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]

That is making stiff up and fails with the 'reporter notebook' fallacy. If those who heard the reviling were there, they ought to heave heard the repentance at the time or people talking about it later on. Your response is invalid whether you accept that or not.

1. They heard X.

2. Therefore; they should have written about X, otherwise, they did not hear about X.

Illogical, fallacious reasoning.

Next.

No need to beg, I'll knock down the dismissing, denying and ignoring for free.

There ought to be a fallacy of lol. Anyone who puts lol at the end of an 'argument'knows it is hollow.

I bring style, swag, and humor to Christian Apologetics.

Yes. That something quote important happens but only one person reports it is indeed a reason to think it was invented and I have the other examples, and can add that we can see he altered the angel's message to suit himself and the timing of the rejection at Nazareth,plus the rewrite of the anointing at Bethany. Even if you had to believe every word was true, you logically ought to admit that doubters have a darn good reason to doubt.

?

For valid reasons, which you ignore.
Thus proving what I say is true - ignore deny or dismiss.

All of your points were addressed, sir.

I shall and will point up examples of it every time. You didn't do this, but one poster pasted the combined resurrections but omitted anything that contradicted, proving that he knew they were there and valid. The less obvious denial and fiddling is just the same.

Then, shame on the poster.

Tsk, tsk.

Well I'm sure others can understand my arguments (they'll tell me if not) and your failure to respond will look like ignoring and dismissal.

The more I address what's being said, the more I get accused of ignoring and dismissing.

In o/w you belief what is demonstrably doubtful just because it is in the Bible. Thank you for showing, better than I could, what the problem with Bible apologetics is.

Two can play this game...

You remain in a state of disbelief because the information comes from the Bible.

Thank you for showing, better than I could, what the problem with super-skepticism is.

But that aside, I find good reasons to believe what the Bible say is true.

Of course, you disagree with the validity of the Bible.

But that is what makes you, you (unbeliever)...and me, me (believer).

That is the logical conclusion. Test is alteration of the angelic message. This is undeniable - he altered it.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I will share mine: he did not alter it.

I ought to give you a thank for that. Utter denialism. The claim is not evidence of the claim and throwing out the (unwelcome) evidence does not help it.

But that is what they all agree on, correct?

The fact that Christ has/had risen.

They are all in harmony on that key point, aren't they?

Well, then.

More denial. You stubbornly insist what he wrote is true because he wrote it, and wag about his claim of investigating everything, even though the case is that he altered what he 'investigated' as he saw fit. Look, you may think denying everything is a win for you, but to anyone with an open mind, denial and dismissal proves my case, not yours.

Um, no.

It is more like..

1. I have evidence that the Bible is true.

2. Luke's Gospel is in the Bible.

3. Therefore, Luke's Gospel is true.

Good old making stuff up. Just as the Marys splitting up is invented, and just as the old 'disciples went to Galilee and then came back to fit in with Luke' is invented.

Um, no. Those are reasonable explanations to counter what you call contradictions.

And as long as those explanations are even possible (which they are), then that makes them not contradictions.

The entire incident that unfolded from Jesus' crucifixion to his ascension...there was a lot of moving pieces along with different styled authors (some are detailed, others aren't) and different motivations (some authors motivations were different than others).

So we should expect differences.

But none of those differences affect the Gospel, and none of those differences are incapable of being reconciled with a little common sense and critical thinking.

For example, Luke's Gospel has always been said to have appealed to the Roman society...which means that his focus was on something that Matthew-Mark-John did not focus on.

That doesn't make Matt-Mark-John's Gospel any more or less valid than Lukes, and vice versa.

Matthew's Gospel focuses on Jesus as the old testament fulfillment of the coming Jewish Messiah (and all of the fulfilled prophecies that come with that), which is why he records Jesus' acts of fulfilling OT prophecies, more than any other Gospel.

John paints Jesus as God in the flesh, thus recording Jesus making his most radical claims, more so than any other Gospel.

Multiple things can be true at the same time....which is a fact that you and others don't seem to be able to come to grips with.

