Those contradicting Gospels!

thomas t · Aug 11, 2020

CG Didymus said:
Do you go out and "witness" to people? If you do, you are trying to convince them what you believe about the Bible is the truth.

that's not how it works. I try to convince everyone that I believe the Bible is true. When asked.
Witnessing for me means telling people what I think Jesus did for me, when the situation allows me to do so.

I'm no preacher. No teacher.

CG Didymus said:
It's you who have to try and show how and why you think there are contradictions in the different versions.

I believe it's error-free. No contradictions.
Probably a typo you've made?

CG Didymus said:
They contradict each other.

Actually, they don't, I think.

Before you say God provides contradiction in his scripture, don't do so without citing the due evidence for your story.
The tomb stories differ from each other. They don't contradict. Differing stories don't necessarily contradict each other.

We both believe, you at 50% at least. You are making a reproach against God? so the onus is on you.
It's like in court: the ones trying to judge and convict need the proof, it's not the other way round.

CG Didymus said:
But who taught you to believe like that? God? The Holy Spirit?

it's the other way round. It's like in court: before you don't present the evidence that God spreads falshood, please assume He didn't. Let trust In God be the default option for your faith.

CG Didymus said:
Those people told the story and some of them put it down in words. Not God... but that's just my opinion.

but scriptures are still inspired, I think. Even if man interacted. So it's God standing behind all of this, as I see it.

Brian2 · Aug 15, 2020

oldbadger said:
Why are there so many contradictions in the gospel stories?
I'll try to post up one exhibit each day.
If any can explain these differences then that would be interesting.

Contadiction One:
In G-Mark Jesus had not started his mission nor had a single disciple with him when the Baptist was put in prison.

In G-John Jesus had found his disciples, performed miracles in Cana, stayed in Capernaum with his Mother, visited the Temple and caused a big rumpus, returned to Aenon where he was baptising near the Baptist .... who had not been arrested yet.....!!

That's a wholly different story......
How?

Exhibits:-
Mark {1:14} Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, ............... {1:16} Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. {1:17} And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

John{2:1} And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

John{2:12} After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

John {2:13} And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem............

John 3:22} After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. {3:23} And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. {3:24} For John was not yet cast into prison.

I think the answer to that one would be that Mark is a short gospel and as such does not contain all the information that the other gospels contain. Actually there are details in each gospel which add to the story, but the lack of those details in the other gospels does not detract from the story.
In addition I see Jesus as having had many disciples before He met with and called the disciples which would be His apostles eventually. The time when He chose them to be His apostles was actually not when He called them to follow Him. (eg Mark 1:16)
So Jesus called Simon and Andrew while He already had many disciples and had done many things and at a later time He chose from all of His disciples, certain ones to be apostles. (see Luke 6:12-16)
That Jesus had many disciples apart from the 12 can be seen at Luke 10:1-23 for example.

Brian2 · Aug 15, 2020

oldbadger said:
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

They could all be true. But I don't see the one about being with Jesus in the Temple in any of your quotes.
PS Contradiction 5 is post 125

Brian2 · Aug 15, 2020

oldbadger said:
Day 2!

Contention number 2 !
How is it that in two gospels Jesus and the Baptist are shown to be campaigning for and on behalf of the Jewish working people, in another the Baptist shows that he despises these Jewish people, and in a fourth gospel the most aggressive enemy of Jesus becomes 'The Jews', this gospel seeming to be the most quoted and relied upon by Christianity in general and arguably being one serious cause of Antisemitism over two thousand years......... So let's look at this contradiction today.

Mark shows that the Baptist and Jesus both were dedicated to the Jewish people and wanted to offer cleansing and redemption in a simple memorable ceremony which obviated the need for a very costly Temple visit and expensive services from the local inbitants. Throughout Mark's gospel (until the trial of Jesus) the enemies of Jesus are described as priests and Jewish leaders....... not 'The Jews'.

Matthew shows a close corroboration to G-Mark which is understandable because the account was copied. He also shows that both Baptist and Jesus thought the Priesthood to be corrupted and 'vipers'! Throughout Matthew's gospel (until the trial of Jesus) the enemies of Jesus are described as priests and Jewish leaders. Not 'The Jews'.

Luke shows that the Baptist and Jesus were both dedicated to offering cleansing and redemption to the working Jewish people, but the statement changes completely from Matthew and Mark, in that Luke's Baptist confronts the Jewish people, calling them vipers fleeing from vengeful 'wrath'.... this being a strange diversion from Mark since Luke was copying most of it from that gospel, and Luke was determined to make that a strong point. But otherwise, throughout Luke's gospel (until the trial of Jesus) the enemies of Jesus are described as priests and Jewish leaders. Not 'The Jews'.

