• 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!

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Genesis 1
God created the heavens
and the earth

Witness is upon the earth...

the earth was dark
and wet
and sterile

The skies open
The continents rise to form solid land
Life appears on the land
and then in the seas

And finally man.

As a former science lecturer, I am fine with this.

As far as your religious belief you are obviously fine with this, but it is a paraphrased selectively incomplete as far as the Genesis account, It has absolutely nothing to do with the science of natural history of our physical existence and the origin and evolution of life and humanity on earth.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Let's say 'the Western secular mind.'

At least what you call the 'Western secular mind' gets the science correct and honest based on the objective verifiable evidence. The 'fundamentalist Christians are still living in the context of ancient mythology thousands of years old and rejecting science.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Interesting thing is that the Gospel of Mark doesn’t really say that Jesus didn’t have disciples then.
Oh yes it does!
I wrote:-
..In G-Mark Jesus had not started his mission nor had a single disciple with him when the Baptist was put in prison....

So let's look at the G-Mark account.
Now don't forget that G-John's Jesus had disciples with him when he went to a wedding (Cana), took some days at Capernaum with his Mother, went to Jerusalem to through out and whop people in the Great Temple, and returned to Aenon and his disciples where John still was baptising.

G-Mark exhibits:-
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

{1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
(those are not disciples, 1213 :) )

{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.

I think your “contradiction” is based on wild speculation/interpretation that has no solid ground.

Over to you!
Show us how G-John and G-Mark fit together......

This should be most interesting.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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?

Exhibits:-
Gospel of Mark
Day 1
{11:1} And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, .......
{11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

Day Two
The Demonstration.
{11:15} And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went
into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and
bought in the temple,
The Picket line
{11:16} And would not suffer that any man should carry
[any] vessel through the temple.
{11:19} And when even was come, he went out of the city.

Day three
{11:20} And in the morning,
11:27} And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was
walking in the temple,
{12:41} And Jesus sat over against the treasury,
{13:1} And as he went out of the temple,
{13:3} And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over
against the temple,

Day four
{14:1} After two days was [the feast of] the passover, and
of unleavened bread:
{14:3} And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the
leper, as he sat at meat,

Day five
{14:13} And he sendeth forth two of his
disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city,
{14:17} And in the evening he cometh
with the twelve.
{14:26} And when they had sung an hymn, they went out
into the mount of Olives.
14:32} And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane:

Day 6
{15:1} And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried [him] away, and delivered [him] to Pilate.
...which ended with the crucifixion
---------------------------------------------------

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! :)

P.S.
Previously
Contradiction 1 Post 1
Contradiction 2 Post 26
Contradiction 3 Post 77
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Oh yes it does!
I wrote:-
..In G-Mark Jesus had not started his mission nor had a single disciple with him when the Baptist was put in prison....

So let's look at the G-Mark account.
...
{1:12} And immediately the Spirit driveth him into
the wilderness. {1:13} And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
(those are not disciples, 1213 :) )

{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.....

Yes, again, there is no “Jesus didn’t have disciples then” in the Bible. You interpreted part of it to mean that, but it is not the same, your interpretation may be wrong.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
At least what you call the 'Western secular mind' gets the science correct and honest based on the objective verifiable evidence. The 'fundamentalist Christians are still living in the context of ancient mythology thousands of years old and rejecting science.

And Western secularists are living out modern mythologies - from doctrines like
Postmodernism and Deconstruction, preached by the likes of Foucault and Derrida.
The modern mythology of the cult of self has seen a dramatic rise in family breakdown
and industrial scale gambling, pornography, drug addiction, child abuse etc..

What has this go to with the bible? Well, it shows the modern beliefs have failed to
create happy societies, rather the reverse. This demonstrates the mythic nature of
modern philosophies.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
As far as your religious belief you are obviously fine with this, but it is a paraphrased selectively incomplete as far as the Genesis account, It has absolutely nothing to do with the science of natural history of our physical existence and the origin and evolution of life and humanity on earth.

So that bit about the first earth being dark, oceanic and sterile.
That wasn't true?
Or that life emerged on the land, that wasn't true?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
What? !!
You don't know much about Joseph or Mary..... for sure. There isn't that much written.

I can show that Jesus was loved by the crowds!
Big deal!

But not in The Apostle John's gospel I cannot!
John told us that the Jews hated Jesus, plotted against him, tried to trick him, wanted him dead.

I can see that the evidence already shown by me, all those verses, are dismissed by you, but they are there to show other readers as well.

