Those contradicting Gospels!

[oldbadger]

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.

OK.... So you know and can put Mark being at the arrest.
I'll swap with you, how do you know this? Would you like to go first.

Lukeh was 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.

I'm not disputing Acts. Acts came afterwards.
Luke's gospel is what Courts would class as hearsay and indirect.
Can you see the difference?
Many of Luke's incidents and infos are very valuable but he was not a witness.

Luke said that his account was orderly and that probably meant that it was in the correct order of events.

Luke thought his gospel was correct.
If you believe that then you believe that.

John was known to be disciple John by the early church fathers and Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus and Papias are said to have heard John speak.

Yes!!! Yes!!! They knew him!
So please don't tell me that John wrojte his gospel in the 1st century!!!
Irenaeus was most proud to have met John, which would make John BarZebedee at about 110-130 years of age.
Now how long do you think the average Genesseret peasant boatman lived? 45? 55?

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.

What happened in the 4th century was that any documents that the church didn't like got destroyed, and anybody who complained probably dissappeared as well.
That doesn't prove truth, it proves dreadful dishonesty.

 

[Rizdek]

I certainly can't explain those contradictions. I think it's because many who passed those stories down either forgot what happened and/or added to the accounts.

The contradictions in the Bible...including those in the NT stories about Jesus and what was going on don't really trouble me. And I am aware of not only historical conflicts where what is described as happening in one place is blatantly contradicted by another account but also...and even more importantly IMHO, there are theological and doctrinal contradictions which have resulted in the myriad of Abrahamic-based religions/denominations/sects/churches which each seem to happily go their separate ways often considering the other not only wrong...but heresy and eternally doomed because of how wrong they are. Muslims, Jews, Christian, RCC, Greek Orthodox, Jehovah's witness, Mormons, etc. all tell me that there is something dreadfully wrong with the religions inspired by the Bible and it seems they might ALL be wrong.

But I think that even if every single story/doctrine was completely and unequivocally consistent with every other story/account/doctrine and there was one monolithic Bible-based religion, I'd still not be convinced of its truth because I simply don't see that Christians or any religious group/God believers/worshipers have any power or benefit, other than psychologically, from their beliefs and rituals. So it isn't so much whether its true or not, but more, it seems not to be important. I realize this attitude is not shared by countless believers who would attest that THEIR beliefs are not based on some ancient and archaic writings, but on personal experiences. What can I say?

 

[CG Didymus]

I certainly can't explain those contradictions. I think it's because many who passed those stories down either forgot what happened and/or added to the accounts.

That's the thing, some Christians act as if the passed down stories are all accurate... the only differences is that one leaves some details out where another adds them in... that God and/or the Holy Spirit made sure that it was accurate. It is important to them that it is the very Word of God truth, but how unlikely is it that various oral traditions ever had the exact story or even the right story of what actually happened?

 

[lukethethird]

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that people who witnessed the same events tend to tell the same story. The fact that they do lends to the credence of the accounts. On the other hand each has his own perspective and memories. How could one say that the copy is longer than the original?

The plagiarism is well evidenced, you can turn a blind eye but, it's there.

 

[Brian2]

The plagiarism is well evidenced, you can turn a blind eye but, it's there.

What plagiarism are you referring to?

 

[Brian2]

OK.... So you know and can put Mark being at the arrest.
I'll swap with you, how do you know this? Would you like to go first.

I did a couple of subjects at a Bible College about 25 or so years ago and I remember the lecturer mentioning the story of the boy in Mark and how some theologians saw that as a personal touch and that boy as probably being Mark.

I'm not disputing Acts. Acts came afterwards.
Luke's gospel is what Courts would class as hearsay and indirect.
Can you see the difference?
Many of Luke's incidents and infos are very valuable but he was not a witness.

Mark's gospel cannot have all been eyewitness. He is said to have got his account from Peter. This is hearsay also even if Peter was an eyewitness. But we are not in a 21st century court so it does not matter.

Luke thought his gospel was correct.
If you believe that then you believe that.