John shows that the Baptist was Baptising people in water, and suggests indirectly that he did bring baptism to Jesus. Maybe he didn't think that a lowly Baptist should be ordained to immerse the World's saviour? In any case he shows that not only was the priesthood set against Jesus, but the Pharisees and 'THE JEWS'. In fact John's gospel describes over 30 scenes where 'The Jews' were set against, murmured about and plotted Jesus's downfall. That is a complete reversal from the Synoptic accounts, and whatever John intended, I think he did cause 2 millenia of disgusting Antisemitism.
Please..... don't anybody tell me that this is spiritual!

How can the synoptic accounts be shown to agree with each other completely and also corroborate John's? So let's see how these gospels fit together. All my life I've been told that these gospels are all the infallible words of God..... so let's get knitting....

Exhibits:-
Mark {1:4} John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. {1:5} And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the
river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark {1:9}
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

Matthew {3:5} Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, {3:6} And were baptized of him in
Jordan, confessing their sins. {3:7} But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Luke {3:3} And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins;
Luke {3:7} Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

John's entries about 'the Jews' murmuring about, interrogating or plotting against Jesus.
{1:19} {2:18} {2:20} {3:25} {5:10} {5:16} {5:18} {6:41} {6:52} {7:1} {7:11} {7:13} {8:48} {8:52} {9:18} {9:22} {10:20} {10:24} {10:31} {10:33} {11:8} {11:46} {11:54} {18:12} {18:36} {19:7} {19:12} {19:15} {19:38} {20:19}

How can we splice this lot, please?

This seems to be just a matter of language. "The Jews" mainly seems to be short for the Jewish leaders, Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the Law.
Luke's account of John calling the multitude a "generation of vipers" seems to be different and is addressed against the whole of that generation of Jews. I guess there was something about that generation in general which was particularly obnoxious. No doubt it is their teachers and leaders however who had been responsible for this at least in part, and who even led the people to condemn Jesus over Barabas. They were the religious teachers after all and they had their following of people who listened to them above anyone else.

Brian2 · Aug 15, 2020

oldbadger said:
DAY THREE!
Contradiction 3!

This a simple one. I'm being lazy today.

How did Judas Iscariot die?
We are told two differing accounts, one that he fell in a field and ripped his guts open, another that he hanged himself.

Whilst I don't mind which account might be true, this contradiction can help to show that the gospels are not the precise and divine words of God.

How does this help me? It hope that it could help me to debate more effectively in favour of the revisionist and progressive movements within Christianity which support the tenets of Love before bigotry, I suppose..... because I will soon need to be challenging the more hateful verses in this bunch of books which further the subjugation of women, execution of offenders especially children, sexism of any kind... and more.

Anyway, some exhibits:-
Matthew {27:3} Then Judas, which had betrayeth him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, ....................
{27:5} And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself..........
{27:8} Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood,
unto this day.

Acts {1:18} Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. {1:19} And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that
field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

PS. One very good friend, a devoted JW elder, has always proposed that Judas bought a field, soon after hanging himself from a tree within it, and that later his dead decaying body fell to the ground and burst open. But I have always replied that surely God could have guided the authors more clearly towards such an account.

If we piece it all together we usually come up with a more full picture of what actually happened.
Matt 27:1-8 tell the story of what Judas did with the money and who bought the field and why it was named the field of blood and then what Judas did,,,,,,,,,,,hanged himself.
Acts 1:18,19 gives a different account. If it is all true I would have to say that Judas had hung himself in that field and it was not a pretty hanging, as in the movies, but maybe he climbed a tree and tied a rope around his neck and threw himself out of the tree and got caught on a branch on the way down,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who knows.
But a Potters field to bury foreigners (as Matt tells us) may have been all that anyone could do with that field after the story of what Judas did had spread all around Jerusalem. (as Acts 1 tells us).
The Jews were sticklers for doing the right thing after all and maybe decided after they heard about the story that the 30 pieces of silver actually did belong to Judas and so should be used to buy that field where he died. Hmmmmm

oldbadger · Aug 15, 2020

Brian2 said:
I think the answer to that one would be that Mark is a short gospel and as such does not contain all the information that the other gospels contain. Actually there are details in each gospel which add to the story, but the lack of those details in the other gospels does not detract from the story.

