Those contradicting Gospels!

oldbadger said:

What analogy is there that fits with the Baptist cleansing people for nothing so that they don't have to go near a very wicked Temple?

Have you seen the Temple currency for that time. A real smack in the teeth for the Jewish people, and the priesthood didn't care..... too busy copying and practicing the invader's religions..... quite the fashion.

Click to expand...

It's interesting. John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.
All Israel went out to him. They thought of him as another Elijah.
Imagine if Elijah, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah had appeared and said
to the people of Israel concerning Jesus, "This is Him."
Well, in a way, that's what happened. The greatest of all prophets
pointed to Jesus.

oldbadger said:

How many flocked to the Baptist?
Did he need disciples to cope with the baptising?
Could the cleansed and redeemed folks go home after, and not need the Temple rip-off?


Oh yes it was!
Total corruption, greed, apostasy etc amongst the majority of the priesthood.
No care for the people at all.


You should research the Temple coinage, the money changing, the sacrifice sales, the other costs and the bed&board rip-offs in and around the city.
You should research about how many folks attended a single great feast, how many priests and how many Levite guards.
..............but somehow I don't think you will....?


Well it would be helpful to read about what Jesus thought and did about it all.
And you did need to bring something..... oh yes! You needed to bring lots of money!



But the Temple had become that.
You should look in to it.


Redirection, again.

For some Christians Jesus needs to be adjusted to fit just nicely in to their lives and mindsets.... the rest can be forgotten. I just focus upon as much of the possible and probable history as I can.

Click to expand...

Daniel and others said the temple would last till the Messiah came. It made
no difference if the temple was cleansed or corrupted - it was to end. Jesus
said that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. The tearing of the
temple veil showed the way into the Holiest of Holies was through our heart.

If the temple WAS the point then God would have cleansed it as was done
by the Maccabees. And it would still be standing.

PruePhillip said:

It's interesting. John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.
All Israel went out to him. They thought of him as another Elijah.
Imagine if Elijah, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah had appeared and said
to the people of Israel concerning Jesus, "This is Him."
Well, in a way, that's what happened. The greatest of all prophets
pointed to Jesus.

Click to expand...

Oh really?

Matthew
{11:2} Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, {11:3} And said unto him, Art thou he that
should come, or do we look for another?

Matthew
{11:18} For John came neither eating
nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. {11:19} The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

PruePhillip said:

Daniel and others said the temple would last till the Messiah came. It made
no difference if the temple was cleansed or corrupted - it was to end. Jesus
said that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. The tearing of the
temple veil showed the way into the Holiest of Holies was through our heart.

If the temple WAS the point then God would have cleansed it as was done
by the Maccabees. And it would still be standing.

Click to expand...

....and you wonder at what I tell of John, who cleansed multitudes so that they didn't have to get fleeced at the Temple. And Jesus's disciples were baptising as well, and he was calling out the words of Hosea,'Mercy before sacrifice'.

Matthew:
{9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

oldbadger said:

....and you wonder at what I tell of John, who cleansed multitudes so that they didn't have to get fleeced at the Temple. And Jesus's disciples were baptising as well, and he was calling out the words of Hosea,'Mercy before sacrifice'.

Matthew:
{9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Click to expand...

Agree with you fully. But many people who came to John probably had
no issue with the temple, as much as they had a heartfelt response to
what John was saying. John's message wasn't anti-temple, it was pro-
Messiah.
The OT was about sacrifice, the NT more about mercy. So even a holy
temple would still be an issue as it was about the animal sacrifice - but
Jesus did away with that sacrifice in offering up his own life.

oldbadger said:

Oh really?

Matthew
{11:2} Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, {11:3} And said unto him, Art thou he that
should come, or do we look for another?

Matthew
{11:18} For John came neither eating
nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. {11:19} The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Click to expand...

Yes, John was in prison and feared for his life. Rightly so. "Are you he that should come or look
we for another?" was a rhetorical question because John felt Jesus should save him. Jesus just
reminded John of what he already knew, and "blessed is he who is not offended in me." John
would have to accept the offense that would come.

PruePhillip said:

Agree with you fully. But many people who came to John probably had
no issue with the temple, as much as they had a heartfelt response to
what John was saying.

