedly needs explaining.

But nothing a little critical thinking can't handle.

But as far as blatant, irreconcilable contradictions..

Nah.

POI What you state as "critical thinking", I instead interpret as "spin". We shall see

(U) I gotta stop your strawman right there...because no one claimed that the Gospel authors came from four eyewitnesses of claimed extraordinary events.

POI I think you missed my actual point(s). The best the lawyer has is to depose later story writers, who gathered, at best, stories from circulating hearsay. And what-more, we do not know who these (4) authors were? Which then makes one ask... Since we do not know who they were, we have no idea of their motivations for their publications?

1) I would agree that scholarly consensus is the Gospels do not contain eyewitness testimony. Without deposed and/or verified eyewitnesses to a said 'extraordinary event', the case for a "resurrection" is off to a shaky start.

2) You do not agree that the claim of (a human rising from his grave and speaking to people) is not an "extraordinary event"?

(U)

Matthew: Direct eyewitness, Apostle of Jesus.
Mark: Not an eyewitness, but friend of Peter.
Luke: Not an eyewitness, but friend of Paul.
John: Direct eyewitness, Apostle of Jesus.

POI

1) What year(s) do you believe "Matthew" and "John" were written?
2) Was "John" literate?
3) Is it possible we do not know of the actual 4 authors? If not, why not? If so, then the above question remains <unanswered> eternally... (i.e.) What was their motivation(s)? Maybe to start a religion?

(U) Because, the truth is the truth, regardless of where it's coming from.

POI You find enough 'truthiness' in the 4 Gospels to stand?