If that is true, then you might already have fitted together how Jesus attended a wedding, rested in Capernaum with his Mother, cleared the Temple, returned to his baptising disciples near the Baptist, met the Baptist, was baptised, went out in to the wilderness, returned to Capernaum and then selected his disciples?

In addition I see Jesus as having had many disciples before He met with and called the disciples which would be His apostles eventually. The time when He chose them to be His apostles was actually not when He called them to follow Him. (eg Mark 1:16)

Were Judas, Simon Zealous, Andrew, etc.... Apostles?
What is your definition of an Apostle?

So Jesus called Simon and Andrew while He already had many disciples and had done many things and at a later time He chose from all of His disciples, certain ones to be apostles. (see Luke 6:12-16)

What is/was an Apostle?

That Jesus had many disciples apart from the 12 can be seen at Luke 10:1-23 for example.

Where did Luke get all this? He was no witness.

oldbadger · Aug 15, 2020

Brian2 said:
They could all be true. But I don't see the one about being with Jesus in the Temple in any of your quotes.

Jesus Barabbas was loved by all the people, so I doubt that he was a robber, brigand, thief etc. He may well have killed somebody in the melee but I doubt that it was murder.

But Matthew says this about him, to answer your point made above:

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.

oldbadger · Aug 15, 2020

Brian2 said:
This seems to be just a matter of language. "The Jews" mainly seems to be short for the Jewish leaders, Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the Law.

I don't think so. If John had meant 'Priesthood' I think he would have written that. I think John meant 'The Jews!' and that is certainly how Christendom reacted, for two millenia.

Luke's account of John calling the multitude a "generation of vipers" seems to be different and is addressed against the whole of that generation of Jews. I guess there was something about that generation in general which was particularly obnoxious.

Earlier in this post you suggested that John was really writing about the Priesthood, although he wrote down 'The Jews'. Now you are guessing that the whole generation 'in general' was obnoxious.
The working peasant classes (there was no middle class) were just that, people striving for a living and getting let down by their leaders.

No doubt it is their teachers and leaders however who had been responsible for this at least in part, and who even led the people to condemn Jesus over Barabas. They were the religious teachers after all and they had their following of people who listened to them above anyone else.

Where did you get the above from?
Jesus SonoftheFather (Jesus Barabbas) was dearly loved by all. He took part in or led a demonstration which turned in to a riot........... that rings some bells, somewhere.
Early bible's gave his name as Jesus. That got removed after a time.

oldbadger · Aug 15, 2020

Brian2 said:
If we piece it all together we usually come up with a more full picture of what actually happened.
Matt 27:1-8 tell the story of what Judas did with the money and who bought the field and why it was named the field of blood and then what Judas did,,,,,,,,,,,hanged himself.
Acts 1:18,19 gives a different account. If it is all true I would have to say that Judas had hung himself in that field and it was not a pretty hanging, as in the movies, but maybe he climbed a tree and tied a rope around his neck and threw himself out of the tree and got caught on a branch on the way down,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who knows.
But a Potters field to bury foreigners (as Matt tells us) may have been all that anyone could do with that field after the story of what Judas did had spread all around Jerusalem. (as Acts 1 tells us).
The Jews were sticklers for doing the right thing after all and maybe decided after they heard about the story that the 30 pieces of silver actually did belong to Judas and so should be used to buy that field where he died. Hmmmmm

Matthew says that Judas never did buy his field, and does not say where he hanged himself.

Acts says that he did buy a field, and fell headlong in it, dashing his guts out.

It would take quite some manipulation to fit that together, I think.

Matthew {27:3} Then Judas, which had betrayeth him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, ....................
{27:5} And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself..........
{27:8} Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood,
unto this day.

Acts {1:18} Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. {1:19} And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that
field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
If that is true, then you might already have fitted together how Jesus attended a wedding, rested in Capernaum with his Mother, cleared the Temple, returned to his baptising disciples near the Baptist, met the Baptist, was baptised, went out in to the wilderness, returned to Capernaum and then selected his disciples?

Interestingly Mark's gospel has Jesus going to one Passover festival and John is the only gospel with Him going to 3 Passovers at Jerusalem. John has a cleansing of the temple story at the first Passover and the other gospels have a cleansing of the temple story just before his death. Was there more than one time when Jesus did this or did the order of events get mixed up.
Jesus was baptised and started His ministry after that Baptism, John does not have that story of the Baptism even though he has other things that the other stories do not have.
Jesus had disciples before going to the wedding at Canaan and before selecting Phillip and Nathanial according to John 2. It was the 12 apostles which Jesus selected from amongst His disciples.

oldbadger said:
Were Judas, Simon Zealous, Andrew, etc.... Apostles?
What is your definition of an Apostle?

