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.

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

You are unable to present good arguments. Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

[The Tanager]

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

You are unable to present good arguments. Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

I'm not sure it is a fallacy since it seems to be more of an observation than an argument. Transponder is doing the exact same thing. Both of them also have given actual arguments for points. This is clearly something some Christians and non-Christians both do in this forum.

[POI]

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

Depends on what you view as "history"? Religious propaganda does not necessarily count as 'historical reporting'. Otherwise, 'history' would have to also support the claim that "Muhammad flew up to Heaven on a horse." And yet, we can also gleam the pages of the claims, from all antiquity, to discern what is probable/demonstrable verses and what is likely only political/religious propaganda.

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.

"Luke" was clearly written to spin the narrative in complying with OT prophecy, in order to bring the Romans on board. The video explains.

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.

You are still not getting it, or you do and are acting as if you do not... "Luke" copies SOME, and also changes the rest ALOT. And by ALOT, the video means irreconcilably. This means the author of "Luke" used 'Mark" as it's source, and then spiced it up in other spots to grab the intended crowd. It's manipulation.

For every alleged contradiction, there is someone from my apologetic camp (the winning squad) debunking them.

My turn to apply the rubber stamp: "Unwarranted opinion."

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.

LOL! It's, again, as if you are not reading....

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.

I recommend if you are going to issue rubber stamps, you at least do it in context. Mark and Luke are incompatible. We also know Luke copies some of Mark word-for-word. This leads us to believe the parts, in which differ from Mark's tale, means he changed it to attract the Romans and to "fulfill" OT prophecy. Maybe you should instead find that 'sickening'.

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.

You are missing my entire point, again. You are not addressing what I continue to say.... (i.e.) A collection of claims about AtG can be partially true, but the claims about the supernatural stuff needs a bit more. Well, with the claims to AtG's mere existence, we have a little more than one claim from an ancient writing. But with the supernatural, what do we really have?

Is the apostle Paul a historical figure? Yes or no.

Yes.

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.

I like to debate interesting topics. I find it interesting that millions, or more, still believe this stuff.

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

Kool.

Let me make easy for you. Christ: Take it all, or nothing. Easy.

This is horrible advice. I guess this means I need to reject anything any everything said about AtG, because I do not believe he really is the son of Zeus.

[TRANSPONDER]

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

You are unable to present good arguments. Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

I'm not sure it is a fallacy since it seems to be more of an observation than an argument. Transponder is doing the exact same thing. Both of them also have given actual arguments for points. This is clearly something some Christians and non-Christians both do in this forum.

Yes, sure.That's what debate is about. It becomes about the evidence. We know what is going ojn - the Bible is presented as a reliable book. Bible critics show arguments that it isn't. Believers show that it actually is.

We know what happens then - it is shown the excuses don't work so well and we end up with denial. That is where the discussion ends and the believers rely on people still willing to believe what they have been told and not listen to doubt and question.

That (since the 80's) has been changing and will continue to change.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #213]


A couple of points - it is irrelevant whether Clement took the Gospel to the Sarmatians. If it was unchanged it was unchanged. If it was different (suppose we found a Sarmatian Gospel that had more difference, we'd point to it and Believers would excuse it) and the same with Schweitzer taking the gospels to the Africans. He would not change it, but that would make it true if it was false anyway.

But see what happened in America. J. Smith did a sort of Elron job and invented a story that he turned into a religion based vaguely on Christianity. Do Christians accept LDS as just another bit of confirmation of the gospel story from a different point of view? I don't think so. What they excuse and what they reject seems based purely on personal opinion.

Now I forgot what the other point was.

Ah, yes. historical figure. I believe Paul was real (you couldn't make that fellow up) But what he wrote undermines the gospel story more than it confiirms it. The resurrections are obviously not the same, yet Christian apologists continue to pretend they are. The events in Paul and Acts differ in many ways. The quarrel with Peter at least isn't even mentioned. Not only is Paul (dis claims and arguments) open to doubt, but internal evidence shows that the gospels rather followed Paul than Paul following the Gospel story.

[SiNcE_1985]

This must be some kind of fallacy from you (and other christians who did the same in this forum.)

What is the fallacy called?

Please, tell me.

You are unable to present good arguments.

The feeling is mutual.

Than you excuse yourself by saying that no argument would touch others anyway.

Well, think about it...

If the idea is..

1. Since the Gospels are untrustworthy, the stories within it are invalid and untrue.

then on the flipside, it seems to me that..

2. If the Gospels are trustworthy, then the stories within it are valid and true.

The truth has to count for something (if it is true), but apparently it doesn't..which goes back to; damned if it is, damned if it isn't.

