• 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!

Brian2

Veteran Member
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.

Mark 1:1 This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
How does the NIV show that "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?

Maybe you just don't like some Christian doctrines and that is why you accept and dismiss as you see fit.

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.

These days especially research can be done and people can end up believing top scholars who completely trash the Bible. Research does not necessarily tell us the truth, but can tell us what skeptics say about the Bible. Vermes was right that we should see Jesus as a Jew. We should see Him in the light of the Hebrew scriptures but not necessarily in the light of the Jewish interpretation of those scriptures.

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

I'm not sure where this information is. Maybe there was symbolism is Barabbas's name which indicated something. What is it that you think of Barabbas that you think I or other Christians should know?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
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.

If you have not made up stories you have certainly cut out part of the gospel story.
But I don't really know what you believe about Jesus anyway.

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.:)

It is good to do our own research but that also can lead us astray. Both sides of the story is a good policy.
Most of the things you have called contradictions so far aren't really contradictions. It is either that the different gospels have left out certain parts or told the stories in a different way. Trying to harmonise some of them can lead to what looks like mangling from your pov, but from my pov I find that deciding that some stories in some parts are not true is more of a mangling than seeing them all as true and trying to show how they don't have to be contradictions.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
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.

As I said and showed, even the accounts of Judas's death can be understood in a way that they are both true.

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. :)

It can be a concern for Christians if the crucifixion days differ or if different stories are told for the different days, (depending how fussy various Christians are about these things and how they see the gospel stories etc) BUT it is no concern if John does not give a day by day summary of what happened in that week or if John adds details that he knew and that the others did not know.
Anyway I think I have shown that the accounts can be understood to show that John's day for the death of Jesus is the same as the day that the other gospels give.
But I did not realise this could be done without a bit of research. There are actually a number of things I do not understand and have to put in the too hard basket. Eventually God seems to give me acceptable answers.
Surely some answers you have received in this thread are more acceptable to you, a Christian presumably, than to chuck out parts of the Bible and accept the views of skeptics as to the dating and authenticity of the gospels.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
How is that easy to show without you reading things into the gospels which are not there?
The signs are there. A detached investigation reveals them.
John didn't have a clue about what happened, where or when.
And his miracles had to be so much much more impressive. I'll stop short at the blunt answer .
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You are ignoring all the other evidence for John actually being the apostles John and you are assuming a tumbled timeline in John's gospel.
I don't know where you got the number of Temple guards you say were on duty but the gospels do tell us that the Chief Priests and teachers of the Law and leaders amongst the people wanted to kill Jesus but could not find a time or place to do it because all the people hung on the words of Jesus. At Passover time when they did not want any riots, they had to wait for the right time and place, hence Judas and arresting Jesus at night when nobody was near.
That Jesus cleansed the temple more than once at Passover time is not beyond feasibility.
Then again it is possible that the timelines in the gospels are not 100% accurate. The teachings of Jesus are grouped together in Matthew's gospel in one section and the miracles in another section for example and it probably did not happen exactly like that in real life.
But why choose Mark as the person who was there and ignore Matthew and John when there is definitely evidence for John being there and the gospel of Matthew was never doubted to be authentic?
Stop you in your first sentence....

John was the apostle John. But he sure wasn't the disciple.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't know where you got the number of Temple guards you say were on duty but the gospels do tell us that the Chief Priests and teachers of the Law and leaders amongst the people wanted to kill Jesus but could not find a time or place to do it because all the people hung on the words of Jesus.
What a strangled sentence.
Exactly how many Jews do you think attended any of the three major feasts? Take a guess........ or investigate.
The answer might give you an idea about how many priests attended and how many Levite guards there were.

Where do you get those three groups, Chief Priests, Teachers of Law and Leader of people from? The Baptist and Jesus both were pitted against Temple and Priesthood corruption, greed, treachery, hypocrisy and deceit. That's why Jesus's main call was all about 'Mercy and not Sacrifice'!!! Have you read that?

Yes...... all the people hung on the words of Jesus. The people would do anything for..... Jesus. Jesus Son of the Father. They even got him released, or so the bible tells us, but that didn't fit with the Christian agenda so the early Christians got Jesus'#s name removed from the pages and left his family name in Eastern Aramaic...... Son of the Father = Barabbas.

It's all there.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
What do you think are lies in John's gospel?
I prefer the term 'fibs', because since everything Johngot hold of was passed by either writing or Oral Tradition I'm not blaming him outright for any deceptions. John had never been there and he believed what he read and heard. OK?