It doesn't have to be as black and white as you want it to be...but it can be multi-colored, yet just as true/valid.

And the even older 'just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen' is a miserable excuse.

Miserable?

It is a fact, that just because X person didn't mention Y action, that doesn't mean that Y action did not happen.

That is an elementary, textbook example of a non sequitur...and the fact that you can't see this is very astounding...and telling.

The putrid excuse that the eleven became a generic name is nonsense because they were still referred to as the twelve (Paul I recall) and another was elected to fill the post.

Bro, you are splitting hairs.

Even the "Twelve" was a name given to the collective 12 members of Jesus' inner circle.

The 12 disciples were identified as either the Eleven or the Twelve, and it all depends on if you want to stick with the original "Twelve" with Judas, or if you want to go with the "Eleven", without Judas....regardless, it is clear who is being referred to in any context.

There is no reason by piffling excuses to claim that 'the eleven' became the generic name, ever. They were ALL told to go to Galilee, not just one of them (eg Thomas, which is why he wasn't there - I'll give you that one for free ), and it makes no difference to the fact that the message is altered in Luke.

I will make it easier for you, we can bypass the labels of "Twelve" or "Eleven" and just stick to the main point, that Jesus may have appeared to different groups of disciples at different times.

The point was, that they did not all have to be present at any given appearance...and once this plausible explanation gets put on the table, any alleged contradiction disappears.

I won't give you the excuse that Peter wasn't there. If he wasn't, how could Jesus have appeared to him?

Bro, reading comprehension.

I was saying that Peter wasn't present when Cleopas & company made their report to the rest of the disciples in Luke 24:23-24!!!

Furthermore, why do none of the other gospels mention that remarkable appearance?

1. No other Gospels mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Fallacious, illogical reasoning.

I maintain the pure and simple explanation is that Luke read it in Paul and wangled it into his gospel and logic (Occam's razor) supports that and your excuses don';t even raise their feeble heads, let alone stand up.

Then we will have to agree/disagree.

(1) Matthew himself says thge 'eleven' went to Galilee. "16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go" Do you know what is in your own Bible? Do you even care?

Um, Matthew does not say when the disciples met Jesus in Galilee....you assume that this occurred directly after Jesus had given the women instructions to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

But notice that Jesus did not tell the women which mountain that they were to meet him...yet, verse 16 clearly states that they knew which mountain Jesus wanted them to meet him.

So, information is missing.

In other words, he may have appeared to them before they took off to Galilee, and at that time let them know specifically where he wanted to meet them.

To God be the Glory.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wrote a full response utterly demolishing you but it Vanished and I have to remotivate myself to do it again. But I will thank you for posting a contribution that can only do the atheist case a lot of good.

[SiNcE_1985]

I wrote a full response utterly demolishing you but it Vanished and I have to remotivate myself to do it again.

Understood.

But I will thank you for posting a contribution that can only do the atheist case a lot of good.

Anything I can do to help

[The Nice Centurion]

That is making stiff up and fails with the 'reporter notebook' fallacy. If those who heard the reviling were there, they ought to heave heard the repentance at the time or people talking about it later on. Your response is invalid whether you accept that or not.

1. They heard X.

2. Therefore; they should have written about X, otherwise, they did not hear about X.

Illogical, fallacious reasoning.

Next.

I still call it Twitter and always will !

I wont let Elon Musk ruin it !

The War of Terminology continues !

[SiNcE_1985]

I still call it Twitter and always will !

I wont let Elon Musk ruin it !

The War of Terminology continues !

Perhaps your last tweet will read..

"Wow, it is getting hot all of a sudden.".

[The Nice Centurion]

I still call it Twitter and always will !

I wont let Elon Musk ruin it !

The War of Terminology continues !

Perhaps your last tweet will read..

"Wow, it is getting hot all of a sudden.".

If so, then I will drag Musk down with me !!!

[oldbadger]

My responses to you have been concise, clear and adequate.
Your gospel dates have been dreamed up, SiNcE.

But, sure, Jesus was seen by his friends to be quite alive, and he clearly survived the cross.

