Those contradicting Gospels!

[oldbadger]

Jesus was surrounded by Jews in Israel and was Himself a Jew. Why do you think that John would mean anything than the Jewish teachers and scribes etc when he said that "the Jews" asked Him such and such or accused Him of such and such. The clear story is that Jesus was against the leaders and not the ordinary people.
Why do you put the actions of Christendom down to some words in the gospels. The whole gospel story, each of them, says that the Jewish leaders were the instigators of Jesus death and the Romans did the execution and that most Jews did not believe in Jesus in the end.
If people wanted to hate Jews (against the plain teachings of Jesus) that is not because of the use of the words "the Jews".

Not Israel. Palestine.
Jesus was a Jew in a Palestine province surrounded by working Jews.
They were horribly managed by the Levite priesthood and the Baptist and Jesus both were pulling hard...... for them.

I don't think I said that John was referring to the priesthood especially. I said that John (the evangelist) was writing about the Jewish leaders (scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees and anyone else who could be put under that umbrella).
I think I was guessing that the whole generation in general was obnoxious. Matt 3:7 says that John was speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees when he said that and not to the people in general. Luke at Luke 3:7 may have meant that. Or maybe it was just the style of speaker John was, telling it like he saw it, he condemned everyone and told everyone to produce fruit of repentance and not just start calling Abraham their father and relying on that.

Matthew needed to copy Mark's gospel. That tells me that he was not there, not a disciple, just an apostle promoting the Faith like Luke.

I tend to follow Mark less the later additions and fiddlings.

I got it from the stories of the condemnation of Jesus. It says that the Chief Priests and Elders persuaded the crowd to say they wanted Barabbas released. The crowd may have had a liking for Barabbas anyway (I'm not sure where you get the idea that he was loved by all) since he fought against the Romans, but one would think that they would have wanted Jesus of Nazareth released. I imagine it would have been easy to tell the people that if Jesus was really the Messiah He would not be killed, otherwise if not He deserved death. (another guess of course-------I guess with the assumption that the Bible is all true and you seem to guess with the assumption that the Bible is not all true.)

Pilate didn't want Jesus killed.
Pilate was deeply irritated by the Sanhedrin, the whole bunch of them.
There is evidence that could suggest that Jesus survived that last day.

I think it's time for me to start a thread just about that.

 

[oldbadger]

But I have filled in gaps and come up with a solution to what on the surface is a contradiction. The only thing that probably still remains is the idea that Judas bought the field. All I can think is that the field was bought with the money that he threw back at the Sanhedrin and so that is why it says that he (Judas) bought a field with the reward of iniquity,,,,,,because it was bought with his money and so probably legitimately was Judas's field.
Acts does say that Judas bought a field, but the word translated "bought" can mean "acquired", and is translated that way in some translations. So the money was used to purchase the field and maybe Judas found out that this happened and went there and hanged himself in that gruesome way, where his guts were torn open and fell out. (that would be better than my previous guess that the money was used to buy the field where Judas had died.)
There are ways for all of it to be true, but if you want to say otherwise that is your prerogative also.

I think that your proposal is not a solution, rather an amazing stretching, twisting, turning, mangling of two totally different reports in order to satisfy a determined effort to somehow make the stories 'the innerrant words of God'.

 

[oldbadger]

Not much good trying to answer a contradiction if you have not given any.
But yes I have heard that some think that the boy could have been Mark.
I don't know why you want to believe that only Mark knew Jesus and the events that happened however. Do you have good reasons for this?

John had no clue what Jesus did on his first day in Jerusalem that week. Nor the second. Nor the third.
So he couldn't have been there.

His story is a total contradiction.

Do you know what Jesus did on his first day in Jerusalem? It's there in Mark.

I'll bet that you get it wrong, because many seem to completely overlook such simple reports.

Try ? There's no catch.

 

[oldbadger]

Does the Roman Census Prove Luke is Wrong About Jesus' Birth?

Nothing wrong with love and understanding for all but that is no reason to try to show the Bible is wrong. Truth, love and understanding is better than just love and understanding.

That's what we're after.
Truth.

 

[oldbadger]

Sounds like even John the Baptist was having doubts while he was waiting in prison.
Jesus in His answer showed that he knew how to reassure him that He was the one.
It is not really a contradiction, just a glimpse at the humanity of John imo.