Luke does not tell us who the witnesses were. No doubt he used Mark's gospel and I guess Matthew's and was in a position (as companion of Paul) to speak to witnesses and to hear them as they went around to visit different churches in various locations and speak to the people. Does a list of people mean that it is true and just saying that he got information from witnesses make it a lie, or hearsay? What difference would a list of names make?
Luke used Mark's, also a gospel we know of as 'Q@ and certainly one other, but he never used anything of Matthew's.


Matthew gives the feast at the tax collector's house and people also see that as a place where Matthew was present as the tax collector.
Ha ha! Oh dear! Sorry......... I just enjoy this stuff.
No...... Matthew deliberately and deceitfully tried to pop himself in to that slot, possibly trying to pretend that he was the Matthew of the disciples. He was not!

Evidence? Easy! Matthew copied Mark's gospel, almost word for word in places (because he could not make statement of his own).really! :D

Now compare Matthew's story with Mark's and you will see that Matthew ciopied Mark, but popped his own name in.....

Matthew
{9:9} And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a
man, named Matthew,
sitting at the receipt of custom: and
he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed
him. {9:10} And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the
house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat
down with him and his disciples.

Mark {2:14} And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of
Alphaeus
sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him,
Follow me. And he arose and followed him. {2:15} And it
came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many
publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his
disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

No.... Mark's Matthew was probably a boatman, same as most of the others. Look..... :-

Mark {3:17} And James the [son] of Zebedee,
and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them
Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: {3:18} And
Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and
Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus,
and Simon the Canaanite,
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
The signs are there. A detached investigation reveals them.
John didn't have a clue about what happened, where or when.
And his miracles had to be so much much more impressive. I'll stop short at the blunt answer .

Even a detached investigation should be able to reveal that the gospels can be harmonised and do not necessarily mean that John did not know what he was talking about just because he did not put in things that were already in other gospels of his time. I would say that John wanted to add to the existing content, not just repeat it.
J Warner Wallace in Cold Case Christianity was a detached investigator. Actually he was not really detached, he wanted to show the gospels were contradictory and to prove that to a relative (I think it was his daughter) who had become a Christian. He brought his expertise as a cold case police investigator to bear and showed that the differing accounts showed more that the witnesses were actually real witnesses.
Also I don't know how the miracles in John are any more impressive than those in the other gospels. Raising Lazarus was impressive but so was walking on water and stilling the storm etc.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Stop you in your first sentence....

John was the apostle John. But he sure wasn't the disciple.

If John was the apostle John and was the one that Jesus loved in John's gospel, and if the other evidence for the authenticity of the gospel is correct, (early acceptance of it as authentic and known by the early church fathers) then what is the problem?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Dr
If John was the apostle John and was the one that Jesus loved in John's gospel, and if the other evidence for the authenticity of the gospel is correct, (early acceptance of it as authentic and known by the early church fathers) then what is the problem?
I do think that John was the apostle because wrote the gospel. He was not the disciple John BarZebedee, definitely.
And it was John who tried to tell us indirectly that Jesus loved him so. I don't believe that, Leonardo sure didn't etc.
I think Jesus loved Magdalene, and she, Salome and some other women had the guts to go the Golgotha. The disciples had all legged it.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Even a detached investigation should be able to reveal that the gospels can be harmonised and do not necessarily mean that John did not know what he was talking about just because he did not put in things that were already in other gospels of his time. I would say that John wanted to add to the existing content, not just repeat it.
J Warner Wallace in Cold Case Christianity was a detached investigator. Actually he was not really detached, he wanted to show the gospels were contradictory and to prove that to a relative (I think it was his daughter) who had become a Christian. He brought his expertise as a cold case police investigator to bear and showed that the differing accounts showed more that the witnesses were actually real witnesses.
Also I don't know how the miracles in John are any more impressive than those in the other gospels. Raising Lazarus was impressive but so was walking on water and stilling the storm etc.
Yeah?
How other investigators did their job does not influence me.
Walking on water and stilling storms is possible..... complex but possible.
The Lazarus story would have been one of Mark:s very first memoirs of it was true.
I tell you, John didn't even know what they all did during the first three days of their visit to Jerusalem.

