Look at the book. - The Four Gospels at a Glance - You will be amazed. Simple, understandeble, with a good overview. The synoptic problem has been eliminated. The author has managed to bring all four Gospels together in parallel. The books are accepted at many universities.
A better example would have been that Mark has the women leaving and saying nothing, while Luke has them leaving and telling the disciples. Or, Mark only mentions one angel, Luke mentions two.
One of the biggest differences I've found in the Gospels are in the genealogies. Both Matthew and Luke record that Jesus is the son of Abraham and a son of David, yet they, from there, go two different paths: Matthew through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. It's obviously two different people because no name is even similar until we get to Joseph. The problem is that Joseph has two parents. But reading through Eusebius's Church History, he offered an good explanation: kinsmen redeemer.
Yeah. For those with eyes unafraid and open there obviously are contradictions in the gospels. But we should expect that from any historical source from the 1st century AD. A few contradictions doesn’t mean that everything in them is bunk.
Seems like Luke kept the original text whereas Matthew rewrote a lot. Even the gospel of Thomas says blessed are the poor. Matthew was concerned about appearance. So he often softens or explains rather than repeats the words of Jesus. I’m not sure what poor in spirit means but it’s not the same as the poor. His rewritings may have helped him gain appeal among benefactors and maybe convert some Jews… so I guess there’s that.
Craig Bloombergs book called The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is a really good one, I have just finished and helped me greatly in the secular university studying Christian Scriptures
How could the bible be historically reliable ? Start with the supposed creation that according to the bible is @6000 years old. And the Hubble Telescope can see light that is 3.5 Billion light Years away. That means if Biblical creation is correct we would see only 6000 years away and nothing else.
@@exiledveteran4746 Nothing is known to be faster than the speed of light we are living in reality not sci fi.But think about the fact that we can see that far we could see our global destruction well ahead of time.
@@exiledveteran4746 You are like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind a curtian and i can see right through you Like You were a Atheist because you hated God is that it ? So now that it seems that you don't know the Bible and the shocking thing is that Gospel Jesus was wrong about his return He said He was returning when those he was talking to were still alive. It is so odd that you will ignore the obvious for Psychobabble Response. You are now a christian but you must have been a idiot long before then.
@@exiledveteran4746 And your Facade Personality is nothing to brag about either. But congratulations you are like the God of the Bible and i am like the serpent, in Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: (for in the day) that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And in Genesis 3:4 [4] ...the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. And i am so glad that i am not a sinner >within the bible's definition< and you so blindly traded reality for a lie with a Great Facade i disrespect people who ignore the real point being made and you with your cartoonish responses. Yes according to the bible God is the liar and the Serpent only stated the obvious. They did not die on that day.
Simon Greenleaf was a founder of Harvard law school and wrote the book on determining credibility of a witness in court and his students challenged him to use his rules on the gospel writers as witnesses. He went into it as a skeptic and became a believer in Christ. Check out his harmonization of the gospels. There are not contradictions.
Discrepancies and contradictions cannot be assembled together with the expectation of making a clearer picture or portrait. The scribblers who forged the Gospels couldn't get the story straight, by reason of trying to correct the perceived errors in each previous rendition.
Now these are hardly contradictions, of course. For example, the women may have left, said nothing for a while, and then finally went to the disciples. And the fact that only one of the angels was mentioned by Mark does not exclude the possibility there was another that Mark did not mention. So this only illustrates the portrait analogy, as does the lack of resurrection appearances in Mark.
@bentupbill ok I'm not sure which bible you're reading but Mark (in both NASB and ESV, and I'm sure other versions lol) does mention the resurrection of Jesus - Chp 16 the whole chapter describes what Jesus did right after his resurrection and right before his ascension into heaven. Read vs 6-9 in particular. I'm not sure how it can get any clearer than that.
Yeah, but even if you chop out 9 onward as some suggest, it's clear Mark believed Jesus was resurrected. It doesn't really change the broad strokes of the account. Beyond that, early church fathers tell us Mark was Peter's interpreter who would write down pieces of the story as Peter remembered them. I wouldn't be surprised to find Mark had a few drafts or added more as he listened to Peter more.
@@micahblakeslee The self-described Apostle Paul had already developed a following. His washed-in-the-blood Jewish heresy became popular with the Gentiles. Paul's letters predate the time any of these scribblers forged the Gospels. Placing the Gospels in order to precede what what was previously written is an act of deception and cover-up.
