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.
Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Moderator: Moderators
- SiNcE_1985
- Apprentice
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:32 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #201Arranged?The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:34 am This also the reason for why it was not arranged to have Witnesses for the actual Resurrection ?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092
The story happened the way it happened.
If it happened another way, the skeptic would be on here complaining about how it should have happened another way instead of that way.
The Bible says what it says.
Either you believe it, or not (Ripley's).
Mormonism...I dunno.Or for why Joseph Smith dared only show the Golden Plates to The Three Witnesses . . .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses
. . . and The Eight Witnesses ?
According to Paul, over 500 witnesses. 1 Corin 15:6.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses
Could you lend us a hand and help solve us some Misterys here ?
You got two choices, man; swallow blood, or swallow pride.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8347
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 970 times
- Been thanked: 3599 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #202SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:34 amThe Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 4:34 am This also the reason for why it was not arranged to have Witnesses for the actual Resurrection ?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092Of course, the Bible apologists, dismissing the better explanation assume the Bible critics will do the same. We do not. If a story adds up or is halfway credible,it is let go. Onlt Bible apologists deny everything, including what is demonstrable.Arranged?
The story happened the way it happened.
If it happened another way, the skeptic would be on here complaining about how it should have happened another way instead of that way.
The Bible says what it says.
Either you believe it, or not (Ripley's).
The point is, why would God, knowing what a shocker the resurrections are (once critics point it out because 2000 years of Bible scholars haven't) not arrange for the resurrection to happen in a way less open to doubt and question? (1)
Or for why Joseph Smith dared only show the Golden Plates to The Three Witnesses . . .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses
. . . and The Eight Witnesses ?Nor do I, but since I don't accept Christianity as valid, I don't accept LDS as a matter of course.Mormonism...I dunno.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses
Could you lend us a hand and help solve us some Misterys here ?Later on after the appearance to the 12 (generic term as there were 11,or just ten if one follows John, which Matthew and Luke do not ) and finally James who I always thought was one of the 12 anyway. This is plainly NOT what the gospels describe, even though Luke vaguely hints that a whole bunch of converts saw Jesus when he came back for a scripture lecture. And Paul got a vision last of all, which gives us the key - these were visions, in the head, and nothing to do with (and no support foir) the claimed Sunday morning walking corpse sightings.According to Paul, over 500 witnesses. 1 Corin 15:6.
And that has to be the cue for another vid...no, not music this time.
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1632 times
- Been thanked: 1091 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #203Thus far, your position is an attempt to win converts, by asking them if they are ready to accept the Lord yet. I would have imagined that someone with your experience would already realize no one here ever converts, via debate/exchange.The PM feature is there for a reason, and I attempted to use it to speak one on one with a person about things pertaining to, you know, religion.
Riiiiight.... Strong enough in that you would like to keep them private.I feel as if my arguments are strong, at best.
Then I guess your response above in red is the same. I would also go further to say that converts towards religion are won by emotion, whereas converts away from religion are done by way of reason and logic.Unwarranted opinion.
I don't blame you. I also don't blame you for skipping my last response to you, about this topic, via post 167.Nah, I do not care to contribute.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 100 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #204This is not always the case. It is not a golden rule.
Example: When a priest tapes kids and that converts the parents away from religion, ot would be sn otional choice.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3575
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1632 times
- Been thanked: 1091 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #205Sure, there can always be exceptions to the rule(s).The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:02 pmThis is not always the case. It is not a golden rule.
Example: When a priest tapes kids and that converts the parents away from religion, ot would be sn otional choice.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- The Nice Centurion
- Sage
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 100 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #206And than we have the fact that especially the christian religion has the broad breed of people like Lee Strobel or William Lane Craig who use pseudo-reasoning to reason folks into religion.POI wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:07 pmSure, there can always be exceptions to the rule(s).The Nice Centurion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:02 pmThis is not always the case. It is not a golden rule.
Example: When a priest tapes kids and that converts the parents away from religion, ot would be sn otional choice.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again”
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon"
"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates"
- SiNcE_1985
- Apprentice
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:32 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #207That's the point, it will never add up to people who don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator, especially one of whom commands them to live a certain way of life, contrary to the way they want to live.TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:18 am Of course, the Bible apologists, dismissing the better explanation assume the Bible critics will do the same. We do not. If a story adds up or is halfway credible,it is let go.
The idea/concept is unappealing...so the aim is to reject, reject, reject..at all costs.
I was gonna accuse atheists of the same thing.Onlt Bible apologists deny everything, including what is demonstrable.
?The point is, why would God, knowing what a shocker the resurrections are (once critics point it out because 2000 years of Bible scholars haven't) not arrange for the resurrection to happen in a way less open to doubt and question? (1)
I accept Christianity as valid, and reject Mormonism as invalid.Nor do I, but since I don't accept Christianity as valid, I don't accept LDS as a matter of course.
