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.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

I am not going to get into a long and drawn-out debate on each and every issue because the conversation goes all over the place. Therefore let's attempt to tackle one issue at a time.

If Paul was communicating with churches, then and truly interested in Jesus, the son of his God, then every other sentence would have been explaining what he said and did.

This is simply nonsense! It is a fact that Paul would have spent years in one town with the Church he was planting at the time. It is a fact that in those years, Paul would have been teaching this Church orally. Therefore, when Paul moved on to another town and heard of issues in the former Church Paul would have wrote to that Church concerning that issue. He would not have wasted time going over what he had already taught. My friend, writing letters at that time would have been a long and drawn-out process which could have taken days to accomplish. With this being fact, Paul surely would stick to the issues at hand not using this time to use "every other sentence" in order to write out what he had already explained to this Church orally over the years he was with them.

Paul couldn't have cared a hoot about what Jesus said or did..... Paul was all about Paul!

Again, this is nonsense! Exactly what did Paul gain by converting to Christianity? We know that in his former life Paul was advancing in Judaism, and that Paul was very well educated, and yet Paul turns his back on all of this in order to travel the world planting Churches having to work with his hands in order to supply his needs, all the while being chased down not only by the Roman authorities, but also the religious authorities as well. In fact, let us take a look at how Paul describes his life after his conversion,

I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.

Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Now, if you believe this could have been a false report, you need to keep in mind the audience he is addressing would have known very well if these things would have been true or not, also keeping in mind the fact that we have another report of Paul's life from another author with evidence this author traveled with Paul and would have witnessed these events and he reports on some of what Paul is saying here, ending his account of the life of Paul being in prison. The point is, if Paul was all about Paul, then certainly Paul must have had a death wish.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have wondered about just why Paul converted. Or indeed why he was anti -Christian to start with.

I have a Theory (hypothesis) and it is no more than that, but it does fit nicely.

I start from the beginning - Jesus' mission. It was messianic, which means, in fact seditious, anti -Roman and a rebellion -for God against pagans (Rome). We even know where he got a 5,000 man army .

There had been others and would be more. Jesus' failed as the other had, and he was executed in the prescribed method for rebellion and the Charge is even setout - a Royalist claim. We even know the event that was supposed to start a messianic rebellion - The temple which was not at passover but the Liberating festival of Sukkhot. Support being that this (which Pilate would be well aware of) is never , ever, considered as possible Charge. It is utterly ignored.

Skipping over the invention of a (spirit) resurrection to keep messianic hopes up, Paul, a loyal Roman as well as a Jew, worked for the Roman Jewish administration to target Nazirite rebels.

Why then convert? I suggest that Paul as a Jew expected the last Days, any time, soon. But that would damn his fellow Romans, unless they became God's people. They would never do that, though because they would not accept Jewish law and rules. So Paul invented a messianic version of Judaism with the Mosaic laws all gone (Romans is his Thesis) and he peddled that to the pagans.

I know you won't buy that - who will? But it fits all four corners, friends.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

Allow me to give you an example of how the conversation ends up going all over the place.

...then why did you mention detectives?

I mentioned detectives simply to demonstrate the fact that folks can witness the same exact event, and they can and do report some things exactly while also having variances, and contradictions. I make this point which you ignore, and then want to go off debating how a good detective should operate. The point is, if we know for a fact that folks who witness the same exact event can, and do report some things exactly while having variances, and contradictions, then this demonstrates that the variances, and contradictions you point out between the Gospel accounts does not in any way demonstrate the accounts would be false.

I think it is clear why you want to go off debating the job of a detective, because in that way you do not have to deal with the fact that the variances, and contradictions you point out does not in any way demonstrate the reports are false.

[TRANSPONDER]

Given that you have a point about eyewitness discrepancy, this only applies to details. The gospels have major omissions which can't be excused with faulty memory (if it was that, bad their story wouldn't be credited anyway) but really credibly has to be invention, to account for the major omissions in the stories.

Cue the 'campfire tales" apologetic.

How did they writers know things they could hardly have known? Some excuse is made up like a Sanhedrin sympathiser or convert, or a Tomb guard convert told John or Matthew what was said at this discussion or that.

But if one knew, surely all knew? How could they have not known about the penitent thief? The spear thrust, the declaration at Nazareth (which Matthew and mark reference but leave out the declaration and attempted assassination, the transfiguration, no anionting in Luke (nor walking on water, either) No sermon (even half of one) in Mark, no nativity in John, no Transfiguration and for heavens' gate, no raising of Lazarus when they were all there? How could Luke not have known that mary and the women ran into Jesus, even if he only heard about it later?

