Those contradicting Gospels!

[IndigoChild5559]

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

There is absolutely no evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels. This idea is solely Christian tradition.

 

[Milton Platt]

You were and investigator OB, how many witness stories offer the same perspective?

Record the stories many years later and how much would they differ!

In the end, what is recorded is sure testimony to who Jesus the Christ was and still Is.

Regards Tony

Which version?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Which version?

King James would do the job.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

King James would do the job.

Regards Tony

Love it!

Come up folks!
Take your pick!
Choose some truth about God. Pick any bible and maybe you'll find the diamond in the sands of deception.

The King James translation seems fairly accurate as far as I read from specialists, but John's Gospel is TOTALLY different from Mark's..... the evidence shows that he had a bundle of accurate accounts which he then spun in to his dreams.

There was a Jesus, but there was no Saviour, no Christ, imo.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Love it!

Come up folks!
Take your pick!
Choose some truth about God. Pick any bible and maybe you'll find the diamond in the sands of deception.

The King James translation seems fairly accurate as far as I read from specialists, but John's Gospel is TOTALLY different from Mark's..... the evidence shows that he had a bundle of accurate accounts which he then spun in to his dreams.

There was a Jesus, but there was no Saviour, no Christ, imo.

Good thing is we only need to know the Spirit behind the stories, the reason they were told.

Then we have the Quran which clears up some Bible interpretation issues and then the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and it can all become much clearer.

I know that is not how you choose to see it, but I see that is so.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Good thing is we only need to know the Spirit behind the stories, the reason they were told.

Then we have the Quran which clears up some Bible interpretation issues and then the Messages of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and it can all become much clearer.

I know that is not how you choose to see it, but I see that is so.

Regards Tony

So God needed to edit his letters to us, eh?
Changes his mind?

This 'spirit' ........ I don't think Baha'is have much to do with spirits, Tony.

 

[Michael Allen]

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.

According to the scriptures you quoted, After jesus came out of the wilderness, he entered into judean countryside, and spent some time there with them (disciples). For how many days ? who knows. Then after he walked through the land to arrive in Galilee, JOhn was now arrested. The timeline seems reasonable to me so how is it contradictory?

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

Each person explained that spiritual lesson in a way they could. As such they differ, but still point us to the same concept being conveyed.

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.

In the end we have the story that will carry on into the future and its purpose is to show that no man can silence a Messenger of God, until they choose to go and that they have full control over the event, that their life is not terminated by the death of the flesh.

That to me is the Bible, stories how to come to know and Love Christ and live the life asked of us. Submission unto God's Will for humanity.

I will most likely leave it there, I need not convince any person differently as to how they see it.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

According to the scriptures you quoted, After jesus came out of the wilderness, he entered into judean countryside, and spent some time there with them (disciples). For how many days ? who knows. Then after he walked through the land to arrive in Galilee, JOhn was now arrested. The timeline seems reasonable to me so how is it contradictory?

Please show me the verses for that timeline and order of events.

 

[Milton Platt]

King James would do the job.

Regards Tony

Why do you feel that version is more authoritative or correct than any other version? We have virtually no original manuscripts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why do you feel that version is more authoritative or correct than any other version? We have virtually no original manuscripts.

Mainly because Shoghi Effendi the Guardian of the Bahai Faith used the King James version of the Bible. He did so because he saw it as an authoritative one and was written in what he saw as beautiful English.

That is why he translated the Baha'i Writings after the King James style.

In the end one can choose any version, thought I do not some translation slide towards adding an interpretation of the original languages, or influenced by the interpreters own faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Milton Platt]

Mainly because Shoghi Effendi the Guardian of the Bahai Faith used the King James version of the Bible. He did so because he saw it as an authoritative one and was written in what he saw as beautiful English.

That is why he translated the Baha'i Writings after the King James style.

In the end one can choose any version, thought I do not some translation slide towards adding an interpretation of the original languages, or influenced by the interpreters own faith.

Regards Tony

I will ignore the numerous presuppositions in your comment. But I would like to point out that virtually any translation from one language requires a certain amount of interpretation. A literal translation from ancient Hebrew or Greek would be nearly unreadable. A translation is an approximation.

 

[Michael Allen]

Please show me the verses for that timeline and order of events.

Mark reports that after Jesus baptized by John, Jesus immediately went into the wilderness 40 days---Mark1:12 And immediately the spirit impelled him to go into the wilderness. 13 So he continued in the wilderness for 40 days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild beasts, but the angels were ministering to him. Then there is this gap of time and events then mark writes-- Mark1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galʹi·lee, preaching the good news of God 15 and saying: “The appointed time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has drawn near. Repent, and have faith in the good news.”