Well again..stuff like..Later on after the appearance to the 12 (generic term as there were 11,or just ten if one follows John, which Matthew and Luke do not ) and finally James who I always thought was one of the 12 anyway. This is plainly NOT what the gospels describe, even though Luke vaguely hints that a whole bunch of converts saw Jesus when he came back for a scripture lecture. And Paul got a vision last of all, which gives us the key - these were visions, in the head, and nothing to do with (and no support foir) the claimed Sunday morning walking corpse sightings.
1. The Gospels don't describe it X.
2. Paul describes X.
3. Therefore, Paul's testimony about X is invalid.
Just fallacious reasoning.
You got two choices, man; swallow blood, or swallow pride.
- SiNcE_1985
- Apprentice
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:32 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #208Guilty as charged.
Not quite there yet., by asking them if they are ready to accept the Lord yet.
Which is a different statement than "no one will ever".I would have imagined that someone with your experience would already realize no one here ever converts, via debate/exchange.
These intellectual spankings that I am giving out are just as effective in private.Riiiiight.... Strong enough in that you would like to keep them private.
Another unwarranted opinion.Then I guess your response above in red is the same. I would also go further to say that converts towards religion are won by emotion, whereas converts away from religion are done by way of reason and logic.
I'm on it.I don't blame you. I also don't blame you for skipping my last response to you, about this topic, via post 167.
You got two choices, man; swallow blood, or swallow pride.
- SiNcE_1985
- Apprentice
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:32 pm
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #209Oh.
Second, maybe third time asking this question..As I have already explained, here is where the agenda begins. The Gospel writers wanted to fulfill prophecy and start a religion. Getting "Rome" on board was a great way to accomplish this task.
"The disciples believed that they saw the resurrected Christ"; does history support this statement?
True, if and only if you don't have reasons to view them as trustworthy.Later anonymous and unvetted Gospel writers writing whatever they want is not necessarily a trustworthy accounting of such said 'supernatural' event(s).
I say we do.
You say we don't.
And there lies the contention.
I agree with those sentiments.The video already explains. "Luke" alone was written to procure the "Roman" audience and this is exactly how you start an official religion. The 'Gospel' narrative was spun to acquire them accordingly.
The only difference is; I believe Luke's inspirations were based on truth.. contrary to the implications of the video.
?That's always the case. So, are the Gospels trustworthy, where they COUNT?
That's the point, you can't say they copied it, then in the same breath turn around and ding them for having differences.As Benchwarmer explains, this option would demonstrate only one source total, and the rest just copied it. That's it. And in regard to a said "supernatural" claimed event, the more independent sources, the better. But it looks like we do not have that, at all. Keep reading below.
Obviously, there is enough deviations from the sole source for them to be dinged like crazy for being different.
Can't have it both ways.
And as I said before, these are the same old tired contradictions that have been raised by skeptics for decades.The video explains them, by citing the passage in Mark, verses Luke. You, choosing not to address any of them, does not absolve them.
Nothing new under the sun.
For every alleged contradiction, there is someone from my apologetic camp (the winning squad) debunking them.
Let me know when you have something new to provide.
Well, at the ending of John, he said "we".This response demonstrates a false equivalency. The 'Gospels' write about what others are said to believe.
That includes himself.
Well again, Luke's Gospel is longer than Mark's.Some of them copy each other, word-for-word, and other parts deviate (a lot), as the video demonstrates when comparing "Mark" and "Luke". We can do a plain reading and see these. It's obvious, that when you compare Mark and Luke, that the author(s) of Luke coped some of Mark (word-for-word), and then changed other parts to "fulfill" prophecy, get Rome on board, and then start a religion.
So Luke couldn't have gotten everything from Mark if his Gospel is longer than Mark's.
And if he viewed Mark as a reliable source, then it would have been foolish not use this reliable source in his own work of the same content.
As far as starting a religion; well, if the religion is true, then why not start it?
I was gonna tell you the same thing...because from what I can see, you continue to demonstrate that it does not really matter what I point out to you.Which more-so demonstrates that it does not really matter what is pointed out to you.
You said earlier...Post 131, from Benchwarmer, explained all of this.
"The Gospel writers wrote what others believed".
Now here you are, 2,000 years later, calling to attention what benchwarmer believes.
Tsk, tsk.
If it is good for you, it is good for the Gospel writers.
So, if I write to a remote village in Africa about the teaching and philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr...so that the village may "come on board" in a quest for love, peace, civil rights, etc.And now, it is as if we did not just go over it (again). Again, if Mark and Luke have passages which are (word-for-word) the same, then Luke is not writing on his own accord. It is just another copy of Mark. And if the parts, which are different, are different enough as to contradict, then we can reasonably discard "Luke" altogether. In doing so, the Romans may had never come on board, which then might have meant this collection of beliefs would not have ever been the official religion to come.
Does that have any bearing on the mere truth value of the message?
No.
You keep shamelessly committing the genetic fallacy...and it is becoming sickening.
I mean, the story was never told without the supernatural stuff accompanying it.Yes, there's a big difference between believing someone existed, and then they died, (versus), believing they existed, and was also "supernatural". I trust AtG and Muhammad are still familiar examples.
