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]

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,

You can say it as many times as you like..but the non sequitur ain't going anywhere.

Luke wrote what he wrote, regardless of whoever didn't.

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

But also denial, dismissal and bad arguments.

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.

This is all muddle fuddle.

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.

Angelic message on where they were to go?

I already addressed this.

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.

Sure.

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?

Again, I already covered this.

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.

Empty assertions.

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.

Tangent.

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.

Back to..

Too similar: Ding.
Too different: Ding.

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.

This is the same non sequitur as the rest.

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.

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.

I already addressed everything you just said.

Literally, everything.

You are just repeating what you've been saying...and until you address my actual specific response, point by point to this^, then I've got nothing else to say on the matter.

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.

I had given a specific reason within the context of Luke 24 as to why I do not believe Peter was present.

Please address it.

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.

Non sequiturs are allowed in courts of law?

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.

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.

Already addressed this.

Obviously the one where he gave his sermon.It would be known to them all.

I can give a comedy show in the middle of Times Square...it does not follow that that is the place I want you to meet me if I tell you to meet me in New York.

Non sequiturs all over the place.

But Matthew didn't care which mountain it was as he was making it all up anyway.

Yup. He made it alllll up.

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.

If you knew what was in the Bible, you wouldn't claim that there would be no need for them to go to Galilee, when it clearly states that Jesus met with them many times over the course of 40 days (Acts 1:3-4).

And Galilee was probably just one place of many.

Next.

[oldbadger]

[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 ?

And I promise not to be offended back! Honest!

Scholars? Who are they? Translators? Archeologists? Historians? .....and what do they slightly offer for any evidence to support their slight proposals?

[oldbadger]

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.

300 billion? Really?
There are not 3billion Christians, let alone 300 billion!
I think that the reason why the gospels differ so much is that as the churches grew and developed the authors needed to include the new arguments and church dogma within.
G-Mark without the edits, add ons and fiddles is the most accurate account, I think.

[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.

300 billion? Really?
There are not 3billion Christians, let alone 300 billion!
I think that the reason why the gospels differ so much is that as the churches grew and developed the authors needed to include the new arguments and church dogma within.
G-Mark without the edits, add ons and fiddles is the most accurate account, I think.

This verse from the bible extremely applies to you.
Proverbs 3:
lean not unto thine own thinking.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #181]


I'm not going to let you waste my time. You laugh off everything I posted and claim you already answered this when I refuted what your argument was. I don't waste time on kneejerk denial, but invite anyone who wishes to look at the posts and see why who has refuted hat, and who has not.

P.s possible apology? I recall that I pasted up the angelic message as in Matthew and Luke and showed it was different and for various reasons the go -to hypothesis is that Luke altered it because he knew from Paul that the disciples (one bunch of eleven, not a Galilean 11 and Judean 11, though that could make for a good cricket match) stayed in Jerusalem and founded the Church. They did not preach to all nations as that mission was left to Paul, and Luke leaves no space for a side trip to Galileewhich was utterly pointless anyway.

But in the post I may have confused you, our dear Pal SincE, with 1213 who posted the collated resurrection text but with all the contradictions removed.

If so sorry for that .

[oldbadger]

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.

300 billion? Really?
There are not 3billion Christians, let alone 300 billion!
I think that the reason why the gospels differ so much is that as the churches grew and developed the authors needed to include the new arguments and church dogma within.
G-Mark without the edits, add ons and fiddles is the most accurate account, I think.

This verse from the bible extremely applies to you.
Proverbs 3:
lean not unto thine own thinking.

No no, HG, that was intended for you, surely?

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

300 billion? Really?
There are not 3billion Christians, let alone 300 billion!
I think that the reason why the gospels differ so much is that as the churches grew and developed the authors needed to include the new arguments and church dogma within.
G-Mark without the edits, add ons and fiddles is the most accurate account, I think.

This verse from the bible extremely applies to you.
Proverbs 3:
lean not unto thine own thinking.

No no, HG, that was intended for you, surely?

Methinks the following bible verse is even more intended for TheHolyGhost;
Psalm 14:
The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no forum moderator.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

300 billion? Really?
There are not 3billion Christians, let alone 300 billion!
I think that the reason why the gospels differ so much is that as the churches grew and developed the authors needed to include the new arguments and church dogma within.
G-Mark without the edits, add ons and fiddles is the most accurate account, I think.

This verse from the bible extremely applies to you.
Proverbs 3:
lean not unto thine own thinking.

No no, HG, that was intended for you, surely?

Methinks the following bible verse is even more intended for TheHolyGhost;
Psalm 14:
The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no forum moderator.

Now that's what I call making the Bible mean what one wants it to mean.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #181]


I'm not going to let you waste my time. You laugh off everything I posted and claim you already answered this when I refuted what your argument was. I don't waste time on kneejerk denial, but invite anyone who wishes to look at the posts and see why who has refuted hat, and who has not.

P.s possible apology? I recall that I pasted up the angelic message as in Matthew and Luke and showed it was different and for various reasons the go -to hypothesis is that Luke altered it because he knew from Paul that the disciples (one bunch of eleven, not a Galilean 11 and Judean 11, though that could make for a good cricket match) stayed in Jerusalem and founded the Church. They did not preach to all nations as that mission was left to Paul, and Luke leaves no space for a side trip to Galileewhich was utterly pointless anyway.

But in the post I may have confused you, our dear Pal SincE, with 1213 who posted the collated resurrection text but with all the contradictions removed.

If so sorry for that .

It's all good.

But listen, bruh..

You'd make a great Christian apologist.

Use that energy into serving the Lord.

Tell ya what..pm me.

[POI]

It's all good.

But listen, bruh..

You'd make a great Christian apologist.

Use that energy into serving the Lord.

Tell ya what..pm me.

Listen, bruh..

You'd make a great atheist apologist.

Use that energy into serving reality.

Tell ya what..pm me.