Those contradicting Gospels!

[IAMinyou]

I believe if it were word for word it could be considered copied from another gospel; otherwise it may be that their were pieces of Mark floting around and just needed to be put together.

Yes. Matthew, Mark and Luke are not true writers of the New Testament writings. Whoever wrote them copied and pasted many paragraphs that one servant of God had either written or spoken during the first witness of the millennium reign of Christ mixed in with their religious beliefs, stories and traditions that have nothing to do with eternal knowledge.

 

[oldbadger]

When you hear the actual Voice ( gospel ) of God, it can speak for days and days without ever repeating one sentence.

Interesting.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes. Matthew, Mark and Luke are not true writers of the New Testament writings. Whoever wrote them copied and pasted many paragraphs that one servant of God had either written or spoken during the first witness of the millennium reign of Christ mixed in with their religious beliefs, stories and traditions that have nothing to do with eternal knowledge.

Oh dear.
G-Mark is the most accurate account, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

Interesting theory but it is arrived at largely by dismissing what that gospels actually tell us and is probably arrived at through the circular reasoning of first being a Deist and then trying to see Jesus through only secular history and ignoring the idea that He was sent by God.

No..... Deists don't have driving agendas, or at least I've never met one that had such a thing.
But seeing Jesus hiostorically, as a man who picked up a mission and carried it for almost a year...... certainly. My findings so far, as far as they can extend on the balance of probabilities and possibilities..... sure.
One moment tell me that Jesus was sent by God, the next they tell me he is God..... they duck and dive to reverse their faith into wherever it can reach. That's not my problem.

So in your head you may have shown to yourself that you are right, but as I said it is circular reasoning, starting with the assumption you end up showing to yourself is correct. imo
Not sure what that emoji means but it seemed appropriate.

No. Students of 2000 year old history accept that the trail is so misty, so riddled with folklore and bits of info and agenda that they don't reckon they are 'right', they just reckon that they are doing their best.
If you put twenty of the best known HJ scholars in a room and handed them all pillows, the place would be full of feathers withing minutes.
But a few Christian scholars who have researched HJ have ended up leaving the faith.

It's possible that Jesus knew more than one language but even if He did not know Greek He certainly knew about the Messiah.

A Galilean tecton peasant knew Greek? That is wonderful. Apart from a very few successful brigands and merchants if a Jew wasn't a Levite then they were in the peasant classes.... there was no middle class.

I knew that all along. The religious hierarchy seem to have convinced themselves that they knew it all however and had interpreted the Laws correctly even if they had, as Jesus said, neglected the more important things in the Law.
Luke 11:42 Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint and rue and every herb, but you disregard justice and the love of God. You should have practised the latter without neglecting the former.

It's just a pity that you don't consider such points when you consider the true missions of both the Baptist and Jesus.

I usually ignore what is knows to be additions. The other things you mention (editing, manipulation) seem like more subjective things and would depend on preconceived ideas and a view of the gospels that says that you know what is definitely not true in them.

No. Institutional Indoctrination leads to preconceptions and subjective ideas. Individual Investigation simply takes a searcher where it can without agenda.

 

[IAMinyou]

Oh dear.
G-Mark is the most accurate account, imo.

How would you know what is accurate or not? Have you ever had to obey the Voice of God?

 

[oldbadger]

How would you know what is accurate or not? Have you ever had to obey the Voice of God?

Tell us, do.
What has the Voice of God told you?

Question.
When Jesus and disciples visited Jerusalem for that last week, what did they all do during their first day there? Would you know about that?

Question. Just one more.
Can you describe what the Temple half shekel looked liked on obverse and reverse sides?

.....just wondering.

 

[IAMinyou]

Tell us, do.
What has the Voice of God told you?

Question.
When Jesus and disciples visited Jerusalem for that last week, what did they all do during their first day there? Would you know about that?

Question. Just one more.
Can you describe what the Temple half shekel looked liked on obverse and reverse sides?

.....just wondering.