Yes they were apostles but they weren't given that job from the start. An apostle is one who is sent out. The 12 apostles were chosen to be special witnesses for Jesus and they were sent to preach the gospel to the world.

oldbadger said:
Where did Luke get all this? He was no witness.

Luke tells us at the start of his gospel that he got his information from people who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
Jesus Barabbas was loved by all the people, so I doubt that he was a robber, brigand, thief etc. He may well have killed somebody in the melee but I doubt that it was murder.

Being charged with murder, insurrection etc does not mean that the people would not love him,,,,,,,,,,,,,especially if he was a zealot who was fighting against the Roman occupation.

oldbadger said:
But Matthew says this about him, to answer your point made above:
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.

Where does that say that Barabbas was with Jesus in the Temple.

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
I don't think so. If John had meant 'Priesthood' I think he would have written that. I think John meant 'The Jews!' and that is certainly how Christendom reacted, for two millenia.

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".

oldbadger said:
Earlier in this post you suggested that John was really writing about the Priesthood, although he wrote down 'The Jews'. Now you are guessing that the whole generation 'in general' was obnoxious.
The working peasant classes (there was no middle class) were just that, people striving for a living and getting let down by their leaders.

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.

oldbadger said:
Where did you get the above from?
Jesus SonoftheFather (Jesus Barabbas) was dearly loved by all. He took part in or led a demonstration which turned in to a riot........... that rings some bells, somewhere.
Early bible's gave his name as Jesus. That got removed after a time.

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.)

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
Matthew says that Judas never did buy his field, and does not say where he hanged himself.

Acts says that he did buy a field, and fell headlong in it, dashing his guts out.

It would take quite some manipulation to fit that together, I think.

Matthew {27:3} Then Judas, which had betrayeth him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, ....................
{27:5} And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself..........
{27:8} Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood,
unto this day.

Acts {1:18} Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. {1:19} And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that
field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

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.

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
DAY FOUR!

CONTRADICTION 4

All the accounts of the last week leading to the crucidixion contradict each other in different ways, by exclusion, by difference, or absolutely.

Only the 'teller and/or author' of G-Mark had been a witness during the last week with Jesus.

But the other accounts? Contradictions!
Although G-John, G-Matthew and G-Luke are full of interesting accounts, those authors were never with Jesus, ever, and so had no personal experience about what happened. Whereas G-Mark is able to describe the last week at Jerusalem with details that the other apostles would surely have mentioned if they had experienced them all. And John's account is mostly untrue, imo.

And a (separate) very personal account could help to show that Mark's author was actually at the arrest of Jesus.

My exhibits today are from G-Mark, and any who would claim last-week accuracy from the other gospels might like to show their exhibit-verses in support of their claim?

oldbadger said:
Separate from the above, there was a short passage which describes a very personal experience that would only ever have been remembered by the writer and some younger Temple officials. The Temple officials would not have passed on this experience because they failed, and because they had no wish to pass on the incident. Only the person who mentioned this would have held it in mind for all time..... the author of Mark:-

Mark {14:50} And they all forsook him, and fled. {14:51} And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body;] and the young men laid hold on him: {14:52} And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

........... a lucky escape indeed!

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?

RabbiO · Aug 16, 2020

Brian2 said:
This seems to be just a matter of language. "The Jews" mainly seems to be short for the Jewish leaders, Pharisees, Sadducees, teachers of the Law.
Luke's account of John calling the multitude a "generation of vipers" seems to be different and is addressed against the whole of that generation of Jews. I guess there was something about that generation in general which was particularly obnoxious. No doubt it is their teachers and leaders however who had been responsible for this at least in part, and who even led the people to condemn Jesus over Barabas. They were the religious teachers after all and they had their following of people who listened to them above anyone else.

Other than Christian scripture on what are you basing your assumptions?

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

RabbiO said:
Other than Christian scripture on what are you basing your assumptions?

My assumption is that the Christian Scriptures are correct.
What I am doing is trying to answer what appear to be contradictions in them.
This is no more than I do also with the Hebrew Scriptures where there appear to be contradiction.
I don't like saying that there are contradictions without first exhausting other possibilities that can iron things out.

