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]

This also the reason for why it was not arranged to have Witnesses for the actual Resurrection ?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092

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).

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 ?

Mormonism...I dunno.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses
Could you lend us a hand and help solve us some Misterys here ?

According to Paul, over 500 witnesses. 1 Corin 15:6.

[TRANSPONDER]

This also the reason for why it was not arranged to have Witnesses for the actual Resurrection ?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27092

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).

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. 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)

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 ?

Mormonism...I dunno.

Nor do I, but since I don't accept Christianity as valid, I don't accept LDS as a matter of course.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses
Could you lend us a hand and help solve us some Misterys here ?

According to Paul, over 500 witnesses. 1 Corin 15:6.

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.

And that has to be the cue for another vid...no, not music this time.

[POI]

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.

Thus 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.

I feel as if my arguments are strong, at best.

Riiiiight.... Strong enough in that you would like to keep them private.

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.

Nah, I do not care to contribute.

I don't blame you. I also don't blame you for skipping my last response to you, about this topic, via post 167.

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

This 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.

[POI]

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.

This 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.

Sure, there can always be exceptions to the rule(s).

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

This 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.

Sure, there can always be exceptions to the rule(s).

And 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.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

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.

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)

?

Nor do I, but since I don't accept Christianity as valid, I don't accept LDS as a matter of course.

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.

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.

[SiNcE_1985]

Thus far, your position is an attempt to win converts

Guilty as charged.

, by asking them if they are ready to accept the Lord yet.

Not quite there yet.

I would have imagined that someone with your experience would already realize no one here ever converts, via debate/exchange.

Which is a different statement than "no one will ever".

Riiiiight.... Strong enough in that you would like to keep them private.

These intellectual spankings that I am giving out are just as effective in private.

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.

Another 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.

I'm on it.

[SiNcE_1985]

I have already acknowledged this much, and I have already explained why.

Oh.

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.

Second, maybe third time asking this question..

"The disciples believed that they saw the resurrected Christ"; does history support this statement?

Later anonymous and unvetted Gospel writers writing whatever they want is not necessarily a trustworthy accounting of such said 'supernatural' event(s).

True, if and only if you don't have reasons to view them as trustworthy.

I say we do.

You say we don't.

And there lies the contention.

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.

I agree with those sentiments.

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?

?

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.

That's the point, you can't say they copied it, then in the same breath turn around and ding them for having differences.

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.

The video explains them, by citing the passage in Mark, verses Luke. You, choosing not to address any of them, does not absolve them.

And as I said before, these are the same old tired contradictions that have been raised by skeptics for decades.

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.

This response demonstrates a false equivalency. The 'Gospels' write about what others are said to believe.

Well, at the ending of John, he said "we".

That includes himself.

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.

Well again, Luke's Gospel is longer than Mark's.

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?

Which more-so demonstrates that it does not really matter what is pointed out to you.

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.

Post 131, from Benchwarmer, explained all of this.

You said earlier...

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I mean, the story was never told without the supernatural stuff accompanying it.

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.

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'.

Then the answer is no.

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.

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.

Well, let me tell you why..

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.

However, this topic still points out how the Gospels are not compatible with one another.

I reject the statement that the Gospels are incompatible with each other.

Ignoring your tantrum.

"It doesn't matter what the Bible/Gospels say if you won't believe it regardless".

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.

Otherwise, I already explained the function and purpose of "Luke".

And I already pointed out your continuous committing of the genetic fallacy.

Yes, I know. And we also know he is responsible for his own claims.

Opinions.

In searching for truth, that question may never be answered, as all we really have now to 'demonstrate' a resurrection are the 4 "Gospels".

Then you shouldn't have insinuated it, then.

And now we have countless Christian apologetics

Still doesn't answer my question.

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...

Let me make easy for you.

Christ: Take it all, or nothing.

Easy.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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.

Appeal to bias gets you nowhere as Theist (religious) bias is even worse; it is required by the belief.

Onlt Bible apologists deny everything, including what is demonstrable.

I was gonna accuse atheists of the same thing.

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.

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.

I accept Christianity as valid, and reject Mormonism as invalid.

That double standards and faithbased bias in action, and no doubt you even thing it right, good and praiseworthy.

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.

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.

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.

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.