The Voice of God speaks commands in the MIND for a servant to obey until the servant is prepared, meaning the strong delusion that hides the knowledge of the Tree of Life has to be removed first. Then the servant becomes the Voice of God and learns exactly what that means.

 

[oldbadger]

The Voice of God speaks commands in the MIND for a servant to obey until the servant is prepared, meaning the strong delusion that hides the knowledge of the Tree of Life has to be removed first. Then the servant becomes the Voice of God and learns exactly what that means.

Ah. So the voice of God couldn't help you with those simple questions.
Fair enough.

 

[IAMinyou]

Ah. So the voice of God couldn't help you with those simple questions.
Fair enough.

All the knowledge that the Voice of God speaks for our Creator was programmed by our Creator so even though a servant speaks from that Voice, we only speak the words formed in our mind of Christ.

I do possess the knowledge to understand why the New Testament writings were not all written by God's servants. Only the stolen words from the mind of Christ were used in those NT writings that are mostly religious stories, traditions and beliefs going all the way back to the early Babylonians who were building false gods from the Beast in their minds. There is just enough writings from the mind of Christ in the New Testament for me to understand there was a first witness that started over 2000 years ago. The most important part of the Bible are the prophetic stories along with the prophecies about what the invisible Image of our Creator is that can speak along with the prophecies about the eternal wisdom that would be revealed during the 1000 year reign of Christ and how this temporary generation will end on the day of the Lord.

 

[oldbadger]

All the knowledge that the Voice of God speaks for our Creator was programmed by our Creator so even though a servant speaks from that Voice, we only speak the words formed in our mind of Christ.

I do possess the knowledge to understand why the New Testament writings were not all written by God's servants. Only the stolen words from the mind of Christ were used in those NT writings that are mostly religious stories, traditions and beliefs going all the way back to the early Babylonians who were building false gods from the Beast in their minds. There is just enough writings from the mind of Christ in the New Testament for me to understand there was a first witness that started over 2000 years ago. The most important part of the Bible are the prophetic stories along with the prophecies about what the invisible Image of our Creator is that can speak along with the prophecies about the eternal wisdom that would be revealed during the 1000 year reign of Christ and how this temporary generation will end on the day of the Lord.

OK
It was nice to talk with you.

 

[IAMinyou]

OK
It was nice to talk with you.

It's hard to believe that the New Testament was planned to deceive every reader to make them believe those are the true words of the Lord. The main reason for this was to get people to add the NT writings to the OT prophecies which is what was necessary for the second witness of the 1000 year reign of Christ to get a hold of, especially the last servant being used to testify to the hidden Tree of Life.

 

[oldbadger]

It's hard to believe that the New Testament was planned to deceive every reader to make them believe those are the true words of the Lord. The main reason for this was to get people to add the NT writings to the OT prophecies which is what was necessary for the second witness of the 1000 year reign of Christ to get a hold of, especially the last servant being used to testify to the hidden Tree of Life.

Now maybe that is why I notice so many contradictions in the gospels, and discrepancies in reports between gospels.

And 'Yes', this reversing and shuffling to try and fit people and situations in to prophecies is most strange. It has always seemed to me that Christianity was shoved, pushed, contorted, twisted, reversed and booted to fit in to whatever was required for its growth and survival.

Where I live the Christians even built their churches over the pagan meeting venues, one way of increasing followers, I suppose.

 

[Brian2]

No..... Deists don't have driving agendas, or at least I've never met one that had such a thing.
But seeing Jesus hiostorically, as a man who picked up a mission and carried it for almost a year...... certainly. My findings so far, as far as they can extend on the balance of probabilities and possibilities..... sure.
One moment tell me that Jesus was sent by God, the next they tell me he is God..... they duck and dive to reverse their faith into wherever it can reach. That's not my problem.

It's not that hard to get a basic understanding of the trinity doctrine and see Jesus the Son of God as also being divine and having the same nature as His Father.
But I would agree with you about Deists not having driving agendas because we all just approach things from our pov and don't see that as a driving agenda even if it is. If you are a Deist then you may just approach the Bible with that pov and automatically see it in that light.
I come to the Bible with a belief that it is true and see it in that light.
Of course sometimes our initial pov can blind us to things.