Luke would have thought that because of his sources, witnesses and those who had been there from the start. In Acts it has been shown that Luke is a good historian who checked his facts about the historical details he included. Luke was in a position to check the facts from witnesses.
A good historian who goes to the witnesses and not to others who had heard from the witnesses, is a good witness to what really happened.

Yes!!! Yes!!! They knew him!
So please don't tell me that John wrojte his gospel in the 1st century!!!
Irenaeus was most proud to have met John, which would make John BarZebedee at about 110-130 years of age.
Now how long do you think the average Genesseret peasant boatman lived? 45? 55?

Why wouldn't I say that the apostle John wrote in the first century? If he was the apostle John then it seems right that he would have written in the first century. An old man but not 110-130.
Have you any other reason to put the writing in the 2nd century apart from the fact that you think he did not know what he was talking about?

What happened in the 4th century was that any documents that the church didn't like got destroyed, and anybody who complained probably dissappeared as well.
That doesn't prove truth, it proves dreadful dishonesty.

Not all the writings that did not make it into the NT were destroyed. That is plain by the survival of those documents and continued use of them. I don't know if things were destroyed then or not. Maybe. It seems that a first attempt at a NT canon came after Marcion tried to establish a canon and it was considered heretical (140-150)
As I said the authentic works had been quoted from by the early Church Fathers and that was a source of authenticity, but no doubt not the only one.
The 2nd century gospels were not quoted and were obviously not authentic and contained teachings not in the other gospels.

 

[oldbadger]

I did a couple of subjects at a Bible College about 25 or so years ago and I remember the lecturer mentioning the story of the boy in Mark and how some theologians saw that as a personal touch and that boy as probably being Mark.

There you go.
And who else but Mark would have had that incident scored deep in memory? The young fit guards that chased and failed to catch, they failed . I don't expect that they told that story.

I can't answer all your paras just now because I'm on a mobile, but you can surely see that Mark would have been present at incidents with Jesus and the disciples , only witness apostle.

Yes, he got most of his story from Cephas who was clearly most upset with the bulldust that was being told. A witness who was also a hearer from Cephas directly.

I believe most of Mark less the later additions and such. There are a few.

I use the other gospels because they contain details that were incidental, and ones that were unhelpful to the story, and ones that were corroborated by Mark.

I pay equal attention to the history of that time, the archeology, the numismatics, etc.

 

[Brian2]

There you go.
And who else but Mark would have had that incident scored deep in memory? The young fit guards that chased and failed to catch, they failed . I don't expect that they told that story.

I can't answer all your paras just now because I'm on a mobile, but you can surely see that Mark would have been present at incidents with Jesus and the disciples , only witness apostle.

Yes, he got most of his story from Cephas who was clearly most upset with the bulldust that was being told. A witness who was also a hearer from Cephas directly.

I believe most of Mark less the later additions and such. There are a few.

I use the other gospels because they contain details that were incidental, and ones that were unhelpful to the story, and ones that were corroborated by Mark.

I pay equal attention to the history of that time, the archeology, the numismatics, etc.

If we leave out parts of God's Word then our doctrine could more easily go astray as did the Sadducee doctrines. It was Progressive Christianity that you are into isn't it? That is certainly doctrines gone astray from the doctrines of the New Testament and early church.
If Mark had to hear from Cephas for part and no doubt most of his gospel, (just as Luke heard from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning) then Mark's gospel is as much hearsay as Luke's. (But I don't have a problem with that of course)
The young man of Mark 14:51 was following Jesus and there is no hint that he was part of any inner circle of disciples who were with Jesus all the time.

 

[oldbadger]

If we leave out parts of God's Word then our doctrine could more easily go astray as did the Sadducee doctrines.

The Sadducee doctrines?
Where do you get this from?
The Temple Priesthood, much of it, had deteriorated into greed, treachery, corruption, cheating and fleecing the working people of their hard earned funds. Why else do you think the Baptist and Jesus were cleansing and redeeming flocks of people in the river for nought? They could go home with their savings and the Temple was losing funds. That's why Antipas was instructed to go out and bring 'em in.
By the way, why do you think Antipas was saddled with that and not the Roman Prefect?