Arguably, John Piper is a 'leading theologian' in our day... problem is, He's teaching you from tradition, and tradition has obscured the connection between the "4 living creatures" described in Ezekiel and Revelation, and how those creatures describe the character and nature of Christ in the 4 Gospels. These 4 living creatures (as in living Gospels) also relate to the 4 tribes in the wilderness. But only the Spirit of Christ in you will reveal this, not logic and reason.
(from Wikipedia) "Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1] Textual critics have identified two distinct endings-the 'Longer Ending' (vv. 9-20) and the 'Shorter Ending,' which appear together in six Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies."
The much hyped differences between the Gospels are few and inconsequential, if anything they add authenticity. Kurosawa's classic film 'Rashomon' tells the story of a crime in flashback according to several accounts which differ slightly due to perspective and fallible memory-nevertheless, the crime happened. Human perception and memory is fallible. If Christianity was a Da Vinci Code style lie, the conspirators would have been careful to eliminate these minor discrepancies.
No doubt I believe it adds to the gospels humanity. Given that the gospels were written at least 40 years after the events that occurred within them, I believe there should be some misremembering of details. However, many Christians believe the Gospels to be inerrant. That is, there can be no little inconsistencies, whether due to error in memory or otherwise. I don't believe this is quite right. Likely the clearest example that there exist explicit contradictions in the Gospels is that each Gospel clearly gives a date on which the last supper occurred. However, the Gospels give different dates. Specifically, the Synoptic Gospels, in Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17, Luke 22:7, clearly state that the last supper happened on the first day of the Passover, while in John 19:14 it is clearly stated that the last supper occurs the day before the Passover. Given the importance of the Passover in Jewish tradition, it is strange to have confused whether or not the last supper occurred on that day. Nevertheless, this is a rather straightforward example of an inconsistency between the Gospels which I believe shows inerrancy isn't quite right.
There is misinterpretation. Sadly many misinterpret. This creates the trouble.View points from witness will always differ little. Man is faulty Jesus is God.
It's fun watching Christians struggle with the contradictions in the bible. The simplest and most obvious cause for them is unthinkable to Christians, and so they are forced to twist themselves into pretzels and be careful not to inadvertently discredit the religion. He points out that a portrait is different than a photograph, but he never refers to the gospels as "interpretations", which is, in fact, the main difference between portraits and photos. The bible is clearly faulty.
While its cute that you came up with the "portrait" analogy, it still doesn't explain why Mark (the first gospel of course) didn't include the resurrection. Was it Marks "intention" not to tell people about Jesus' most important miracle? I'm disappointed because you know what this question was addressing. This wasn't asking about the difference between the usage of "poor" and "poor in spirit". It was addressing how Jesus didn't resurrect until later gospels were written.
@@user-yj9qq2zd9i From my understanding, there are a few different endings that have been found of Mark. They all include the resurrection (save for some too damaged to read), but some lack the details of what Jesus did and said after the resurrection. From what I can tell, the different endings do not contradict, exactly, but differ in level of detail.
I honestly don't understand why this is an issue. These are different accounts. Different folks are going to write different things. Mark the material from Peter as noted. Peter was 100% a believer in the resurrection as were all true believers at that time. Thomas was the first to be skeptical unless he changed as we all know. But then, Jesus did so many things to prove his resurrection that all true followers came to believe.
@@user-yj9qq2zd9i I think he is alluding to the supposed "original" manuscripts. Many scholars believe the resurrection was added later. (Of course many scholars don't even believe Jesus performed miracles.) Our bibles do not cut-off Mark at the earlier point. This whole matter as to whether the resurrection was mentioned in supposed earlier texts is a red herring. We are following a faith. We believe God gave us the scripture we have. Besides, whether in the original manuscripts or not, it changes nothing. I think it was awesomely wonderful that God inspired so many wonderful accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection.
This guy is under the impression that the gospels are different point of views. And that’s flatly wrong!!!! Everyone was writing the “The Gospel” not the gospels as a collective work. Even Mathews corrects the mistakes of mark. And they all copy from mark By the way none of them are eyewitnesses account not autographs ,, when your live hood depends on what you must believe it’s hard to be honest
may we read your word Lord the way you want us to! help us to understand!
Look at the book. - The Four Gospels at a Glance - You will be amazed. Simple, understandeble, with a good overview. The synoptic problem has been eliminated. The author has managed to bring all four Gospels together in parallel. The books are accepted at many universities.