No. Students of 2000 year old history accept that the trail is so misty, so riddled with folklore and bits of info and agenda that they don't reckon they are 'right', they just reckon that they are doing their best.
If you put twenty of the best known HJ scholars in a room and handed them all pillows, the place would be full of feathers withing minutes.
But a few Christian scholars who have researched HJ have ended up leaving the faith.

I imagine a HJ scholar would have a set of assumptions about what could be classed as historical or not and that set would automatically take away the possible true of most of the gospel stories. Some people would start thinking about the gospels in that light and end up actually believing that the only way to find the real Jesus is through these assumptions. It's a bit like some people who believe the only way to find the truth is through scientific study.

A Galilean tecton peasant knew Greek? That is wonderful. Apart from a very few successful brigands and merchants if a Jew wasn't a Levite then they were in the peasant classes.... there was no middle class.

Galileans were in an area where many gentiles lived and so people, esp someone like Jesus who could have been a carpenter and dealing with all sorts of people, and so would have had to know more than one language on a get by basis on top of their mother tongue.

It's just a pity that you don't consider such points when you consider the true missions of both the Baptist and Jesus.

I do, but I don't disregard other things in the gospels that you may dismiss.

No. Institutional Indoctrination leads to preconceptions and subjective ideas. Individual Investigation simply takes a searcher where it can without agenda.

I would say that a purely historical look at Jesus through the eyes of modern historians, even though it might claim to be objective and unbiased, in reality is not and leads to reading things into the gospels which are not really there, while ignoring other things which are there.

 

[oldbadger]

It's not that hard to get a basic understanding of the trinity doctrine and see Jesus the Son of God as also being divine and having the same nature as His Father.

I'm a Deist. So every thing is a part of the whole, the Deity. So you are a part of God.

But I would agree with you about Deists not having driving agendas because we all just approach things from our pov and don't see that as a driving agenda even if it is. If you are a Deist then you may just approach the Bible with that pov and automatically see it in that light.
I come to the Bible with a belief that it is true and see it in that light.
Of course sometimes our initial pov can blind us to things.

I read the gospels as if they are Witness Statements, and by doing that I could see that three of the writers were not witnesses at all. But that's ok because many of the stories, info, reports and incidents handed down (mostly) by oral tradition are good.

I imagine a HJ scholar would have a set of assumptions about what could be classed as historical or not and that set would automatically take away the possible true of most of the gospel stories. Some people would start thinking about the gospels in that light and end up actually believing that the only way to find the real Jesus is through these assumptions. It's a bit like some people who believe the only way to find the truth is through scientific study.

I never did start out with any assumptions. I can debate extreme mythers fairly well, simply because I looked wherever I could for what I might find. Whereas some Christians have sought in earnest to prove that Nazareth was a community with lots of buildings I didn't, and when archaeology found only one remains of one building from that particular age it didn't bother me because I had already discovered that trades, labouring and hauling folks traveled to where the work was and lived in goat-hair tents. They were all there, and at the two Canas and the other hill to the North, providing building services to Antipas for his rebuilding of Herod's Zippori (Sepphoris). Easy stuff....... if you're not trying to force fit the bits.

Galileans were in an area where many gentiles lived and so people, esp someone like Jesus who could have been a carpenter and dealing with all sorts of people, and so would have had to know more than one language on a get by basis on top of their mother tongue.

No. Galileans lived in Galilee, and the pagans mostly occupied the Gadarenes and Decapolis (with Jews). The boatmen of Genesarret often went over to the Gadarenes, needed to.
But Jesus most probably spoke Eastern Aramaic, which the woman referred to as she spoke with Cephas after the arrest. (...you talk like them)

I do, but I don't disregard other things in the gospels that you may dismiss.

Of course..... you are a Christian. I can acknowledge your faith but would debate the info in the gospels.

I would say that a purely historical look at Jesus through the eyes of modern historians, even though it might claim to be objective and unbiased, in reality is not and leads to reading things into the gospels which are not really there, while ignoring other things which are there.