It was Progressive Christianity that you are into isn't it? That is certainly doctrines gone astray from the doctrines of the New Testament and early church.

I am a Deist. I'm not in to any Christianity. I study Historical Jesus.

If Mark had to hear from Cephas for part and no doubt most of his gospel,

No doubt...???? You don't have much of a clue about how much Mark saw or heard, but of course he produced a gospel based upon the memoirs of Cephas as well as of his own experiences. You've already agreed that Mark was there, in Jerusalem during the last week, and at the arrest.

(just as Luke heard from witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning) then Mark's gospel is as much hearsay as Luke's. (But I don't have a problem with that of course)

No.

The young man of Mark 14:51 was following Jesus and there is no hint that he was part of any inner circle of disciples who were with Jesus all the time.

Oh...... he just happened to be there with them all that night and probably that last week.

You're prepared to put down Mark in order to try and build up Luke. Strange. Luke copied that kid's gospel!

 

[Brian2]

The Sadducee doctrines?
Where do you get this from?

The Temple Priesthood, much of it, had deteriorated into greed, treachery, corruption, cheating and fleecing the working people of their hard earned funds. Why else do you think the Baptist and Jesus were cleansing and redeeming flocks of people in the river for nought? They could go home with their savings and the Temple was losing funds. That's why Antipas was instructed to go out and bring 'em in.
By the way, why do you think Antipas was saddled with that and not the Roman Prefect?

Sorry, who instructed Herod Antipas to do what?
The job of John the Baptist.
Luke 1:16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the LORD. 6 And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. Otherwise, I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

I am a Deist. I'm not in to any Christianity. I study Historical Jesus.

You said you believe Mark's gospel and now say you are not a Christian. That sounds contradictory. Are you sure you believe Mark's gospel?

No doubt...???? You don't have much of a clue about how much Mark saw or heard, but of course he produced a gospel based upon the memoirs of Cephas as well as of his own experiences. You've already agreed that Mark was there, in Jerusalem during the last week, and at the arrest.

Nobody has a clue about how much Mark saw. But for some reason you want to put his gospel above any of the others that have been accepted as authentic and have as much or more evidence for authenticity.

Oh...... he just happened to be there with them all that night and probably that last week.

You're prepared to put down Mark in order to try and build up Luke. Strange. Luke copied that kid's gospel!

I'm not putting down Mark, I'm just noticing that the evidence for his gospel is no greater than evidence for any of the others. You are the one who is putting down all the other gospels and is also putting down the truth of what Mark tells us if you do not believe what he wrote.

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry, who instructed Herod Antipas to do what?

If you study the history as well as the gospel accounts you will see that the Baptist's action were causing Temple takings to drop. Now...... think on from there...

The job of John the Baptist.

He was doing what he wanted to do......... and his (true) words (from Mark) show why.

You said you believe Mark's gospel and now say you are not a Christian. That sounds contradictory. Are you sure you believe Mark's gospel?

If you edit out all the Christian edits and additions there is just a Statement about incidents over about 11-12 months. No need to think beyond Jesus. Even Jesus never knew thgat word..... Christian. Never.

Nobody has a clue about how much Mark saw.

Are you saying that G-Mark didn't have any such clues?

But for some reason you want to put his gospel above any of the others that have been accepted as authentic and have as much or more evidence for authenticity.

People accept what they want to accept, or need to accept.
G-Mark is more trustworthy than the others, although the others do have very valuable info as well.

I'm not putting down Mark, I'm just noticing that the evidence for his gospel is no greater than evidence for any of the others.

You're treading it in to the ground!

You are the one who is putting down all the other gospels and is also putting down the truth of what Mark tells us if you do not believe what he wrote.

Yes..... the other gospels have valuable info but that's it..... I trust G-Mark much more surely than the others.

 

[Brian2]

If you study the history as well as the gospel accounts you will see that the Baptist's action were causing Temple takings to drop. Now...... think on from there...

The reason Herod went after John.

Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

He was doing what he wanted to do......... and his (true) words (from Mark) show why.

He was doing what he had been sent to do by God. What words are you talking about.