Try it yourself. What did Jesus and his do during their first day on Jerusalem, that last week.??
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
What a strangled sentence.
Exactly how many Jews do you think attended any of the three major feasts? Take a guess........ or investigate.
The answer might give you an idea about how many priests attended and how many Levite guards there were.

Where do you get those three groups, Chief Priests, Teachers of Law and Leader of people from? The Baptist and Jesus both were pitted against Temple and Priesthood corruption, greed, treachery, hypocrisy and deceit. That's why Jesus's main call was all about 'Mercy and not Sacrifice'!!! Have you read that?

Yes...... all the people hung on the words of Jesus. The people would do anything for..... Jesus. Jesus Son of the Father. They even got him released, or so the bible tells us, but that didn't fit with the Christian agenda so the early Christians got Jesus'#s name removed from the pages and left his family name in Eastern Aramaic...... Son of the Father = Barabbas.

It's all there.

I get the 3 groups from Luke 19:48.
You seem to put Barabbas in a place he is not put in the gospel stories, why?
I notice that in the ESV and NIV of Matthew 27:16,17 Barabbas is called Jesus Barabbas. I even seem to remember hearing Barabbas being Jesus Barabbas many years ago.
Is it important?
In a symbolic way it could be seen as having a message but apart from that, is it important?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Even a detached investigation should be able to reveal that the gospels can be harmonised and do not necessarily mean that John did not know what he was talking about just because he did not put in things that were already in other gospels of his time. I would say that John wanted to add to the existing content, not just repeat it.
Unreasonable demand!
A detached investigation should have a good chance of discovering.......... EVIDENCE.!!!!
Your agenda demands that detached investigations prove something that you only have Faith in....... strange.

J Warner Wallace in Cold Case Christianity was a detached investigator. Actually he was not really detached, he wanted to show the gospels were contradictory and to prove that to a relative (I think it was his daughter) who had become a Christian. He brought his expertise as a cold case police investigator to bear and showed that the differing accounts showed more that the witnesses were actually real witnesses.
Now here is a typical example of an Ad Hominem proposal.
You tell us that Wallace was a cold-case police expert, (wow! he must be right then!) and wanted to criticise Christianity..... but was turned by truth!!!!

The above is useless. Absolutely useless, and I'll tell you why...... the only part of Wallace's investigation which can be of any use at all is the EVIDENCE that he discovers.

And you showed none of it.

Useless.

Do you believe all ex investigators, or just the ones that believe as you do? I was a full working member of the Institute of Professional Investigators 1986-2010 (retirement) but that doesn't matter. Only evidence matters.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I don't know if you've already talked about the ending of Mark's gospel. If not, what is your explanation of the longer ending to Mark? Especially all the stuff about picking up serpents and drinking poison.

There is indication in Bibles these days that it is considered to have been added somewhere down the line. I'm not a scholar who knows the details of these things.
There are other parts of the New Testament which are like this also.
I guess the sections need to be left there in the Bible so that the continuity of the verses is intact and because some people believe the scholars and others do not. There are people who seem to think that the KJV is tantamount to the original documents.
As for me, I read the sections at times but do not see them as necessarily gospel truth.
Scholars finding these things is good, but can have it's down side also.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Now here is a typical example of an Ad Hominem proposal.
You tell us that Wallace was a cold-case police expert, (wow! he must be right then!) and wanted to criticise Christianity..... but was turned by truth!!!!

The above is useless. Absolutely useless, and I'll tell you why...... the only part of Wallace's investigation which can be of any use at all is the EVIDENCE that he discovers.

And you showed none of it.

Useless.

Do you believe all ex investigators, or just the ones that believe as you do? I was a full working member of the Institute of Professional Investigators 1986-2010 (retirement) but that doesn't matter. Only evidence matters.

Here is a different video from J Warner Wallace. It is not directed at an ex Professional Investigator but it starts having some evidence if you are patient enough.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No...... Matthew deliberately and deceitfully tried to pop himself in to that slot, possibly trying to pretend that he was the Matthew of the disciples. He was not!

If he wanted to pretend that he was the disciple of Jesus then he would have used the name Levi, which you say the church knew as the disciple of Jesus.
So no, Matthew wrote Matthew because that was probably his other Roman name and Levi was his Hebrew name.
Matthew's gospel is much longer than Mark's so Matthew seems to have known a lot more than Mark.

Evidence? Easy! Matthew copied Mark's gospel, almost word for word in places (because he could not make statement of his own).really! :D

Mark's gospel could have been good enough to use without reinventing the wheel. But as I said Matthew's gospel is much larger than Mark's.