So what happened in this gap? John recounts Jesus baptism by John the baptizer but doesn't include the detail of his trek into the wilderness--john1:33 Even I did not know him, but the very One who sent me to baptize in water said to me: ‘Whoever it is upon whom you see the spirit coming down and remaining, this is the one who baptizes in holy spirit.’ 34 And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the Son of God.”

All anyone needs to do now is continue reading down through the following scriptures in John until you get to the verse you contend is a contradiction. What anyone will find is the same thing I found just writing down on a sheet of paper where Jesus went. He spent some time with new disciples in Galilee, then another day went to a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, then went to Capernaum in Galilee for many days, then went to Judean country side not in Galilee, John Baptist now in Aenon of Samaria baptizing, sometime later put in prison, Jesus now back in Galilee. I still don't see any contradiction. Particularly, since Mark doesn't comment on what happened in between the time from his exodus from the wilderness to Johns arrest. I'm not a scholar by any means but with just a little research it was easy to find a plausible explanation. So no contradiction here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A translation is an approximation.

And, since words and phrases carry both denotation and connotation, it is also an interpretation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I will ignore the numerous presuppositions in your comment. But I would like to point out that virtually any translation from one language requires a certain amount of interpretation. A literal translation from ancient Hebrew or Greek would be nearly unreadable. A translation is an approximation.

There in is something that can not be ignored.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

Mark reports that after Jesus baptized by John, Jesus immediately went into the wilderness 40 days---Mark1:12 And immediately the spirit impelled him to go into the wilderness. 13 So he continued in the wilderness for 40 days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild beasts, but the angels were ministering to him.

Right. Baptism and then out in to the wilds, which would be East of Jordan.

Then there is this gap of time and events then mark writes-- Mark1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galʹi·lee,

Whoa! There is no gap..... Mark, writing the memoirs of Cephas, tells us that there was no gap...... so it's probable thatJesus, with Baptist and the others were probably dispersed by Antipas's forces, come to get them....... that John was arrested and Jesus went to Galilee.
John probably legged it in to the desert with Jesus and the others.

Now you want to recount John's accounts to us of Jesus in Galliee, The 1st Miracle at Cana, time with his Mother at Capernum, a trip to The Temple where he caused upheaval in the Temple.......... and then back to Galilee to pick up Mark's account, and neither he nor Cephas thought that any of this was worth mention?

So no contradiction here.

If these two accounts were read out in any Court, the Jury would be very very sceptical...... they would have to presume that either one or other witness had never been a true witness at all. And since John had no idea about when Jesus really did demonstrate in and picket the Temple I know whose version I believe....... Mark's.

 

[Michael Allen]

Right. Baptism and then out in to the wilds, which would be East of Jordan.

Whoa! There is no gap..... Mark, writing the memoirs of Cephas, tells us that there was no gap...... so it's probable thatJesus, with Baptist and the others were probably dispersed by Antipas's forces, come to get them....... that John was arrested and Jesus went to Galilee.
John probably legged it in to the desert with Jesus and the others.

Now you want to recount John's accounts to us of Jesus in Galliee, The 1st Miracle at Cana, time with his Mother at Capernum, a trip to The Temple where he caused upheaval in the Temple.......... and then back to Galilee to pick up Mark's account, and neither he nor Cephas thought that any of this was worth mention?


If these two accounts were read out in any Court, the Jury would be very very sceptical...... they would have to presume that either one or other witness had never been a true witness at all. And since John had no idea about when Jesus really did demonstrate in and picket the Temple I know whose version I believe....... Mark's.

I trust both and the facts and time fit together to form a complete picture. You have only offered assumptions based on what you feel supports your feelings of distrust. Again mark stated

Right. Baptism and then out in to the wilds, which would be East of Jordan.

Whoa! There is no gap..... Mark, writing the memoirs of Cephas, tells us that there was no gap...... so it's probable thatJesus, with Baptist and the others were probably dispersed by Antipas's forces, come to get them....... that John was arrested and Jesus went to Galilee.
John probably legged it in to the desert with Jesus and the others.

Now you want to recount John's accounts to us of Jesus in Galliee, The 1st Miracle at Cana, time with his Mother at Capernum, a trip to The Temple where he caused upheaval in the Temple.......... and then back to Galilee to pick up Mark's account, and neither he nor Cephas thought that any of this was worth mention?