You could put the words Christians in to the above and be correct. They surely do need to push, heave and twist to get things anywhere near to fitting.
But the Gospel of Mark, with known additions removed, is the true account, imo.

 

[Brian2]

I'm a Deist. So every thing is a part of the whole, the Deity. So you are a part of God.

That sounds like Pantheism to me, like Hinduism.
I thought Deists believe they can believe in a God through nature and also believe that God does not communicate with us through any scriptures.

I read the gospels as if they are Witness Statements, and by doing that I could see that three of the writers were not witnesses at all. But that's ok because many of the stories, info, reports and incidents handed down (mostly) by oral tradition are good.

Certainly Luke was not a witness but claimed information from witnesses. Mark may have been there for at least part of the time but he no doubt was not a witness to all of what he wrote. Matthew is said to have been a witness (which does not mean that he saw all that he wrote about) and John is said to have been a witness and of the inner circle of witnesses, the 3 main apostles, Peter, James and John, who saw more than most.
I see no reason to choose Mark over the rest. But that is your choice.
Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead, which is something from the earliest preaching of the gospel message in the early church according to HJ.

But the Gospel of Mark, with known additions removed, is the true account, imo.

The known additions can be a subjective view about the evidence, as with the "son of God" term in Mark 1:1.
Certainly mark does not seem to have been a witness to the risen Lord.

 

[Muffled]

I guess I see the reasoning in what the scholars have done in searching the myriad of ancient documents to find out what might have been added and when and where and to eliminate these additions where possible.
I see it as a good thing but also see that it does in some cases eliminate favourite texts for some people and when a reading is uncertain it can cause confusion in the meaning of certain verses.

I believe it tends to be like archeology. A few bones are found and all kinds of fantasies are told about them. We find a few Biblical texts and think we have all there is to know about them but that is probably not the case.

 

[Brian2]

I believe it tends to be like archeology. A few bones are found and all kinds of fantasies are told about them. We find a few Biblical texts and think we have all there is to know about them but that is probably not the case.

Yes if there were only a few Biblical texts that would be the case, but there are thousands and so the development (ie changes to the text and where and when they may have happened) can be traced back in history.
It's just like the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the OT scriptures then were pretty similar to what we have these days from what I gather.
But of course the scholars could be wrong in places. Not knowing exactly where is problematic for us when we get translations based on scholarly research.
If we do not accept that sort of research which older version of the scriptures do we go to as the pure one?
Never mind we do have the Spirit of Christ and I doubt that anyone except the first couple of century of Christians had perfect texts, and even if they did have perfect texts the interpretation of them is another thing and problems in that area have been going on from very early on in Church history.

 

[Muffled]

Yes. Matthew, Mark and Luke are not true writers of the New Testament writings. Whoever wrote them copied and pasted many paragraphs that one servant of God had either written or spoken during the first witness of the millennium reign of Christ mixed in with their religious beliefs, stories and traditions that have nothing to do with eternal knowledge.

I believe there is no proof of that. It is easy to speculate but that is not proof.

 

[IAMinyou]

I believe there is no proof of that. It is easy to speculate but that is not proof.

It's impossible for unbelievers to understand how the New Testament came into existence with some stolen words from the Creator via the Holy Spirit that saints wrote and spoke known as the Gospel of God. Those religious heathens who stole those words mixed them with their religious stories, traditions and beliefs that go all the way back to the early gentiles who worshiped the Beast and practiced religious traditions that religious Jews picked up on. The religious Jews started the water baptism idea trying to cleanse themselves of sins.

 

[Muffled]

It's impossible for unbelievers to understand how the New Testament came into existence with some stolen words from the Creator via the Holy Spirit that saints wrote and spoke known as the Gospel of God. Those religious heathens who stole those words mixed them with their religious stories, traditions and beliefs that go all the way back to the early gentiles who worshiped the Beast and practiced religious traditions that religious Jews picked up on. The religious Jews started the water baptism idea trying to cleanse themselves of sins.

I believe you are lost in fantasy and need to return to reality. As a person with God in me I understand everything that He wishes me to understand.