So I'll say it again..... John's gospel was a major cause of Antisemitism for two thousand years.

John might be a cause for anti-Semitism, but it's not from John but from people who hate Jews because
they are different and successful. Verse for verse, I bet there is more pro-Jew in John than anti-Jew.
Besides, John recorded what he saw. His focus, as a Jew, was the life of Jesus, also a Jew.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Accounts, Prue.
The Accounts surrounding Jesus are in the bible.
What is historic or not needs much research.

[QUOTR]Currently reading the book 'Stalingrad' by A.Beevor. One boat of
new Soviet soldiers cross the Volga at night under fire. One soldier started to shake so his commander shot
him in the head and tossed him over the side of the boat. And Soviets shot many civilians trying to flee the city.
I feel a tad traumatized reading this last night. But is the book anti-German or anti-Soviet?
Analogies like the above, followed by rhetorical questions, cannot prove anything about the gospels, Prue.


I have shown you countless verses where G-John tried to show that the enemies of Jesus were the Jewish people......... Like shows this only once, and Mark/Mathew never at all.

I have shown the exhibits.[/QUOTE]

And the friends of the Jewish man Jesus were also Jews. The Gospels give an account
and make an historic claim to Jesus. They were not concerned with who the 'enemy' was.
Some Samaritans accepted Jesus, some damned him. Some Gentiles loved Jesus and
some were cruel to him. It's an account. You make of it what you want.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And Western secularists are living out modern mythologies - from doctrines like
Postmodernism and Deconstruction, preached by the likes of Foucault and Derrida.
The modern mythology of the cult of self has seen a dramatic rise in family breakdown
and industrial scale gambling, pornography, drug addiction, child abuse etc..

What has this go to with the bible? Well, it shows the modern beliefs have failed to
create happy societies, rather the reverse. This demonstrates the mythic nature of
modern philosophies.

There are no modern mythologies in science. List peripheral philosophies that have no significant meaning in the contemporary world is more naming calling without relevance to today's world does no make your case when you are clinging to an ancient world of mythology.

Contemporary science is what trumps your worldview based on ancient mythology.
 
Last edited:

lukethethird

unknown member
And Western secularists are living out modern mythologies - from doctrines like
Postmodernism and Deconstruction, preached by the likes of Foucault and Derrida.
The modern mythology of the cult of self has seen a dramatic rise in family breakdown
and industrial scale gambling, pornography, drug addiction, child abuse etc..

What has this go to with the bible? Well, it shows the modern beliefs have failed to
create happy societies, rather the reverse. This demonstrates the mythic nature of
modern philosophies.
You make it sound like noting has changed in ten thousand years.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So that bit about the first earth being dark, oceanic and sterile.
That wasn't true?

It's not true nor false it is simple a part of an ancient mythology quoting paraphrased out of context from an ancient mythological worldview.

Or that life emerged on the land, that wasn't true?

Also again, tryng to justify an ancient worldview by taking stuff out of context to justify your agenda.

Seems?!?!?! we have been over this before in great detail. That is actually a false statement when considering the contemporary science of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not considered to have taken place on land. The closest possibility is tidal zones in water along the continental spreading zones and volcanoes.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
At least what you call the 'Western secular mind' gets the science correct and honest based on the objective verifiable evidence. The 'fundamentalist Christians are still living in the context of ancient mythology thousands of years old and rejecting science.

Can you make it clear?

1. Do you mean "the western secular mind" gets the science right which means the religious mind cannot? Or do you mean as long as a religious person has a "western secular mind" even if he is a religious person he will get the "science right"?

2. You said "fundamentalist Christians are still living in the context of ancient mythology thousands of years old and rejecting science" which sounds like you mean christian fundamentalists (what ever that means) reject science by default. What do you mean by reject science? Do you mean they don't use a calculator is it that they don't fly in a plane? How many Christians are like this around the world (what ever you mean) and how can you justify your general statement?

Cheers.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
It's not true nor false it is simple a part of an ancient mythology quoting paraphrased out of context from an ancient mythological worldview.



Also again, tryng to justify an ancient worldview by taking stuff out of context to justify your agenda.

Seems?!?!?! we have been over this before in detail. That is actually a false statement when considering the contemporary science of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not considered to have taken place on land. The closest possibility is tidal zones in water along the continental spreading zones and volcanoes.

The land one is interesting. Five years ago I would say, "Nah... life came from the seas, not the land,
so Genesis got that one wrong." What was found to be critical was the process of wetting and drying
to concentrate organics. And free from saline environments which hinder cell membranes.
It would be super neat if, in future space programs, we find chunks of early earth floating around in
space, or sitting on the moon - flung from the earth by meteorites.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The teachings of science state, REAL.