No, lapses of memory or 'it wasn't important' will not answer other than for those determined to believe the unbelievable. Because once one has really serious doubts about the bible being true, it all falls away like vampire prosthetics in a horror movie.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

The gospels of Luke and Matthew repeat accounts in Mark that quite often match 'word for word'.

Correct, and I can recite The Lord's prayer word for word, along with The Pledge of Allegiance, along with The Apostle's Creed, along with the Nicene Creed, along with many other things I can recite word for word. Now, let us consider that if the authors of the Gospels are indeed those they have been attributed to, then these authors would have spent much time together telling, and or hearing these same stories over, and over, to different folks day after day, for years before there would have been a need to write the accounts out, and you have a very good explanation. Or we can go with what the scholars have to tell us in that not just one, but two of these authors had there very own copy of another's writing when we know that copies would have been hard to come by, not to mention the fact that if these folks had a copy of another's writing then why would they not simply copy the whole thing word for word? Moreover, if they did indeed have a copy from another, then certainly they would have read the whole copy and would have ensured they did not vary, and or contradict what the other had to say, and yet they do. It makes no sense.

However, the scholars understand this does not explain the whole thing, and therefore they now have two of the authors who not only have their own copy of another's writing, they also both have a copy of someone else they call Q because they have no way to determine who the author of this unknown source would be. I can tell you this, it has not been demonstrated in any way that any of the authors had a copy of one of the other Gospel accounts, and it certainly has not been demonstrated that there was ever any source they refer to as Q. But, since the scholars are considered the authorities, there are those who simply accept what they have to say, and go on to regurgitate whatever it is they say.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

That's easy! The author wrote about events that only he would have known about.
THere is one very striking example of that.

Great! But I have not argued that any of the authors would have been eyewitnesses. What I am arguing is that we have very strong evidence that at least one of the authors would have been alive at the time of the events he records, and would have witnessed some of the events he records. Your scholars understand this to be a fact, which is why they are forced to come up with alternative explanations in order to explain this away, and if one is buying what they are selling then it certainly demonstrates one who is willing to believe anything at all as long as it helps their narrative.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

It neither hinders nor helps my case, it is simply what I have found. I think that G-Mark (without the edits and inserts) is the true account. I also believe that Cephas was so upset by the way that things were developing that he dictated that account to his friend for the purpose of putting things right.

That is a fine opinion and you are entitled to it, and we all have opinions. However, if Mark is indeed the "true account" as you say, then we are left with an empty tomb, along with a report that Jesus has risen.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

You don't dream? I don't believe you. Everybody has dreams.

And here we go again taking the discussion into "neverland". You are the one who said I was left with dreams concerning the Gospel accounts. I certainly was not suggesting I do not have dreams in general. Rather, what I am saying is, I did not dream up the Gospel accounts, and I have not dreamed up all the facts, and evidence we have. I will assume your next move will be to suggest we have no facts, and evidence, and if I am correct my response would be, then exactly what are you debating? I can assure you we do indeed have facts, and evidence concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The only issue is, how one interprets the facts, and evidence we have.

But yes, I think that Jesus was a real person............ haven't you figured that out yet? You're no detective.

Yes. And why do you know Jesus was a real person? Because the facts, and evidence is overwhelming.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

NO, Jesus had a poor following up North, which is why he went South in that last attempt.

GOOD GRIEF! So then, you are saying Jesus had a poor following, and somehow this poor following was somehow able to make this Jesus the most well-known figure in the history of the world some 2000 years and counting? That's incredible, and I don't care who you are.

Yes, Jesus might have been crucified, but as you say he definitely didn't die..... His mates even saw him alive later on, up North in Galilee. So all the 'resurrection' claims I do not accept.

Again, that is an opinion you are entitled to, but I would like to point out a couple of things here. First, you are now admitting we have facts and evidence concerning the resurrection, and you are giving your opinion of the facts and evidence we have. Next, I would think your aim would be to eliminate the extraordinary from the equation, but if you are suggesting that Jesus was indeed crucified, and somehow survived the crucifixion to go on to walk around showing himself, then I can assure you that you have a most extraordinary tale. In other words, you are simply exchanging one extraordinary tale for another.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #27]

Some may have managed with a second language.......... which do you think that was?

My friend, we have evidence from the Bible itself that most folks spoke more than one language. As an example in Acts 22 we have Paul addressing a crowd of folks, and the account tells us, "When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet". Actually, it was the Hebrew language Paul was speaking in and most Bibles will tell you this in the footnotes, but it really does not matter because this demonstrates you have a whole crowd who was expecting Paul to speak in one language, but when he spoke in another they seem to understand him just fine which goes on to demonstrate the whole of the crowd was at the very least bi-lingual.

Now let us consider the fact that most of the NT was written in Greek, and now we have evidence that these folks could more than likely communicate in 3 different languages.