Those contradicting Gospels!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Firstly as for the human aspect, Frame of Reference, Inattentional Blindness, both combined with nature and Nurture, show we all have a different way of seeing the same thing.

As in "A came after B" vs "A came before B"? You're talking absolute rubbish. Or should I say inattentional blindness to reason?

 

[sun rise]

There are more than two groups in disputes over the Bible are far more diverse than the simplistic believers versus non-believers. There are many diverse conflicting churches that demonstrate this.

Of course you're point is correct.

I think you missed my word "literally" and so I did not find your post contradicting my note that I see a number of debates that have the form "I believe the Bible literally" on one side and "the Bible is wrong because it's literally self-contradictory" on the other.

 

[oldbadger]

I see the stories tell of spiritual truths for us to consider, spiritual lessons and not a historical timeline.

So.... basically, spiritual accounts can differ completely from each other and still be believable?
OK.
I'm wondering what spiritual significance you see in going to a wedding, having a family break in Capernaum and then trotting off to the Great Temple at Jerusalem to commit criminal damage and assault folks with a whip?
OK.....

A consideration and a really good example in recent history is the Martydom of the Bab. The records of that event were from eye witness accounts and people recalling eye witness accounts and they differ considerably.

Oh dear...... so your Bahai history is as contradictory as exhibit number one?
OK.

In the end we have the story that will carry on into the future ................

Stories, Tony........ differing stories.....

That to me is the Bible.....[/QIOTE]
The whole bible..... or just these gospels, Tony?

I will most likely leave it there,.............

OK.......

 

[oldbadger]

There are a number of different tenable views that take into consider the known accounts concerning the gospels in history.

What are they?

First, 'Truth' is beyond the grasp of fallible human belief.

If the Synoptics are compared against John then you're dead right that at least one must be beyond the grasp of belief.

There is a basic biography of Jesus that is reasonably established historically,

Which one did you choose out of Contradiction number 1?

.......... but beyond this the New Testament is set in history and not literally history. The New Testament describes the Bible including Genesis in the form of a literal history, which is untenable as a support of a belief system in the contemporary world.

How?

This represents the vast contradictions in the Old and New Testament.

So it couldn't possibly have been that one was just imagined from a bunch of accounts? That Temple riot happening before Jesus started his mission, rather than at the very end of his mission? Interesting.

 

[oldbadger]

It could be any I listed. It's not by one author and most don't even know the languages and cultures of the Gospel. Some take it literally and others do not. But how is this important to the Bible's overall message? Does it change it?

Not for some readers, but for others I expect that they do search for the real story, as far as possible.

 

[oldbadger]

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?

 

[lukethethird]

It could be any I listed. It's not by one author and most don't even know the languages and cultures of the Gospel. Some take it literally and others do not. But how is this important to the Bible's overall message? Does it change it?

If the different gospels represent competing Christian cults, then it's not a matter of an overall message, but rather a preferred message.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the different gospels represent competing Christian cults, ...

I know of no even modestly intelligent person that would suggest such a thing. Do you?

 

[shunyadragon]

What are they?

It depends on your religious or belief perspective. The only one I consider not remotely tenable is the belief in a the Old nor New Testament The other religious views that do not support a literal interpretation are also tenable such as that of the Baha'i Faith. Also the Jewish view of Jesus in history.

There are also non-religious perspectives that are tenable. The simple historical perspective as to who Jesus was in history as a Jewish rebel claiming to fulfill the prophesy and promote a rebellion against Rome. Was convicted as treason against Rome, and executed by crucifixion, which is the punishment of all who rebel against Rome..

If the Synoptics are compared against John then you're dead right that at least one must be beyond the grasp of belief.

There are no gospel accounts that are dead right nor dead wrong. They are the evolved accounts of the events around the life of Jesus compiled from oral traditions and some possible witness of the time, but there is no evidence that the gospels were compiled by witnesses.

Which one did you choose out of Contradiction number 1?

None and all of the above. I do not consider the gospels first hand witnesses and it is normal for individual (not witnesses) accounts of events are not totally reliable to the point. I reject the literal reliability of all ancient accounts in the Bible and ancient scriptures and literature.


How?


So it couldn't possibly have been that one was just imagined from a bunch of accounts? That Temple riot happening before Jesus started his mission, rather than at the very end of his mission? Interesting.[/QUOTE]

 

[shunyadragon]

If the different gospels represent competing Christian cults, then it's not a matter of an overall message, but rather a preferred message.

There is no basis for 'competing cults' in the history of the compilation of the gospels, but there were competing divisions in the early Christianity that faded or stamped out by Rome.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If the different gospels represent competing Christian cults, then it's not a matter of an overall message, but rather a preferred message.

Shrugs. Either or, or both. I'm pretty indifferent to it.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

In 1900 people looked forward to a new Century which would be free of religion and monarchy.
Science, reason, logic, democracy etc would reign. Like a vision from John Lennon's Imagine
song. But the contradictions in Western liberal democracy were soon apparent. And the loss of
monarchy in Russia, Spain and Germany soon led to tragedy. Instead of "religious wars" we
had "secular wars" and secular inhumanity, leading to the deaths of quarter of a million people.
Now we live in an age of nihilism, narcissism and cynicism about our ideals.

The contradictions are plain for all to see.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is no basis for 'competing cults' in the history of the compilation of the gospels, but there were competing divisions in the early Christianity that faded or stamped out by Rome.

"Rome" wasn't really Christian. It build itself upon some of the tenants of Christianity,
but that's a different thing. There were times when Rome hunted down and destroyed
people living as the Apostolic Church lived.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Rome" wasn't really Christian. It build itself upon some of the tenants of Christianity,
but that's a different thing. There were times when Rome hunted down and destroyed
people living as the Apostolic Church lived.

. . . and the time Rome became Christian, and Christianity became Roman and other religious minorities were prosecuted by Rome.

 

[shunyadragon]

My concern about the New Testament is not the contradictions in the text, but the text represents an ancient worldview that the Book of Genesis is a literal history and the world flood is a fact of history.

 

[lukethethird]

In 1900 people looked forward to a new Century which would be free of religion and monarchy.
Science, reason, logic, democracy etc would reign. Like a vision from John Lennon's Imagine
song. But the contradictions in Western liberal democracy were soon apparent. And the loss of
monarchy in Russia, Spain and Germany soon led to tragedy. Instead of "religious wars" we
had "secular wars" and secular inhumanity, leading to the deaths of quarter of a million people.
Now we live in an age of nihilism, narcissism and cynicism about our ideals.

The contradictions are plain for all to see.

Secular societies enable people of all religions to live together as neighbors by having laws that do not favour a particular religion before others, nothing inhumane about that.

 

[lukethethird]

My concern about the New Testament is not the contradictions in the text, but the text represents an ancient worldview that the Book of Genesis is a literal history and the world flood is a fact of history.

...not to mention the baptism and crucifixion.

 

[shunyadragon]

...not to mention the baptism and crucifixion.

Baptism crucifixion? So what?

The problem is a literal Genesis and a world flood.

 

[lukethethird]

Baptism crucifixion? So what?

The problem is a literal Genesis and a world flood.

True.

 

[PruePhillip]

Secular societies enable people of all religions to live together as neighbors by having laws that do not favour a particular religion before others, nothing inhumane about that.

Secular societies devalue religion and replace it with secularism - this was Fascism and Communism
in Europe. Secularism today doesn't mean tolerating religion, it is degenerating into intolerance. Just
ask American and European Jews.