Click to expand...

That's rather obvious.
If some mystical person rose up today where you live, preaching about the corrupt greed, wastefulness and wickedness of your entire government system and offering (and being able to) completely eradicate any person's taxes, licences, rates and all other charges, if they will simply come to his/her place and perform a simple ceremony with one of his/her disciples, do you think they would go? Yes, Prue, they would, ..... they would flock there....

John's message wasn't anti-temple, it was pro-
Messiah.

Click to expand...

It was about a wicked, greedy, corrupt, hellenised bunch of treacherous Priests (most of the 2000) and a very distorted and abused Great Temple, and a disgusting and filthy coinage.

The OT was about sacrifice, the NT more about mercy.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The Laws of Moses were about the building of the most invincible people in an entire region. There are 507 of 613 laws dedicated to producing a safe. healthy, strong, large winning force of people.
But it had turned bad, which was why it was failing.

So even a holy
temple would still be an issue as it was about the animal sacrifice - but
Jesus did away with that sacrifice in offering up his own life.

Click to expand...

He may have been released, Prue, and the gospels dared not erase that possibility entirely. A man who took part in a what became a riot that same week, called Jesus Son-of-the-Father was captured, convicted and sentenced to death, but the people loved him so much that Pilate felt it absolutely necessary to pardon and release him. It's all there, but we only see what we want to see.
The man on the cross could not be identified, bloody from head to foot and with the onlookers kept back 'afar'.
If you think that Mother Mary and John were at the base of the cross then you've been duped, by G-John, who certainly was never there.

PruePhillip said:

Yes, John was in prison and feared for his life. Rightly so. "Are you he that should come or look
we for another?" was a rhetorical question because John felt Jesus should save him.

Click to expand...

Where did you dig that up from?
The Baptist was fearless, or he would never have challenged the priesthood and Temple in the first place. He doubted Jesus because of the stories about Jesus's behaviour.

Jesus just
reminded John of what he already knew, and "blessed is he who is not offended in me." John
would have to accept the offense that would come.

Click to expand...

John had the guts, while in prison, to accuse Antipas and his 'wife' of breaking the marriage laws.
Jesus was annoyed at the questions and was answering them with 'attitude!'....... a kind of '..well you can tell him that I'm saving and healing and winning, then! Huh!'.

Where did you get that idea of yours?

DAY 11
Contradiction 9

Many small contradictions are hardly a 'big deal', unless you believe that the gospels are the perfect and divine words of God, in which case you do have some problems.

Which of the following was Barabbas........ a rioter, insurrectionist, murderer, killer, robber, notable prisoner ....or with Jesus in the Temple?

Mark {15:7} And there was [one] named Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that
had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.

Matthew 27:16} And they had then a notable
prisoner, called Barabbas.

Luke 23:18} And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this [man,] and release
unto us Barabbas: {23:19} (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

John {18:40} Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.



P.S.
Previously
Contradiction 1 Post 1
Contradiction 2 Post 26
Contradiction 3 Post 77
Contradiction 4 Post 104
Contradiction 5 Post 127
Contradiction 6 Post 134
Contradiction 8 Post 141
Contradiction 9 Post 153

oldbadger said:

Where did you dig that up from?
The Baptist was fearless, or he would never have challenged the priesthood and Temple in the first place. He doubted Jesus because of the stories about Jesus's behaviour.


John had the guts, while in prison, to accuse Antipas and his 'wife' of breaking the marriage laws.
Jesus was annoyed at the questions and was answering them with 'attitude!'....... a kind of '..well you can tell him that I'm saving and healing and winning, then! Huh!'.

Where did you get that idea of yours?

Click to expand...

By reading the story. Jesus was not going to save John from prison, anymore than
Jesus was going to save himself. As Jesus put it, the kingdom of God will suffer
violence. And being a Christian for centuries after could become a death sentence.
This is what inspired so many about Christians - they gave up their lives, literally,
for their belief.
John did not mention the temple.

PruePhillip said:

By reading the story. Jesus was not going to save John from prison, anymore than
Jesus was going to save himself. As Jesus put it, the kingdom of God will suffer
violence. And being a Christian for centuries after could become a death sentence.
This is what inspired so many about Christians - they gave up their lives, literally,
for their belief.
John did not mention the temple.