If you edit out all the Christian edits and additions there is just a Statement about incidents over about 11-12 months. No need to think beyond Jesus. Even Jesus never knew thgat word..... Christian. Never.

What do you edit out as being untrue? And the editing you do is why? How do you know you are editing Christian edits and additions?
Do you think that Peter told him about the resurrection or that he witnessed that Jesus had died and was alive?

Are you saying that G-Mark didn't have any such clues?

What do you mean?

 

[oldbadger]

The reason Herod went after John.
Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison.

Sure, Herod Antipas ordered his officers to go out and get the Baptist.

He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

OK.......... so where did these two meet up and have a chat?
The Baptist was by the Jordan, on the East side.
Herod Antipas was down in Perea.
Over to you...........

19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

Could this be incorrect?
Even Josephus wrote this version of events.
But if Antipas was told to go and bring the Baptist in, then had all those chats with him, then heard the Baptist's views about marriage and divorce, that might be closer to true, possibly?

 

[Brian2]

OK.......... so where did these two meet up and have a chat?
The Baptist was by the Jordan, on the East side.
Herod Antipas was down in Perea.
Over to you...........

There could have been a go between to relay messages or they may have met even if they lived in different places. It seems they could have met or had close contact if it is true that Herod liked to listen to John (verse 20)

Could this be incorrect?
Even Josephus wrote this version of events.
But if Antipas was told to go and bring the Baptist in, then had all those chats with him, then heard the Baptist's views about marriage and divorce, that might be closer to true, possibly?

If Antipas did bring John in for some reason then that could be an occasion of their meeting.

 

[oldbadger]

There could have been a go between to relay messages or they may have met even if they lived in different places. It seems they could have met or had close contact if it is true that Herod liked to listen to John (verse 20)
If Antipas did bring John in for some reason then that could be an occasion of their meeting.

Bingo!
Temple takings were crashing because so many people were receiving cleansing and redemption for nothing. So the culprit had to be arrested. Which is probably how Antipas got to know the Baptist so well, and how Herodius got to hear his views and hate him so. Ergo, the story could have got a bit mixed.

Why do you think Antipas had to arrest the Baptist and not the Roman Prefect?

 

[Brian2]

Bingo!
Temple takings were crashing because so many people were receiving cleansing and redemption for nothing. So the culprit had to be arrested. Which is probably how Antipas got to know the Baptist so well, and how Herodius got to hear his views and hate him so. Ergo, the story could have got a bit mixed.

Why do you think Antipas had to arrest the Baptist and not the Roman Prefect?

Sounds like possibly another case of getting part of the story from one source and part from another and being able to piece it all together into one cohesive account, as with the different gospel accounts and probably what happened with parts of the OT when redactors had to sort out different documents and accounts.

I'm not sure why Antipas had to arrest the Baptist and not the Roman Prefect. It depends on the reason for the arrest I guess. I know Herod wanted money for building projects but don't know if he got anything from the Temple offerings, which I imagine went to the priests.

 

[oldbadger]

Sounds like possibly another case of getting part of the story from one source and part from another and being able to piece it all together into one cohesive account, as with the different gospel accounts and probably what happened with parts of the OT when redactors had to sort out different documents and accounts.

The extent of the Temple rip-offs over sacrificial animals (you could bring your own but it had to be 'perfect', so priests just failed such beasts and made you buy one), or the Temple half shekel/shekel exchange rates (your local money was no good in the Temple) so you got ripped off on the exchanges, or the outrageous insults of the shekel images (graven images on reverse with Caesars initials) and the head of Baal on the obverse (oh yes) and the way that local folks charged for bed and board in the overfilled township surrounding Jerusalem....... the whole thing was just a disgusting money-go-round and insult.

No very much of all the above is focused upon in the gospels, but a historical (rather than religious) approach can throw these factors in to high relief........ some Christians welcome history when it supports their faith, spurn it when it doesn't.

I'm not sure why Antipas had to arrest the Baptist and not the Roman Prefect. It depends on the reason for the arrest I guess. I know Herod wanted money for building projects but don't know if he got anything from the Temple offerings, which I imagine went to the priests.

