I wouldn't rule that out though.
actually, I have no timeline. But I don't need to, I think. May I remind you, you were the one making a positive claim that there was a contradiction, so the onus is not on me to provide timelines and stuff...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Those contradicting Gospels!
- Thread starter oldbadger
- Start date
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Some people take the Bible as the Word of God and don't question it. Some people take a closer look at and do find things that seem to contradict. Some Christians do think it is important to explain why some things appear to be contradictions. Then, the people that believe those things are important and are still contradictions end up arguing and finding flaws with the Christian interpretations and answers Those arguments seem to go nowhere. But, it does help give other Christians a reasonable reason to believe there are no contradictions. And, it gives the other people continued reasons to question the Bible.
The worst thing to do, I think, is to not have an answer. And Christians should have an answer. Or else it appears that they are just blindly following the Bible, which is kind of an answer. It is saying, "The Bible says it I believe it." That's not a very good answer. In the end, how strong is the foundation of Christian beliefs, if they can't defend them?
my answer was simply that the contradiction as outlined in the OP can be resolved if you say John went to prison twice. For me that's enough,
I just entered the game here because someone said Christians that reject the idea of contradictions present in the Bible are "willfully blind". I'm not willfully blind that's all I wanted to say.
I'm not interested in timelines as such though. Other people might find this interesting such as theologians... but I'm no theologian. I'm just a happy Christian.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hello again....
Thanks for your post and interest.
But I have provided evidence in the form of Gospel verses, right after each description of a contradiction. I've done that.
Apostle John's timeline is totally different from Apostle Mark's and attempts to give a (nearly) three year calendar of events, compared to Mark's 11-12 month calendar.
Let me show it to you........ very odd, with lots of sudden forays up and down Palestine, and the scheming Priesthood becomes the scheming Jews. Quite wicked, imo.
JOHN
1 Bethabara
3 Cana..... a wedding
4/5 A stay at Capernaum with family (not many days)
8/9 Passover.... Jerusalem. Criminal damage, ABH...
--------------------------------------------------------
11/12 Judea ( Aenon near to Salim) with discilpes and John B
-- Samaria via Sychar (a 2 day stay)
-- Galilee and >>>>> to
-- Cana
-- To the Temple, Jerusalem. A Feast.
-- Up to Galilee and over the Lake.
----------------------------------------------------------
-- Year 2. Passover, but Jesus stayed on the Lake.
-- Jesus feeds a multitude
-- The mountain trip, alone
-- Walks to the disciple's ship, and thence to Capernaum.
-- Jesus stays in Galilee, because its unsafe in Judea.
-- Feast of Tebernacles (Booths?) Goes in disguise.
-- Stays on Mount of Olives
-- Back to Temple (Treasury)
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>
-- Feast of Dedication (Winter)
-- Escaped to Bethabara
-- Bethany (Lazarus)
-- Ephraim.... safety
-- 6 days to Passover.... Bethany.
-----------------------------------------------------
year 3-- Passover week
-- Jerusalem. Last supper
-- Over Cedron Brook to the garden.
--Arrest.
-- Execution.
-- Meeting place near or in Jerusalem.
-- The Lake, Galilee
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
You're probably right to stay a happy Christian, than to get embroiled in debates and theological arguments.
no you didn't show that John the Baptist couldn't have gone to prison twice.
Even if John's Gospel timeline covers a longer period of time that does not make it contradictory with Mark, in my opinion. Mentioning lots of forays isn't contradictory, either, I think.
I don't think it's wicked what John says concerning the priesthood and the Jews.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe the concept that Mark was copied is intellectual bull****.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Oh I think I did....... And I showed that after Jesus met John, and was Baptised, that Jesus went out in to the wastes for a time.
Apostle John has Jesus doing none of that, instead he has Jesus raising mayhem in the Great Temple, Wedding receptions, visits to Capernaum with his Mother...... now you take your pick.
Apostle John had no idea about what the timeline was. He had a good bundle of reports but had no idea of where to place them, and the last week at Jerusalem....... John did not get one day or event correct.
I've detailed all of that.
If you read the two accounts like witness statements, one rings true..... just one.
Mark's.
Apostle John ...... ? He turned Jesus's mission away from a corrupt, greedy, hypocritical priesthood and made the enemy 'The Jews!' That's more than wicked.
Jesus was struggling FOR the Jewish working people. Why do you think the he and the Baptist were holding Baptism ceremonies for flocks of people? They were short-cutting the costly Temple visits.
here we disagree. Apostle John never said that Jesus did NOT go out to the wastes after baptism. In my opinion, you didn't prove that there was a contradiction.
So, you couldn't prove your first point as stated in the OP, as I see it, so I suppose that the rest of your purported contradictions might be wrong, too.
ah no, that's not wicked.