Says you! But I say that christian apologetes are right that the swoon theory sounds ridiculous. For some cognitive confusion is far more plausible.

That Jesus was cleared in one lung of blood and fluids, taken down and away, and then removed from the tomb and taken away is described in the gospel of Mark.

If you want to ridicule any theories then don't be too offended if folks laugh out loud at the church fabrication of their God constructing the whole Cosmos, coming to planet Earth as a human, coming back from the dead in some action without witnesses, etc etc

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #177]
I'll honestly try to not be too offended. I Promise!

And yer right that the Original Gospel of Mark without later additions is the most interesting one.

Still, do you know Scholars do give it a slight possibility that Matthew wrote before Mark ?

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok lett's ;

That is making stiff up and fails with the 'reporter notebook' fallacy. If those who heard the reviling were there, they ought to heave heard the repentance at the time or people talking about it later on. Your response is invalid whether you accept that or not.

1. They heard X.

2. Therefore; they should have written about X, otherwise, they did not hear about X.

Illogical, fallacious reasoning.

Next.

Not so fast. It is reasonable (or so I argue) that all who were there should have heard the penitent thiefor talk about later. But no -one else even mentions it in passing even though Mark and matthew bot hear the thieves reviling Jesus. The question must be asked, is this made up, especially and Luke often does other additions that nobody else has,

No need to beg, I'll knock down the dismissing, denying and ignoring for free.

There ought to be a fallacy of lol. Anyone who puts lol at the end of an 'argument'knows it is hollow.

I bring style, swag, and humor to Christian Apologetics.

But also denial, dismissal and bad arguments.

Yes. That something quote important happens but only one person reports it is indeed a reason to think it was invented and I have the other examples, and can add that we can see he altered the angel's message to suit himself and the timing of the rejection at Nazareth,plus the rewrite of the anointing at Bethany. Even if you had to believe every word was true, you logically ought to admit that doubters have a darn good reason to doubt.

?

You don't know what's in your Bible? I'll point up thge alteration of the angelic message which is undeniable even though you deny it. Luke has no anointing at Bethany but something that reads uncanily like it in Galilee. I argue that Luke shifted it. But why? Mark and Matthew have the rejection at Nazareth rather late into the mission but Luke shifts it to the start with a messianic declaration and an assassination attempt by friends and neighbours. I submit that Luke has fiddled and added to this basic event.
n

For valid reasons, which you ignore.
Thus proving what I say is true - ignore deny or dismiss.

All of your points were addressed, sir.

With wrong, dismissive and bad rebuttals, sir.

I shall and will point up examples of it every time. You didn't do this, but one poster pasted the combined resurrections but omitted anything that contradicted, proving that he knew they were there and valid. The less obvious denial and fiddling is just the same.

Then, shame on the poster.

Tsk, tsk.

Indeed. I'd be ashamed if I did it and even more to deny it when it is there for all to see. But I recall you do the same with the angelic message. Tsk, Tsk.

Well I'm sure others can understand my arguments (they'll tell me if not) and your failure to respond will look like ignoring and dismissal.

The more I address what's being said, the more I get accused of ignoring and dismissing.

Beause it's what you do, and I shall endeavour to show that.

In o/w you belief what is demonstrably doubtful just because it is in the Bible. Thank you for showing, better than I could, what the problem with Bible apologetics is.

Two can play this game...

You remain in a state of disbelief because the information comes from the Bible.

Thank you for showing, better than I could, what the problem with super-skepticism is.

But that aside, I find good reasons to believe what the Bible say is true.

Of course, you disagree with the validity of the Bible.

But that is what makes you, you (unbeliever)...and me, me (believer).

But only one can play the game od showing real contradictions in the Bible and the apologists is left only with dismissal, denial or dishonesty.

That is the logical conclusion. Test is alteration of the angelic message. This is undeniable - he altered it.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I will share mine: he did not alter it.

Ok, here we go again (this is where I lost my other effort )

Matthew 28. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
They are told to go to Galilee.

Luke has this but alters it so they are NOT told to go to Galilee.