No problem. this is probably why........ After Herod's death in 4BC, his daughter was given control of a Northern province (forget which just now), his son Philip was given control of two Norther provinces, Antipas was given control of Galilee and Perea, and Archelaus was given Judea, Samaria and Idumea. In 6BC Archelaus was removed from any powers and a Prefect took control of those three provinces.

And so the Roman Prefect had no authority along the East Bank of the Jordan because it was under the control of Antipas.......... which is probably why Antipas had to get involved..

 

[Brian2]

The extent of the Temple rip-offs over sacrificial animals (you could bring your own but it had to be 'perfect', so priests just failed such beasts and made you buy one), or the Temple half shekel/shekel exchange rates (your local money was no good in the Temple) so you got ripped off on the exchanges, or the outrageous insults of the shekel images (graven images on reverse with Caesars initials) and the head of Baal on the obverse (oh yes) and the way that local folks charged for bed and board in the overfilled township surrounding Jerusalem....... the whole thing was just a disgusting money-go-round and insult.

No very much of all the above is focused upon in the gospels, but a historical (rather than religious) approach can throw these factors in to high relief........ some Christians welcome history when it supports their faith, spurn it when it doesn't.

Yes it is good to have some historical background to set the gospels in. It can help with understanding.

No problem. this is probably why........ After Herod's death in 4BC, his daughter was given control of a Northern province (forget which just now), his son Philip was given control of two Norther provinces, Antipas was given control of Galilee and Perea, and Archelaus was given Judea, Samaria and Idumea. In 6BC Archelaus was removed from any powers and a Prefect took control of those three provinces.

And so the Roman Prefect had no authority along the East Bank of the Jordan because it was under the control of Antipas.......... which is probably why Antipas had to get involved..

So do you think that the Prefect wanted Antipas to get involved? or maybe the Priests? What would less income for the Temple mean to the Romans and why were the people not paying so much to the Temple because of John?

 

[oldbadger]

So do you think that the Prefect wanted Antipas to get involved? or maybe the Priests? What would less income for the Temple mean to the Romans and why were the people not paying so much to the Temple because of John?

The Priests would have been outraged, and worried. But Rome also took a % cut of all takings as well. So they wanted the Baptist to be stopped.

So they asked the controller of the province where the Baptist was to be found to go and bring him in. The Prefect (Pilate) didn't have to lift a finger.... not his problem.

The Temple coinage (Shekels) had been produced at a mint in Tyre, hence numismatists call these coins 'Tyrian Shekels'. But there were undoubtedly so many hijackings of coin transits from Tyre to Jerusalem that the mint was closed in 19BC and a mint opened (in secret) nearer to Jerusalem. It must have been a good secret because I don't think we have a clue as to it's whereabouts. But although the purity of the silver and weight of each coin remained consistent (Romans liked everything exact where value was concerned) much less care and attention was paid to striking the coins, and that is how (with other characteristics) numismatists can tell between pre 19BC and later coins.

The Jewish people must have felt shamed that bloody Romans could stuff blasphemy and idolatry right under their noses with their own Temple coins. That coin that Jesus asked to see in the Temple conflab with the priesthood, I've always reckoned that it was a half-shekel and not a 'penny'...... Jesus would have put the priesthood in to total terror over that, much worse than just a clever answer. The crowd might have torn them to pieces........ and maybe they did. Maybe that was the riot that the man 'Jesus son of the Father' got arrested after.

I'll never know, I'm sad to say.

 

[Brian2]

Yes!!! Yes!!! They knew him!
So please don't tell me that John wrojte his gospel in the 1st century!!!
Irenaeus was most proud to have met John, which would make John BarZebedee at about 110-130 years of age.
Now how long do you think the average Genesseret peasant boatman lived? 45? 55?

I just thought I'd correct something you said about Iranaeus having met John.
It was Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch who knew John and Iranaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.
I see no reason to say that John lived to the age you suggest. The writer of John was known to be John, one of the 12 apostles and disciple of Jesus according to the historical documents.
Was Polycarp a student of The apostle John? : AcademicBiblical