Gospel Story Quiz

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:42 pm

.
Think you are pretty sharp about gospel stories? Try the quiz

http://exchristian.net/3/

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:09 pm

I love that quiz. Took it a few years ago.

Ancient of Years · Post by **Ancient of Years** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:52 pm

The test concentrates on trivial detail differences among the Gospels, making its implied criticism vulnerable to the entirely reasonable response that different accounts will always differ in detail. There are far larger and more meaningful discrepancies among the several Gospels that clearly point to major differences in agenda.

Pazuzu bin Hanbi · Post by **Pazuzu bin Hanbi** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

They're not 'trivial'. Things like how many men were present in the tomb, whether the fig tree Jesus cursed withered straight away, etc, are quite critical if you bear in mind that the gospels are purportedly EYE WITNESS accounts...

Ancient of Years · Post by **Ancient of Years** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:05 pm

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote: They're not 'trivial'. Things like how many men were present in the tomb, whether the fig tree Jesus cursed withered straight away, etc, are quite critical if you bear in mind that the gospels are purportedly EYE WITNESS accounts...

Only two of the Gospels are purported to be by eye witnesses - Matthew and John. Mark was supposedly a disciple of Peter in Rome recording his reminiscences years later. Luke was supposedly a traveling companion of Paul who later interviewed other people about what happened. Concerning who was at the tomb and what they saw, none of the authors would have been eyewitnesses. Add to this the fact that eyewitness accounts are often divergent in details even hours after the fact and that these accounts would have been written years or decades later and that some of them were second hand at best and there should be no surprise that details differ.

Picking on trivialities like these would have no effect on believers. Rather it would convince them that criticisms of their faith are of negligible value and are merely the result of anti-religion nit-picking. Of far greater consequence are the major differences in other areas, especially in Luke vs. Mathew and in John vs. everybody, that point at the agenda-driven fictional nature of the Gospels.