The supernatural stuff was there from the very beginning..can't have one without the other unless the idea of a supernatural makes you uncomfortable...and not for logical reasons,.either.
For accountability reasons.
Then the answer is no.The question is a non-starter because I do not view the 'Gospels' as 'history' any more or less than I view the Quran as 'history'.
You are spending an awful lot of time discussing / debating this non-historical stuff...but anyways..
Next question..
Is the apostle Paul a historical figure?
Yes or no.
Well, let me tell you why..I'm not sure why you keep going backwards here? I've already told you, more than once, that this topic is not why I (do or do not) believe.
If you are not gonna believe anyway, then it doesn't matter what it written or how it was written.
Strikes me as a complete waste of time and I can't help but wonder why you are spending so much time debating stuff that you wouldn't even believe, even if things were contrary to the what you are debating against.
That is why.
I reject the statement that the Gospels are incompatible with each other.However, this topic still points out how the Gospels are not compatible with one another.
"It doesn't matter what the Bible/Gospels say if you won't believe it regardless".Ignoring your tantrum.
Well, expect to do a lot of ignoring of that^.
Because I promise I am going to say it as much as I see fit.
And I already pointed out your continuous committing of the genetic fallacy.
Otherwise, I already explained the function and purpose of "Luke".
Opinions.
Yes, I know. And we also know he is responsible for his own claims.
Then you shouldn't have insinuated it, then.In searching for truth, that question may never be answered, as all we really have now to 'demonstrate' a resurrection are the 4 "Gospels".
Still doesn't answer my question.And now we have countless Christian apologetics
Let me make easy for you.Again, if I'm watching 24-hour legacy news, I soon find out what their agenda is. And sure, some stuff may be reported, which demonstrates objective facts, but some or more is also bias and personal opinion. We, as logical and critically thinking adults, are to sift through it accordingly. Not instead take it all-or-nothing. Just like I could also read the Quran and still get some nuggets of objective truth from it...
Christ: Take it all, or nothing.
Easy.
You got two choices, man; swallow blood, or swallow pride.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8347
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 970 times
- Been thanked: 3599 times
Re: Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!
Post #210SiNcE_1985 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:32 amTRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:18 am Of course, the Bible apologists, dismissing the better explanation assume the Bible critics will do the same. We do not. If a story adds up or is halfway credible,it is let go.Appeal to bias gets you nowhere as Theist (religious) bias is even worse; it is required by the belief.That's the point, it will never add up to people who don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator, especially one of whom commands them to live a certain way of life, contrary to the way they want to live.
The idea/concept is unappealing...so the aim is to reject, reject, reject..at all costs.
Onlt Bible apologists deny everything, including what is demonstrable.Falsely ,because I can demonstrate the serious problems with the Bible and Bible apologists can only deny everything, make up stuff to try to get over the problems and at last attack atheists.I was gonna accuse atheists of the same thing.
The point is, why would God, knowing what a shocker the resurrections are (once critics point it out because 2000 years of Bible scholars haven't) not arrange for the resurrection to happen in a way less open to doubt and question? (1)Your query is justified here. I forgot to complete the sentence. It should read: "The point is, why would God, knowing what a shocker the resurrections are (once critics point it out because 2000 years of Bible scholars haven't) not arrange for the resurrection to happen in a way less open to doubt and question?" Oh no...I Did complete it. What part of 'why didn't God make sure his book was correct had no wild contradictions and made sense?" Of course believers deny it has any of that, but they know it does as they yry to explain them away or , when they can't dismiss them with 'There is an answer, even if we don't know it". This is faithbased bias in action.?Nor do I, but since I don't accept Christianity as valid, I don't accept LDS as a matter of course.That double standards and faithbased bias in action, and no doubt you even thing it right, good and praiseworthy.I accept Christianity as valid, and reject Mormonism as invalid.
Later on after the appearance to the 12 (generic term as there were 11,or just ten if one follows John, which Matthew and Luke do not ) and finally James who I always thought was one of the 12 anyway. This is plainly NOT what the gospels describe, even though Luke vaguely hints that a whole bunch of converts saw Jesus when he came back for a scripture lecture. And Paul got a vision last of all, which gives us the key - these were visions, in the head, and nothing to do with (and no support foir) the claimed Sunday morning walking corpse sightings.Again a false imitation of a logical construct that isn't. Paul in fact describes the resurrections but they differ grossly from the ones on the gospels.Well again..stuff like..
1. The Gospels don't describe it X.
2. Paul describes X.
3. Therefore, Paul's testimony about X is invalid.
Just fallacious reasoning.
I might pot it like this
Paul describes the resurrections one way
The gospels describe them a different way
Therefore they are the same
Now that's what I call fallactious and not even reasoning.
I point to evidence that Luke knew it and other evidence that he knew Paul's letters, the conclusion being that he altered the synoptic common gospel to accommodate Paul's information.
Again you may dismiss everything and deny everything and accuse me of bias, but to anyone with a mind open enough to reason, they will see it stacks up.