Look, when China persecutes the Uighures (just an example) noone says "the leading folks persecute the Uigures". Yet it is true.
Instead, everyone says "China". That's not wicked, it's truth also, as I see it.
Two truths.
Remember, John said the Jews but he did not say "the Jews af all time". He referred to a specific time. Afterwards, Jews did persecute Christians, as Bible reports.
lukethethird
unknown member
Of course you do.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ah ha! Now this point of your unlocks a most interesting situation. Although I have never read such a compilation, or about such a one, we could compile all the gospels together to achieve a more clear picture about Jesus and his mission.
From Luke's story of pregnant Mary going walkabout to meet with her pregnant cousin, through Matthew's nativity, Luke's return of the couple to Nazareth before U-turning in to Egypt..... the whole way through to the last week where Jesus somehow does everything described in all four gospels...... The whole picture!! Now why hasn't somebody just done that? You could then have learned the whole complete unabridged story........ but somehow nobody ever bothered.
Hey ho!
Tell that to 'The Jews!', who have been subjected to two millenia of bigotry and international crime.
Why would you try to redirect this point in towards some very poor analogy?
Apostle John distorted the truth about this, dreadful!!
Read G-Mark for the true story, once the Christian additions and manipulations have been removed.
No! Apostle John was reporting that 'The Jews' plotted against, interrogated, even planned his death.
They did not....... the Priesthood did.
You should research what 'The Jews', the peasantry (there was no middle class) were subjected to. Even the Temple coin was a dirty disgrace that no true Jew would have wanted to touch, its obverse being the head of Baal, its reverse being a graven image with Caesar's Name in abbreviated Greek! The Priesthood didn't give a damn, and they cheated and deceived their own at every opportunity, whilst copying Roman religions.
You really should read what the Baptist said about them.
And then Apostle John makes Jesus's enemy 'The Jews'.
Dreadful!
that's not the same thing. John meant the Jews of that time. Not all Jews who ever lived and will live on earth.
Reformed theology has it wrong when it comes to the Jews (that's my take on the issue). The crusades were wrong. Expelling all Jews from Catholic Spain was wrong and so on...
Afterwards, the whole (Jewish) crowd yelled Jesus into crucifiction. Formally, you're right. But effectivly the crowds bought what the leaders were doing.
Same thing with Hitler. Hitler plotted against and murdered the Jews. But the crowds saw what was going on ... after having elected him into power... and they never said "stop".
or... you're trying to direct the Bible point towards a contradiction. I think this is what's going on here.
There is no distortion in the Bible, in my opinion.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Again, your analogies look like redirection.
One point of yours which could germinate in to a thread is this 'incidents not mentioned in every gospel' idea.
The concept of combining every part of every gospel' on to one whole story could be interesting, if the results would be strange.
But what if that argument has no merit? What if it cannot be supported, nor makes any sense? How does a lack of intellectual integrity support faith?
I think my question is, why not simply acknowledge there are errors and contradictions within scripture, and not make faith being something dependent upon a theological view which imagines scripture to be flawless? Is that theology of "inerrancy", necessary for your faith? Is that the cornerstone of your faith? A flawless bible?
That seems a rather tenuous perch to build one's faith upon. All it takes is one error to be found, and down comes the whole thing. Is that really a good idea?
I don't lack intellectual integrity, I think my argument has merit.
I think the inerrancy of the Bible is a very good idea. I support it.
I also think that I need this theology.
Jesus, I think, is the cornerstone of my faith.
In my experience, the typical apologist's answers to these contradictions of scripture, are more excuses and rationalizations, rather than actually having intellectual merit. The typical "answer" is usually a bit tortured. I find the whole need to do that, a misguided understanding of faith and what it is and what it is based upon.
Why? I think it's a bad idea, considering how much knowledge we have about the origins of scriptures these days through the tools modern scholarship.
Why? If you could see and not deny multiple contradictions in scripture, what would that do for your faith? Would you lose faith in God? Would you become an atheist?
How you answer the question just asked, might help resolve that question.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't think you have an argument. All you seem to have is blind faith.
Idea?
Says it all.
Well Jesus was not the cornerstone of Paul's...... Paul didn't make mention of any incident or situation or saying of Jesus apart from the last hours. Probably because Paul was disinterested in Jesus the person.
But by all means pretend that the gospels are in harmony with each other.
Rationalizations is the apologist's bread and butter, as I see it. I mean if they want to do a good job. I see merit in it.
from my standpoint, it's stating the obvious. Why would a loving God have things wrong in his Scriptures.
no I wouldn't become an atheist. But I still need the position to show my love to God. Actually, I think there are no contradictions in the Bible.
Last edited:
ah no, my faith isn't blind, I think. I think I do have an argument.