Or a glimpse of how Luke thought up a wonderful fairy tale to reverse in to several ancient prophesies.

John heard that Jesus overly loved his wine, are and drank with undesirables etc..... which I feel sure that he did do, not a bad think imo.
After all, John has his first miracle at a wedding where all the wine was drunk.... so Jesus made lots more!
Bully for him, I say.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's what we're after.
Truth.

Who's Truth would that be, that we are after?

".. A human view of truth, one that is dynamic and relational, enables religious people to embrace and affirm foundational truths without necessarily solidifying the words into static, absolute, propositional statements. Conversely, religious convictions that become locked into absolute truths can easily lead people to see themselves as God’s agents. People so emboldened are capable of violent and destructive behavior in the name of religion.... " – When Religion Becomes Evil, p. 70

Truth is relative and restricted to the capacity of each mind that is pursuing any Truth.

This quote from the same source as the above quote offers a good insight into what happens to Faiths when man gets hold of the teachings;

"... When zealous and devout adherents elevate the teachings and beliefs of their traditions to the level of absolute truth claims, they open a door to the possibility that their religion will become evil. …people armed with absolute truth claims are closely linked to violent extremism, charismatic leaders, and various justifications for acts otherwise understood to be unacceptable." – When Religion Becomes Evil, p. 44.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Who's Truth would that be, that we are after?

Ah..... you want to ask a question........

".. A human view of truth,.................
Truth is relative and restricted to the capacity ............
"... When zealous and devout adherents elevate ................

Ah..... you decided to answer your own question, it seems?

Oh well......

 

[oldbadger]

Who's Truth would that be, that we are after?

Ah..... you want to ask a question........

".. A human view of truth,.................
Truth is relative and restricted to the capacity ............
"... When zealous and devout adherents elevate ................

Ah..... you decided to answer your own question, it seems?

Oh well......

 

[Brian2]

I don't think that John's timeline is true.... He had a valuable collection of reports but had no idea of how or where to place them. Notice how casting of demons or cures described in Mark are mostly omitted (not good enough?) and the dead brought to life.....
The Great Temple was manned by 2000 priests and 6000 Levite guards plus Roman guards walking the wall-tops during great feasts. Yet John has Jesus clearing the money changer stalks on his own. And nobody would get to do that twice.

The evidence shows John to be the apostle John, not someone who collected reports.

Luke, like John, did get a good collection of reports, he copied Mark, Q and other docs, but I would not choose his words over Mark which he copied.

Luke no doubt had Mark's gospel and maybe a few others. Luke had more information than Mark and got information from people who were witnesses.

 

[Brian2]

My point is this, early Christians removed his first name and hid his last, his called name, in Eastern Aramaic. It would have meant little to, say, Roman readers.

But you and I know his name was called Jesus Son of the Father. And not close to Jesus Son of Man.

I think this man could have been Jesus BarYosef, son of Mary BartaHeli.

Is that more clear an opinion?

It is a more clear opinion. I think it is amazing what people come up with when they decide that the gospel stories are not true.

 

[Brian2]

Matthew needed to copy Mark's gospel. That tells me that he was not there, not a disciple, just an apostle promoting the Faith like Luke.

You have made up your own story of what happened, and no doubt for your own reasons. And it is easier to throw 3 gospels out and keep one if you don't like harmonising stories that appear on the surface to be contradicting. Some people however have noticed that the seeming contradictions actually show the stories to be true. eg.

Pilate didn't want Jesus killed.
Pilate was deeply irritated by the Sanhedrin, the whole bunch of them.
There is evidence that could suggest that Jesus survived that last day.

It is amazing what people start believing about the gospel stories when they decide the gospel stories are not true.

 

[Brian2]

I think that your proposal is not a solution, rather an amazing stretching, twisting, turning, mangling of two totally different reports in order to satisfy a determined effort to somehow make the stories 'the innerrant words of God'.

What I wrote cannot be seen as gospel but does show that the accounts can be harmonised and don't have to be written off as complete contradictions.
If you accepted Mark as authentic that would be great but you really sound as if you say you accept Mark but could easily turn aside to a belief that Jesus did not really die or rise from the dead and is not the Son of God etc. and you could justify that easily enough.

 

[oldbadger]

The evidence shows John to be the apostle John, not someone who collected reports.