Luke 24. the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.
9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

The wording has been altered because Luke knows (from paul) they do not go to Galilee. Can you deny the text has been altered?

I ought to give you a thank for that. Utter denialism. The claim is not evidence of the claim and throwing out the (unwelcome) evidence does not help it.

But that is what they all agree on, correct?

The fact that Christ has/had risen.

They are all in harmony on that key point, aren't they?

Well, then.

Well then, nothing. There was a thread on the claim is not the evidence. The nativities are demonstrably contradictory (and probably both wrong,nonsense and invented). But they agree on one thing - Jesus was born in bethlehem, (when he wasn't and John knows he wasn't) The nativities were intented to puit that right.

So the resurrections were invented to put right an omission - no visual sightings of a risen Jesus. The claim of the empty tomb and a risen Jesus just wasn't good enough.

More denial. You stubbornly insist what he wrote is true because he wrote it, and wag about his claim of investigating everything, even though the case is that he altered what he 'investigated' as he saw fit. Look, you may think denying everything is a win for you, but to anyone with an open mind, denial and dismissal proves my case, not yours.

Um, no.

It is more like..

1. I have evidence that the Bible is true.

2. Luke's Gospel is in the Bible.

3. Therefore, Luke's Gospel is true.

But you don't have evidence that the Bible is true, you have only poor excuses, dismissal and denial and reiterating faithclaims as though they proved something. Look, you may think you are very smart and cunning, thinking that if you deny everything, you win (Faith intact) but that is not how it works, and never was. It is the open -minded browser will see who has the best evidence and who is just in denial, and of course that is what is part for the Bible apologetics course.

It is the perfect system for concealing lies and dammit I will post the mustwatch vid .again.

Good old making stuff up. Just as the Marys splitting up is invented, and just as the old 'disciples went to Galilee and then came back to fit in with Luke' is invented.

Um, no. Those are reasonable explanations to counter what you call contradictions.

And as long as those explanations are even possible (which they are), then that makes them not contradictions.

The entire incident that unfolded from Jesus' crucifixion to his ascension...there was a lot of moving pieces along with different styled authors (some are detailed, others aren't) and different motivations (some authors motivations were different than others).

So we should expect differences.

But none of those differences affect the Gospel, and none of those differences are incapable of being reconciled with a little common sense and critical thinking.

For example, Luke's Gospel has always been said to have appealed to the Roman society...which means that his focus was on something that Matthew-Mark-John did not focus on.

That doesn't make Matt-Mark-John's Gospel any more or less valid than Lukes, and vice versa.

Matthew's Gospel focuses on Jesus as the old testament fulfillment of the coming Jewish Messiah (and all of the fulfilled prophecies that come with that), which is why he records Jesus' acts of fulfilling OT prophecies, more than any other Gospel.

John paints Jesus as God in the flesh, thus recording Jesus making his most radical claims, more so than any other Gospel.

Multiple things can be true at the same time....which is a fact that you and others don't seem to be able to come to grips with.

It doesn't have to be as black and white as you want it to be...but it can be multi-colored, yet just as true/valid.

No.Thos are just denialist exuses and smokescreening. True, minor matters can be excuses as faulty memory.One can even argue the old video test - a knife attack - who did it?Different accusation but there was a knife attack. But when you have no raising of Lazarus, no Nativity (in two of the gospels) and no women running into Jesus, no announcement and muder attempt at Nazareth, no Transfiguration in John and many other examples of what could not credibly have not been known, then or later, the reasonable must concede - there are real contradictions.

And the even older 'just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen' is a miserable excuse.

Miserable?

It is a fact, that just because X person didn't mention Y action, that doesn't mean that Y action did not happen.

That is an elementary, textbook example of a non sequitur...and the fact that you can't see this is very astounding...and telling.

The reasonable will see that is a poor and dismissive argument. Where 'biggies' are concerned (raising of Lazarus,for example) It does follow that ALL should reasonably have known about it one or two of the others at least mentioned it. And this happens again and again. What does not sequitur is that omission of big events they all should have known are not mention by more than one writer. Anyoe reasonable would agree this raises the question of whether they are telling a whopper.