[The Tanager]

Yes, sure.That's what debate is about. It becomes about the evidence. We know what is going ojn - the Bible is presented as a reliable book. Bible critics show arguments that it isn't. Believers show that it actually is.

We know what happens then - it is shown the excuses don't work so well and we end up with denial. That is where the discussion ends and the believers rely on people still willing to believe what they have been told and not listen to doubt and question.

That (since the 80's) has been changing and will continue to change.

Again, to make sure we are on the same page about what I said: this is another observation, a summary of what you think happens, just like SiNcE_1985 did, which caused The Nice Centurion to say this was a fallacy that Christians do, which caused me to say (1), no, it's an observation/summary not an argument that can be fallacious and (2) Christians and non-Christians do it. I'm not coming down on you for it.

[2ndpillar2]

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.

Well, who was Mark, and did he witness anything, or is he going on hearsay? Who is Luke, and according to Luke 1:1-3, he didn't witness anything, but simply took notes from unspecified people. Was John an actual witness? What did Yeshua say about establishing any matter? He quoted Deut, and said you need two witnesses to establish any matter. If you can't come up with two witnesses, well, you are out of luck. With regards to what Yeshua said, he said if anyone adds are subtracts from the words in this book, they will be held accountable (Rev 22), which presupposes that people will make additions and subtractions from this book.

[SiNcE_1985]

Depends on what you view as "history"? Religious propaganda does not necessarily count as 'historical reporting'.

Otherwise, 'history' would have to also support the claim that "Muhammad flew up to Heaven on a horse." And yet, we can also gleam the pages of the claims, from all antiquity, to discern what is probable/demonstrable verses and what is likely only political/religious propaganda.

Ok, so what method(s) are you using to determine historical facts?

Please, tell me.

"Luke" was clearly written to spin the narrative in complying with OT prophecy, in order to bring the Romans on board. The video explains.

I simply disagree and I already explained why.

You are still not getting it, or you do and are acting as if you do not... "Luke" copies SOME, and also changes the rest ALOT. And by ALOT, the video means irreconcilably. This means the author of "Luke" used 'Mark" as it's source, and then spiced it up in other spots to grab the intended crowd. It's manipulation.

Right, he used Mark as a source, but added his own flavor to the story according to his investigation... thus, making it an independent account.

And guess what; you can spicen a story up with more truth added to the account, which is what he did...for the intended crowd.

My turn to apply the rubber stamp: "Unwarranted opinion."

I'll take that.

LOL! It's, again, as if you are not reading....

Nah, I read it perfectly clear and stand by what I said.

If it is good for you, it is good for the Gospels.

I recommend if you are going to issue rubber stamps, you at least do it in context. Mark and Luke are incompatible.

Opinions.

We also know Luke copies some of Mark word-for-word.

And we also know he added his own flavor, too.

This leads us to believe the parts, in which differ from Mark's tale, means he changed it to attract the Romans and to "fulfill" OT prophecy.

I disagree for previously stated reasons.

Maybe you should instead find that 'sickening'.

I would, if Luke was committing the genetic fallacy.

You are missing my entire point, again. You are not addressing what I continue to say.... (i.e.) A collection of claims about AtG can be partially true, but the claims about the supernatural stuff needs a bit more.

That is the point, supernatural stuff will only need more if you are already against the idea of supernatural stuff.

Well, with the claims to AtG's mere existence, we have a little more than one claim from an ancient writing. But with the supernatural, what do we really have?

I don't know.

Yes.

Did the apostle Paul believe that he saw the resurrected Jesus, based on his writings.

Yes or no?

I like to debate interesting topics.

How many nonreligious debate forums are you a member of?

I find it interesting that millions, or more, still believe this stuff.

Do you find it interesting that so many people believe that life came from inanimate material?

Or are you cool with that?

This is horrible advice. I guess this means I need to reject anything any everything said about AtG, because I do not believe he really is the son of Zeus.

Maybe he is, for all you know.

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Reasonable belief.

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.

You should stop with all the "you guys deny X, Y, Z" stuff...because the last I checked, you've been denying our (my) explanations as well.

So if you are gonna accuse folks of stuff, try not to accuse them of stuff that you are also doing.

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.

Loaded question fallacy.

I've already addressed your contradictions and I've seen nothing from you that is a defeater of what I said.

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

?

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

I need specifics, not generalizations.

And besides that, one thing is clear.

Both Paul and the Gospels agree..

A resurrection of Jesus occurred.

They all agree on that part, right?

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.

Yeah, copied this, altered that.

Changed this, modified that.

Said this, manipulated that.

Truth here, lie there.

Like a syndicated sitcom.

It is the same episodes, every time.