Now compare Matthew's story with Mark's and you will see that Matthew ciopied Mark, but popped his own name in.....

2 stories the same with different names. Why suspect the worst from Matthew when the disciple Matthew is seen by the church as the writer of Matthew?

No.... Mark's Matthew was probably a boatman, same as most of the others.

Do you have any unambiguous evidence?
A person who could write is certainly as asset amongst the disciples/apostles as the writing of Matthew's gospel shows us.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Here is a different video from J Warner Wallace. It is not directed at an ex Professional Investigator but it starts having some evidence if you are patient enough.
Brian!
That's a 55 minute video which has 'some evidence'...... if I am patient enough...... !

If it had a single sentence of key, primary, secondary, direct, indirect or even circumstancial evidence then the speaker could have spoken it........ you must have had some idea about what you wanted me to hear about, surely?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
If he wanted to pretend that he was the disciple of Jesus then he would have used the name Levi, which you say the church knew as the disciple of Jesus.
So no, Matthew wrote Matthew because that was probably his other Roman name and Levi was his Hebrew name.
Matthew's gospel is much longer than Mark's so Matthew seems to have known a lot more than Mark.
Are you telling me that the longer the story, so the more complete and honest?

Matthew copied Mark! He copied that particular story almost word for word. And he woudn't have written about himself in the third person, would have been proud to tell Christians 'there I was sitting at my seat of taxation when Jesus came up to me and said.....' I know that you desperately need to believe stuff like that, but I don't..... I just research the gospels. :)

There is a good reason why Levi was the real publican (a low rank of tax collector) and why the real disciple Matthew was probably a boatman and certainly not the Matthew who was Paul's friend. Do you think that the area Tax Officers recruited their publicans from the local peasantry? I have read that they more usually would have recruited men from the lower orders of the Levite tribe. Makes sense. And it's not strange that a Levite would have a given name 'Levi'.

Mark's gospel could have been good enough to use without reinventing the wheel. But as I said Matthew's gospel is much larger than Mark's.
.... because Matthew got hold of two other gospels the one which contained much more about what Jesus said.
At least three copied gospels = longer read.

2 stories the same with different names. Why suspect the worst from Matthew when the disciple Matthew is seen by the church as the writer of Matthew?
The church did an awful lot of mangling, twisting, manipulating and editing so that it could fit itself in to its own kind of Faith, but even then it needed a higher level of fear than even Romans could produce to get everyone ion line.
It you rebelled against Rome you suffered a naked slow three day torturous death on a cross, your body excreting and uirinating its last for all to see and laugh at........ dreadful pain.
If you rebelled against Christianity you got the eternal fires of Hell and torture...... forever! Quite clever, really.

Do you have any unambiguous evidence?
A person who could write is certainly as asset amongst the disciples/apostles as the writing of Matthew's gospel shows us.
I don't think the boatmen of Genesarret could write, but Mark, who followed Cephas around and witnessed some of the incidents, certainly witnessing the arrest, he could write, and probably wrote Cephas's memoirs in to his gospel 30-40 years afterwards; he might have got out to Alexandria.

I can evidence that shows that Mark was almost certainly at the arrest.

You must admit, most of what you think is evidence are claims. Christians don't absolutely know....... they just believe. They have ........ Faith.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I can evidence that shows that Mark was almost certainly at the arrest.

You must admit, most of what you think is evidence are claims. Christians don't absolutely know....... they just believe. They have ........ Faith.

You also do not absolutely know,,,,,,,,,,but you believe.
That evidence about Mark being at the arrest is what I have heard from Christian evidence. I just don't see why you accept that evidence, and do not accept the evidence for the authenticity and early dating of other gospels.
Luke was the writer of Acts and the companion of Paul on his journeys. He did not include in Acts, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem or the siege of Jerusalem. He also did not include other important events in the first century church. That probably gives a late date for the writing of Acts to the early 60 or earlier. Before Luke wrote Acts he wrote his gospel account and that was written in the 50s since it was before Acts.
Luke said that his account was orderly and that probably meant that it was in the correct order of events.
John was known to be the disciple John by the early church fathers and Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus and Papias are said to have heard John speak.
The canon developed in the 4th century was done so with an eye to what was accepted as authentic by the earlier church. Quotes from the NT are scattered through the letters of the apostolic fathers and these include Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Paul's letters.
 
Top