Of course.
But Apostle John was certainly not Disciple John.
Disciple John was probably about 20yrs (ish) when they finally went to the Temple Feast. His Mum was still pushing and pulling for him even then. And so by 100-110AD when G-John got written disciple John would have been about 90-100 years old, which doesn't really fit with the average maximum ages of Galilean peasants. That........ and the fact that John had no clue about important occasions which disciple John would definitely have remembered. That........ and his outrageous fibs.

Luke no doubt had Mark's gospel and maybe a few others. Luke had more information than Mark and got information from people who were witnesses.

Who were these witnesses?
Luke was not there.
Mark was certainly present for some of those occasions, and certainly at the arrest.

 

[oldbadger]

It is a more clear opinion. I think it is amazing what people come up with when they decide that the gospel stories are not true.

Really?
The very first verse of G-Mark was altered!
The NIV bible makes that very clear........ the entry 'son of God' was not in the earliest copies of G-Mark.

Maybe it was Christians who felt the need to emphasise, colour and make up some parts?

We don't try and make up stories..... we researched and discovered, which is how we (many of us) left Christian Churches.
A good example is Geza Vermes who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls, he was a priest but left Christianity after researching/writing his book about Historical Jesus.

What I told you about Jesus Son of the Father is there for you to read, less his first name which was removed.........

 

[oldbadger]

You have made up your own story of what happened, and no doubt for your own reasons. And it is easier to throw 3 gospels out and keep one if you don't like harmonising stories that appear on the surface to be contradicting. Some people however have noticed that the seeming contradictions actually show the stories to be true.

Look.......... I can acknowledge your faith, which is one thing.
I cannot acknowledge that all parts of all four gospels are true. I happen to believe that they are not.

So don't try and tell me that I've made up stories.

It is amazing what people start believing about the gospel stories when they decide the gospel stories are not true.

The evidence is there for any investigator to find.
Individual Investigation beats Institutional Indoctrination every time.
You just cannot answer the contradictions without all kinds of twisting, turning, mangling, wringing and more, and then you moan about the investigations.

 

[oldbadger]

What I wrote cannot be seen as gospel but does show that the accounts can be harmonised and don't have to be written off as complete contradictions.

Rubbish!
Judas gave the money back and hanged himself.
Judas bought a field and fell over in it.

And the broken statements occur again and again, and investigators have to delve deep to discover which might be more true.

If you accepted Mark as authentic that would be great but you really sound as if you say you accept Mark but could easily turn aside to a belief that Jesus did not really die or rise from the dead and is not the Son of God etc. and you could justify that easily enough.

Look, I read what is written, I don't cherry pick...... ok?

John;s last week at Jerusalem...... nothing, absolutely nothing like G-Mark's.
The accounts don't even agree on which days the last supper, the trial and execution took place. See for yourself.

John didn't know what he did, or where he was supposed to be during the last week!

Do you know where John was on the first day according to G-Mark? Or the second? Or the Third?

I find it amazing that some Christians just breeze across all this with no idea themselves, either. I don't think they really care.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Ah..... you decided to answer your own question, it seems?

It appears I did indeed.

The Bible to me is not a record of history, but stories of spiritual truths based on events of that time.

It is not history we learn from those passages, we learn from them who was Jesus, what it means that Jesus was the Christ, the Son and how all that relates to the One God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't think they really care.

I think they really care.

I see humanity as a whole struggle to understand the purpose of God's Word.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

It appears I did indeed.

The Bible to me is not a record of history, but stories of spiritual truths based on events of that time.

Huh? Now what exactly is a spiritual truth?
How does a spiritual truth differ from a truth?

That word, spiritual, you coat it over both facts and lies like food manufacturers used to coat their food products in monosodium glutamate......... coat that on dog poo and it can taste good!

It is not history we learn from those passages, we learn from them who was Jesus, what it means that Jesus was the Christ, the Son and how all that relates to the One God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Regards Tony

You know....... one day a bunch of extremists are going to try and tell the World that the holocaust wasn't real history but a spiritual lesson in inhumanity or some such rubbish.

And the investigated gospels tell investigators that Jesus and the Baptist were Jews campaigning for fair treatment........ Christ? Jesus never heard that word..... didn't speak that language.

Let's get real.

 

[oldbadger]

I see humanity as a whole struggle to understand the purpose of God's Word.

Regards Tony

So that's what Hitler was trying to do!

The purpose of humanity is to live, reproduce and survive.
Just like Badgers or Kangaroos or whatever.