Reality.

A planet that a male in science said is Earth exists...it is stone, science said that it released its own gases into space from volcanoes and space formed its atmospheric cooling mass.

So if a male in science as a scientist just makes this claim then he cannot claim he is A GOD, or THE GOD, or GOD....for he says planet. Being reality.

He says the planet is named Earth, being reality. So then he would not own self power egotism in the sciences to self.

What the science modern day argument is owned...for everyone is first present in life, with life consciousness knowing history and archaeology proved that science was practiced a long time ago by humans who destroyed their life...know.

And that history was God science.

So today modern science as an argument of brother to brother is a conscious male answer shared amongst his own male human spirit and mind.

Involving AI subliminal alienation, man of his own image destroyed laying on the ground by burnt out gas mass. Gas mass that his own science and machine converting by changing GOD the stone planet Earth stone mass into a higher radiation/radiating body. To resource it.

The gases in natural life do not support ground fission, where the origin of the activation to the planet is in REALITY. On the ground first.

The ground then demonstrates that part of the reaction is still ground effective even though he does the rest of the reaction in a power plant.

For he reviewed natural history first and memory of how to copy ground fission.

How is that not relevant to be told by your own science brother that you are contradicting planetary survival?

Is it just because he is not using God references....yet if he did, then do you not, scientist of the occult studies claim self is God as if you are the planet as a resource of spirit powers?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You make it sound like noting has changed in ten thousand years.

?? I can't figure out what you are saying.
If you mean that all things continue like they were since
hunter gather days then you are right, and wrong.
What we see today is the SCALE of things. We have
never had pornography on such an immense industrial
scale like today, for instance. Same with drugs, family
breakdown etc.. In 1900 the divorce rate in Europe was
3% - and this was called the "divorce epidemic" because
the divorce rate had never been this high before.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
List periferal philosophies that have no significant meaning in the contemporary world is more naming calling without relevance to today's world does no make your case when you are clinging to an ancient world of mythology.

Contemporary science is what trumps your worldview based on ancient mythology.

Postmodernism and the challenge to absolute truths is paramount to any understanding
of what is crawling out of American campuses.
I have no more issue with the historicity of the bible than I do of Sumer, Babylon or ancient
Egypt. Oh... and that Hannibal really did take an African army, with elephants, across the
Alps to invade Rome.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Postmodernism and the challenge to absolute truths is paramount to any understanding of what is crawling out of American campuses.

Contemporary sciences, history and philosophies do not support nor believe in 'absolute truths.'

I have no more issue with the historicity of the bible than I do of Sumer, Babylon or ancient
Egypt. Oh... and that Hannibal really did take an African army, with elephants, across the
Alps to invade Rome.

Historicity of ancient worldviews and mythology have nothing to do with science. It is only history in another department.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Contemporary sciences, history and philosophies do not support nor believe in 'absolute truths.'



Historicity of ancient worldviews and mythology have nothing to do with science. It is only history in another department.

Re historicity. I have been following the excavations in the Timna Valley, Jordan, and
Shiloh in Israel. Timnah gives the first hint that population densities could easily have
been as high in Israel as the bible suggests. And Shiloh is the cultic center where the
Ark of the Covenant was housed - the destruction of the Jewish Tabernacle and the
Horns of the Altar are not even mentioned in the bible, just the Ark - amazing - this
shows how the bible "isn't history, but not myth either" as some archaeologists say.

Re truths. To quote David Berlinksi:
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes, again, there is no “Jesus didn’t have disciples then” in the Bible. You interpreted part of it to mean that, but it is not the same, your interpretation may be wrong.

That is slightly better......... better than 'wild exaggeration', (EDIT: Wild Speculation!)which was your first challenge..

G-Mark tells us when Jesus first chose his first disciples.
Your point is just odd, because didn't tell us that Jesus had a camel back then...... we could make anything up. This is all about Gospel contradictions, 1213.

But G-John does tell us that Jesus had disciples, went to a wedding in Cana and performed his first reported miracle, spent a few days with his Mother and relatives in Capernaum, went down to Jerusalem and caused mayhem in the Temple, and then returned to his disciples at Aenon near the Baptist who was still free.

I wanted you to fit all of this together, because it is all written in the gospels, but I don't see how that can be.
If you can, please show us.

Or can you just accept that the gospels are not all the exact words of God?
 
Last edited:
Top