Click to expand...

The Jews all lived in 'the Kingdom of God'. And it sure did become violent.
The Temple was right at the centre of it all.

Jesus couldn't save John from prison.

John mentioned the Priesthood alright.

It was Jesus who mentioned the Temple, very much so!

oldbadger said:

The Jews all lived in 'the Kingdom of God'. And it sure did become violent.
The Temple was right at the centre of it all.

Jesus couldn't save John from prison.

John mentioned the Priesthood alright.

It was Jesus who mentioned the Temple, very much so!

Click to expand...

Sure, John's own father was a priest, officiating in the Temple. Seems like he
was a good man.
What John said was the religious leaders who came to him for baptism had to
show "fruits of repentance" and not believe that just because they are Jews
they have salvation.
Jesus could have saved John. The message to Jesus by John implied as much.
Jesus could have saved himself too, but he chose the "way of the Cross."
Jesus said that those who loved God become the temple of God. The spirit of
God would dwell within them. And the veil, which separated man from the Holiest
of Holies, was torn apart to show the "way was now open" for us to enter into His
presence.

PruePhillip said:

Sure, John's own father was a priest, officiating in the Temple. Seems like he
was a good man.

Click to expand...

And that is the subject of my Contradiction number 10..... coming soon.

What John said was the religious leaders who came to him for baptism had to
show "fruits of repentance" and not believe that just because they are Jews
they have salvation.

Click to expand...

They were 'Vipers!'
That is an extreme charge. They were being called 'Satanic!'. The Snake was the embodiment of Satan at the beginning...... Imagine a viper, hissing.....! See? Very bad.

Jesus could have saved John. The message to Jesus by John implied as much.

Click to expand...

We've covered this. John was not sure about Jesus, had heard strange tales.

Jesus could have saved himself too, but he chose the "way of the Cross."

Click to expand...

Matthew 27:46 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? !!!!

Jesus said that those who loved God become the temple of God. The spirit of
God would dwell within them.

Click to expand...

See? Jesus was absolutely against the Great Temple's corruption..... and its priesthood.

And the veil, which separated man from the Holiest
of Holies, was torn apart to show the "way was now open" for us to enter into His
presence.

Click to expand...

Nah. It was ripped apart to show the corruption within, more likely.
What a lovely story:
Mark:
{15:38} And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. {15:39} And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

You see? the soldier that stood by the Cross, against Jesus, was nowhere near the Temple Veil.

But I would love to know who told about that, and to whom, and on to Mark

Day 12
Contradiction 10

I can understand how the places differ in the gospel accounts about Jesus feeding multitudes since only one might have been a witness, but some Christians insist that every word in the bible is Divinely guided and true, which then makes these differences more of an issue. The venues for each feeding are shown under the verses.

Exhibits:-
John {6:11} And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. {6:12} When they were filled, he said unto
his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. {6:13} Therefore they gathered [them] together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto
them that had eaten.
( up into a mountain)


Mark {6:38}
{6:41} And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave [them]
to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. {6:42} And they did all eat, and were filled. {6:43} And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes.
(a desert place,)


Mark {8:6} And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before [them;] and they did set [them] before the people. {8:7} And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before [them. ]
(in the wilderness)

Matthew {14:17}
{14:19} And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to [his] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
{14:20} And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.
(a desert place apart)

Matthew {15:36} And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake [them,] and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.{15:37} And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken [meat] that was left seven baskets full.
(up into a mountain )

Luke {9:16} Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. {9:17} And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.
(Bethsaida. )


P.S.
Previously
Contradiction 1 Post 1
Contradiction 2 Post 26
Contradiction 3 Post 77
Contradiction 4 Post 104
Contradiction 5 Post 127
Contradiction 6 Post 134
Contradiction 8 Post 141
Contradiction 9 Post 153

sun rise said:

There are two groups that take scripture, especially the Bible literally: believers who are willfully blind about the contradictions and literalist non-believers who attack the literalist believers.

Click to expand...