If these two accounts were read out in any Court, the Jury would be very very sceptical...... they would have to presume that either one or other witness had never been a true witness at all. And since John had no idea about when Jesus really did demonstrate in and picket the Temple I know whose version I believe....... Mark's.

Again mark stated that after the event of jesus in the wilderness john was arrested , he did not state how long after, it was obviously days after when you consider johns account, so again I don't see any evidence of contradiction even if it were examined by a court. So my question to you is what conclusive evidence can you point to in scripture that mark meant what he stated to be immediately after jesus exiting the wilderness. which would then make johns statement contradictory.

 

[oldbadger]

I trust both and the facts and time fit together to form a complete picture. You have only offered assumptions based on what you feel supports your feelings of distrust.

But you have stretched and wrangled two totally differing accounts to support your feelings of faith.

I reckon that you have tried to insert a trip to Nazareth .. 1 day... A trip with Mother and disciples to Cana and wedding... 2 days.... A trip to Jerusalem... 2 days... A violent incident on the Temple... A trip to the baptising disciples... And inalky a trip to Capernaum to choose those disciples that he never had at Cana or before. Wow...... just.... Wow!

Again mark stated that after the event of jesus in the wilderness john was arrested , he did not state how long after, it was obviously days after when you consider johns account, so again I don't see any evidence of contradiction even if it were examined by a court. So my question to you is what conclusive evidence can you point to in scripture that mark meant what he stated to be immediately after jesus exiting the wilderness. which would then make johns statement contradictory.

I think we just must disagree about this.

John wrote his gospel in the 2nd century, and he knew Pappias which puts him at an amazingly great age for a one-time Galilean boatman, and since his account of Jesus's last week in Jerusalem is completely different to Mark's I think the evidence begins to stack up for the fact that John was not there, was not the disciple John BarZebedee.

It's all down to the readers to decide for themselves, I guess.

 

[Michael Allen]

But you have stretched and wrangled two totally differing accounts to support your feelings of faith.

I reckon that you have tried to insert a trip to Nazareth .. 1 day... A trip with Mother and disciples to Cana and wedding... 2 days.... A trip to Jerusalem... 2 days... A violent incident on the Temple... A trip to the baptising disciples... And inalky a trip to Capernaum to choose those disciples that he never had at Cana or before. Wow...... just.... Wow!



I think we just must disagree about this.

John wrote his gospel in the 2nd century, and he knew Pappias which puts him at an amazingly great age for a one-time Galilean boatman, and since his account of Jesus's last week in Jerusalem is completely different to Mark's I think the evidence begins to stack up for the fact that John was not there, was not the disciple John BarZebedee.

It's all down to the readers to decide for themselves, I guess.

No, I think its more a case of you disagree with the facts presented in the bible, but that's your decision. You still didnt present conclusive scriptural evidence so the bible still stands as accurate.

 

[oldbadger]

No, I think its more a case of you disagree with the facts presented in the bible, but that's your decision. You still didnt present conclusive scriptural evidence so the bible still stands as accurate.

This all depends upon what you think a fact is.
Most Historians would agree that the Gospels, the Archaeology and all else connected with the time and place have to produce decisions based upon the balances of possibility and probability.

This is why Christianity is all about Faith, Belief.

And when accounts like John's are describing a totally differing timeline to the synoptics (based upon Mark and other works) the detached researcher has to hold this fact in clear perspective.

My evidence is simply there in the Statements of the authors, less the later additions and insertions. Even Mark has been fiddled with. The very first verse of the very first Chapter was added to, the last words didn't exist in the earliest copies.

Detached mind is what is required.

 

[Michael Allen]

The question still remains, you have not provided solid scriptural evidence that Marks statement and Johns statement contradict whether they were there or not. Marks statement of “after that” if it did not mean immediately after then the two accounts are still in agreement and there is no contradiction. Quoting others that simply support your position is not enough. It must be scriptural proof to support your stand or it is meaningless. Informed mind is what is required.


Before Columbus sailed the ocean in1492 CE and finally laid to rest the issue that the world may be flat which “detached minds” thought. if they would have read the writing of job 1473 BCE Job 26:7 He stretches out the northern sky* over empty space,*Suspending the earth upon nothing; and 732 BCE Isaiah 40:22 There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth, then “informed minds” would have known centuries earlier that the earth was round hanging on nothing.

Surely “detached minds” would not have us go back to believing the world is flat. So again where is your scriptural proof that what Mark stated and John stated is contradictory.