A better example would have been that Mark has the women leaving and saying nothing, while Luke has them leaving and telling the disciples. Or, Mark only mentions one angel, Luke mentions two.
One of the biggest differences I've found in the Gospels are in the genealogies. Both Matthew and Luke record that Jesus is the son of Abraham and a son of David, yet they, from there, go two different paths: Matthew through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. It's obviously two different people because no name is even similar until we get to Joseph. The problem is that Joseph has two parents.
But reading through Eusebius's Church History, he offered an good explanation: kinsmen redeemer.
Yeah. For those with eyes unafraid and open there obviously are contradictions in the gospels. But we should expect that from any historical source from the 1st century AD. A few contradictions doesn’t mean that everything in them is bunk.
Seems like Luke kept the original text whereas Matthew rewrote a lot. Even the gospel of Thomas says blessed are the poor. Matthew was concerned about appearance. So he often softens or explains rather than repeats the words of Jesus. I’m not sure what poor in spirit means but it’s not the same as the poor. His rewritings may have helped him gain appeal among benefactors and maybe convert some Jews… so I guess there’s that.
Craig Bloombergs book called The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is a really good one, I have just finished and helped me greatly in the secular university studying Christian Scriptures
How could the bible be historically reliable ?
Start with the supposed creation that according to the bible is @6000 years old.
And the Hubble Telescope can see light that is 3.5 Billion light Years away.
That means if Biblical creation is correct we would see only 6000 years away and nothing else.
@@exiledveteran4746
Nothing is known to be faster than the speed of light we are living in reality not
sci fi.But think about the fact that we can see that far we could see our global destruction well ahead of time.
@@exiledveteran4746
Just can't say it can you :)
@@exiledveteran4746
You are like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind a curtian and i can see right through you
Like You were a Atheist because you hated God is that it ?
So now that it seems that you don't know the Bible and the shocking thing is that Gospel Jesus was wrong about his return
He said He was returning when those he was talking to were still alive.
It is so odd that you will ignore the obvious for Psychobabble Response.
You are now a christian but you must have been a idiot long before then.
@@exiledveteran4746
And your Facade Personality is nothing to brag about either.
But congratulations you are like the God of the Bible and i am like the serpent, in Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: (for in the day) that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
And in Genesis 3:4 [4] ...the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
And i am so glad that i am not a sinner >within the bible's definition< and you so blindly traded reality for a lie with a Great Facade i disrespect people who ignore the real point being made and you with your cartoonish responses.
Yes according to the bible God is the liar and the Serpent only stated the obvious. They did not die on that day.
Simon Greenleaf was a founder of Harvard law school and wrote the book on determining credibility of a witness in court and his students challenged him to use his rules on the gospel writers as witnesses. He went into it as a skeptic and became a believer in Christ. Check out his harmonization of the gospels. There are not contradictions.
Discrepancies and contradictions cannot be assembled together with the expectation of making a clearer picture or portrait. The scribblers who forged the Gospels couldn't get the story straight, by reason of trying to correct the perceived errors in each previous rendition.
Now these are hardly contradictions, of course. For example, the women may have left, said nothing for a while, and then finally went to the disciples. And the fact that only one of the angels was mentioned by Mark does not exclude the possibility there was another that Mark did not mention. So this only illustrates the portrait analogy, as does the lack of resurrection appearances in Mark.
@bentupbill ok I'm not sure which bible you're reading but Mark (in both NASB and ESV, and I'm sure other versions lol) does mention the resurrection of Jesus - Chp 16 the whole chapter describes what Jesus did right after his resurrection and right before his ascension into heaven. Read vs 6-9 in particular. I'm not sure how it can get any clearer than that.
Jonny Guitar well verse 8 is where the original ended but be not afraid we have the other gospels for a reason
Yeah, but even if you chop out 9 onward as some suggest, it's clear Mark believed Jesus was resurrected. It doesn't really change the broad strokes of the account.
Beyond that, early church fathers tell us Mark was Peter's interpreter who would write down pieces of the story as Peter remembered them. I wouldn't be surprised to find Mark had a few drafts or added more as he listened to Peter more.
@@micahblakeslee The self-described Apostle Paul had already developed a following. His washed-in-the-blood Jewish heresy became popular with the Gentiles. Paul's letters predate the time any of these scribblers forged the Gospels. Placing the Gospels in order to precede what what was previously written is an act of deception and cover-up.