Matthew's account of what John the Baptist said is different however and is about the Pharisees and Sadducees who came out to where he was baptising. (It (Matt 3:7)calls them a brood of vipers and Luke (Luke 3:7) calls the crowds a generation of vipers.) Was it a mistake by someone or not. I do know that Jesus in other places calls the Pharisees and Sadducees the same thing.
Jesus also seems to say things about that generation of Jews which was pretty condemning, but when I look at the contexts it is about the Pharisees, Sadducees etc
Even something like this when looked at in context is about the Jewish leaders of that time.
Luke 11:47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Luke's account of what John the Baptist said to the crowds could also have been directed at the Jewish leaders who came out to where John was baptising but it does look to be directed to all. Maybe this is John speaking in the spirit of Elijah. Elijah also seemed fearless in what he said and thought that he was the only true prophet left in the land. But God told him differently.
But I'm not really sure which part of what I said you are talking about and what assumptions you think I have.

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
Day 5
Contradiction 5

Matthew and Luke both give accounts of the birth of Jesus. Matthew's account clearly dates Jesus's birth to Pre- 4 B.C. because Herod was still alive. However Luke's account dates Jesus's birth to just after 6 A.D.

And so there is a clear 10 year difference in Jesus's birth year ....... and so, either his age at crucifixion ranges from about 25-35 years, or the date of his death ranges from 27-37 A.D. ??

For me these possibilities are not of great importance, but what is of importance to me is that the gospels are therefore not the indisputable words of God, which surely offers more support to revisionist and progressive churches, focusing more upon the messages of love and understanding for all, regardless of gender, sexuality, race or colour.

Exhibits:-

MATTHEW
{2:1} Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
{2:3} When Herod the king had heard [these things,] he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. .
{2:19} But when Herod was dead, ....................
...............he ........... came into the land of Israel.
{2:22} But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither:

LUKE
{2:1} And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. {2:2} ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

ACTS
{5:37} After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

By the way:- Publius Quirinius, also called Cyrenius, ........ after the banishment of Herod Archelaus in AD 6, Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria over the Prefect and supervised the census in Judea, Idumea and (probably) Samaria..
O.B.

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.

Brian2 · Aug 16, 2020

oldbadger said:
Day 6
Contradiction 6

Did John the Baptist know Jesus well, or not?

Luke tells us that unborn John knew unborn Jesus in their wombs and that John was joyful when they came close to.
John tells us that the Baptist recognised Jesus on sight as the Messiah and Son of God. At Jesus's baptism, John heard God calling out to acknowledge his son.
Matthew tells us that John did not want to baptise Jesus, knowing who he was.

But later on, Luke tells us that John sent his disciples to enquire, 'Are you really the one?'

This, like most contradictions, is well known, but since this thread wants to compile the lot.... here we go.....:-
exhibts:-
Luke {1:44} For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

John {1:29} The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. {1:30} This is he of whom I said, After me
cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Matthew {3:13} Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. {3:14} But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Mark {1:11} And there came a voice from heaven, [saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke {7:19} And John calling [unto him] two of his disciples sent [them] to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? {7:20} When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

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.

oldbadger · Aug 16, 2020

Brian2 said:
Interestingly Mark's gospel has Jesus going to one Passover festival and John is the only gospel with Him going to 3 Passovers at Jerusalem. John has a cleansing of the temple story at the first Passover and the other gospels have a cleansing of the temple story just before his death. Was there more than one time when Jesus did this or did the order of events get mixed up.
Jesus was baptised and started His ministry after that Baptism, John does not have that story of the Baptism even though he has other things that the other stories do not have.
Jesus had disciples before going to the wedding at Canaan and before selecting Phillip and Nathanial according to John 2. It was the 12 apostles which Jesus selected from amongst His disciples.

Yes they were apostles but they weren't given that job from the start. An apostle is one who is sent out. The 12 apostles were chosen to be special witnesses for Jesus and they were sent to preach the gospel to the world.

Luke tells us at the start of his gospel that he got his information from people who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

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.

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.

oldbadger · Aug 16, 2020

Brian2 said:
Being charged with murder, insurrection etc does not mean that the people would not love him,,,,,,,,,,,,,especially if he was a zealot who was fighting against the Roman occupation.

Where does that say that Barabbas was with Jesus in the Temple.

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?

Those contradicting Gospels!

non-denominational Christian

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

הרב יונה בן זכריה

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Skanky Old Mongrel!