Hi Sunrise.
I take Bible literally*. But I'm not willfully blind about the contradictions. There are none, I think.
The one presented in the OP could easily be resolved by saying John went to prison twice.


* whenever it's clear it's not prophecy. Jesus "the door" I regard as prophetic. He is not a literal door.

oldbadger said:

I can understand how the places differ in the gospel accounts about Jesus feeding multitudes since only one might have been a witness, but some Christians insist that every word in the bible is Divinely guided and true, which then makes these differences more of an issue. The venues for each feeding are shown under the verses.

Click to expand...

So the stories are different. Easy explanation... they are all different because no one remembered exactly what happened.

thomas t said:

I take Bible literally*. But I'm not willfully blind about the contradictions. There are none, I think.
The one presented in the OP could easily be resolved by saying John went to prison twice.

Click to expand...

I understand that for some Christians the Bible and the NT have to be literally true. But it puts you in tough positions to defend. Did the sun stop in the sky? 6 day creation just a few thousand years ago? And if you drink poison or are bitten by a serpent you won't be harmed. Tough things to defend. Even that Jesus is the only way to get right with God, because all of us are tainted with the sin of Adam.

But do Christians tear out the eye when it offends them? No. Do very many drink poison or handle snakes? Not many. Some things even Christians take symbolic. Where they stop taking things symbolic and make them literal is up to each Christian. But when it comes to contradictions in story telling, the easiest explanation is that the writers were going off of different oral traditions or writings. Why complicate it? Because, for some Christians, the Bible has to be all true, infallible, inerrant and the very Word of God. If you can do it within your own head, then good for you. But, for me, I'm okay with doubting and questioning religions. And I appreciate Old Badger taking the time to point out all these contradictions.

thomas t said:

Hi Sunrise.
I take Bible literally*. But I'm not willfully blind about the contradictions. There are none, I think.
The one presented in the OP could easily be resolved by saying John went to prison twice.

Click to expand...

Do you think that a man who was cleansing people in water and sending them home with their savings, rather than them going and spending all in and around Jerusalem and at the Temple, would be released?

The wedding at Cana, The Capernaum visit with Mother, the Temple riot, the journey to Aenon to stay with his disciples, near John. How would you fit that in to the gospel timeline shown by Mark?

CG Didymus said:

So the stories are different. Easy explanation... they are all different because no one remembered exactly what happened.

Click to expand...

OK...... so does this mean that the gospels have errors in them?

oldbadger said:

OK...... so does this mean that the gospels have errors in them?

Click to expand...

Well, I doubt that it is the 100% infallible, inerrant word of God, so that would mean there are mistakes. I think it might be worse then that, and it might contain on purpose exaggerations. Did he walk on water? Did he bring two people back to life? And then he himself come back to life? Plus the people that one gospel writer says came out of their graves. Because I doubt it doesn't mean it didn't happen or couldn't happen, I just don't think it did... And that the writers embellished the story of Jesus to make him a God/man. And they succeeded.

However, I don't see how they could have pulled off the greatest hoax, if it is a hoax, of Jesus' resurrection. So if Jesus comes back and asks me why I didn't believe, I'll tell him...

"The stories sounded to unbelievable to be true... but obviously I was wrong."

CG Didymus said:

Well, I doubt that it is the 100% infallible, inerrant word of God, so that would mean there are mistakes. I think it might be worse then that, and it might contain on purpose exaggerations. Did he walk on water? Did he bring two people back to life? And then he himself come back to life? Plus the people that one gospel writer says came out of their graves. Because I doubt it doesn't mean it didn't happen or couldn't happen, I just don't think it did... And that the writers embellished the story of Jesus to make him a God/man. And they succeeded.

Click to expand...

That's what this thread is about.
If there is a reason why there are contradictions between and within the gospels, then they might be wrong in places.

But I have not questioned the truth of them, just shown a few of the contradictions.

However, I don't see how they could have pulled off the greatest hoax, if it is a hoax, of Jesus' resurrection. So if Jesus comes back and asks me why I didn't believe, I'll tell him...

"The stories sounded to unbelievable to be true... but obviously I was wrong."

Click to expand...

They left the grave from a Friday evening until a Sunday morning....... and Magdalene's visit somehow got enlarged upon.