The putrid excuse that the eleven became a generic name is nonsense because they were still referred to as the twelve (Paul I recall) and another was elected to fill the post.

Bro, you are splitting hairs.

Even the "Twelve" was a name given to the collective 12 members of Jesus' inner circle.

The 12 disciples were identified as either the Eleven or the Twelve, and it all depends on if you want to stick with the original "Twelve" with Judas, or if you want to go with the "Eleven", without Judas....regardless, it is clear who is being referred to in any context.

No, Bro, you are ignoring what the Bible says. As i recall Luke says the eleven (minus Judas) were there when Cleophas returned, and the 11 there when Jesus turns up.Peter had to be there, especially as Jesus couldn't appear to him otherwise. Also Matthew says the eleven went to Galilee to see Jesus. They are contradictions about all the disciples including Peter but minus Judas.

There is no reason by piffling excuses to claim that 'the eleven' became the generic name, ever. They were ALL told to go to Galilee, not just one of them (eg Thomas, which is why he wasn't there - I'll give you that one for free ), and it makes no difference to the fact that the message is altered in Luke.

I will make it easier for you, we can bypass the labels of "Twelve" or "Eleven" and just stick to the main point, that Jesus may have appeared to different groups of disciples at different times.

The point was, that they did not all have to be present at any given appearance...and once this plausible explanation gets put on the table, any alleged contradiction disappears.

Make it easier for yourself, you mean by dismissing all the problems, smokescreening the contradictions and pretending it is all a coherent story when it demonstrably isn't.

I won't give you the excuse that Peter wasn't there. If he wasn't, how could Jesus have appeared to him?

Bro, reading comprehension.

I was saying that Peter wasn't present when Cleopas & company made their report to the rest of the disciples in Luke 24:23-24!!!

And I've just shownb that he logically was (the eleven, minus Judas) were there (including Peter and Thomas also present for that matter) and Peter had to be there for Jesus to see him and present to tell the others about it. Reading comprehension lackiong at your end.

Furthermore, why do none of the other gospels mention that remarkable appearance?

1. No other Gospels mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Fallacious, illogical reasoning.

I've already said and shown that is reasonable reasoning, used I may say in courts of Law. The more probabaly conclusion based on evidence is what counts, not what denialist excuses the accused can come up with.

I maintain the pure and simple explanation is that Luke read it in Paul and wangled it into his gospel and logic (Occam's razor) supports that and your excuses don';t even raise their feeble heads, let alone stand up.

Then we will have to agree/disagree.

Another familiar apologetics chea. It translates as "Let's agree my argument is as good as yours" It isn't as I have made the case, and you have denied,dismissed and smokescreened and even shown a lack of knowing or caring what the Bible actually says.

(1) Matthew himself says thge 'eleven' went to Galilee. "16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go" Do you know what is in your own Bible? Do you even care?

Um, Matthew does not say when the disciples met Jesus in Galilee....you assume that this occurred directly after Jesus had given the women instructions to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

Irrelevant Luke does not EVER say that the disciples went to Galilee, nor does Matthew say they went back to Jerusalem afterwards, but the salint thing is that Luke alters the message so they don't go to Galilee at all. Now, do you not get the argument or are you just smokescreening? Because you can't fool me.

But notice that Jesus did not tell the women which mountain that they were to meet him...yet, verse 16 clearly states that they knew which mountain Jesus wanted them to meet him.

Obviously the one where he gave his sermon.It would be known to them all. But Matthew didn't care which mountain it was as he was making it all up anyway.

So, information is missing.

In other words, he may have appeared to them before they took off to Galilee, and at that time let them know specifically where he wanted to meet them.

If he had appeared to them before (in fact Matthew says he did...don't you know what's in your own Bible?) then there would have been no need for them to go to Galilee at all. Jesus turns up in Jerusalem that evening, and you know this makes no sense as you try to invents two groups of different dsciples. Your attempts as excuses fail,miserably.

To God be the Glory.

To atheism the truth.

[TheHolyGhost]

Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

The same reason, there are 300 billion
different Christian organizations and churches
instead of 1.