Arguably, John Piper is a 'leading theologian' in our day... problem is, He's teaching you from tradition, and tradition has obscured the connection between the "4 living creatures" described in Ezekiel and Revelation, and how those creatures describe the character and nature of Christ in the 4 Gospels. These 4 living creatures (as in living Gospels) also relate to the 4 tribes in the wilderness. But only the Spirit of Christ in you will reveal this, not logic and reason.
(from Wikipedia) "Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1] Textual critics have identified two distinct endings-the 'Longer Ending' (vv. 9-20) and the 'Shorter Ending,' which appear together in six Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies."
The much hyped differences between the Gospels are few and inconsequential, if anything they add authenticity.
Kurosawa's classic film 'Rashomon' tells the story of a crime in flashback according to several accounts which differ slightly due to perspective and fallible memory-nevertheless, the crime happened. Human perception and memory is fallible.
If Christianity was a Da Vinci Code style lie, the conspirators would have been careful to eliminate these minor discrepancies.
No doubt I believe it adds to the gospels humanity. Given that the gospels were written at least 40 years after the events that occurred within them, I believe there should be some misremembering of details. However, many Christians believe the Gospels to be inerrant. That is, there can be no little inconsistencies, whether due to error in memory or otherwise. I don't believe this is quite right.
Likely the clearest example that there exist explicit contradictions in the Gospels is that each Gospel clearly gives a date on which the last supper occurred. However, the Gospels give different dates. Specifically, the Synoptic Gospels, in Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17, Luke 22:7, clearly state that the last supper happened on the first day of the Passover, while in John 19:14 it is clearly stated that the last supper occurs the day before the Passover.
Given the importance of the Passover in Jewish tradition, it is strange to have confused whether or not the last supper occurred on that day.
Nevertheless, this is a rather straightforward example of an inconsistency between the Gospels which I believe shows inerrancy isn't quite right.
There is misinterpretation. Sadly many misinterpret. This creates the trouble.View points from witness will always differ little. Man is faulty Jesus is God.
Clearly proves that Man wrote the fiction,
The resurrection naritive was not originally in Mark. It was added by scribes some time well after Mark was written.
It's fun watching Christians struggle with the contradictions in the bible. The simplest and most obvious cause for them is unthinkable to Christians, and so they are forced to twist themselves into pretzels and be careful not to inadvertently discredit the religion. He points out that a portrait is different than a photograph, but he never refers to the gospels as "interpretations", which is, in fact, the main difference between portraits and photos. The bible is clearly faulty.
Piper is unhelpful here!
While its cute that you came up with the "portrait" analogy, it still doesn't explain why Mark (the first gospel of course) didn't include the resurrection.
Was it Marks "intention" not to tell people about Jesus' most important miracle?
I'm disappointed because you know what this question was addressing. This wasn't asking about the difference between the usage of "poor" and "poor in spirit". It was addressing how Jesus didn't resurrect until later gospels were written.
What are you talking about?
Mark mentions the Resurrection!
@@user-yj9qq2zd9i From my understanding, there are a few different endings that have been found of Mark. They all include the resurrection (save for some too damaged to read), but some lack the details of what Jesus did and said after the resurrection. From what I can tell, the different endings do not contradict, exactly, but differ in level of detail.
I honestly don't understand why this is an issue. These are different accounts. Different folks are going to write different things. Mark the material from Peter as noted. Peter was 100% a believer in the resurrection as were all true believers at that time. Thomas was the first to be skeptical unless he changed as we all know. But then, Jesus did so many things to prove his resurrection that all true followers came to believe.
@@user-yj9qq2zd9i I think he is alluding to the supposed "original" manuscripts. Many scholars believe the resurrection was added later. (Of course many scholars don't even believe Jesus performed miracles.) Our bibles do not cut-off Mark at the earlier point.
This whole matter as to whether the resurrection was mentioned in supposed earlier texts is a red herring. We are following a faith. We believe God gave us the scripture we have. Besides, whether in the original manuscripts or not, it changes nothing.
I think it was awesomely wonderful that God inspired so many wonderful accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection.
This guy is under the impression that the gospels are different point of views. And that’s flatly wrong!!!! Everyone was writing the “The Gospel” not the gospels as a collective work. Even Mathews corrects the mistakes of mark. And they all copy from mark By the way none of them are eyewitnesses account not autographs ,, when your live hood depends on what you must believe it’s hard to be honest
They were written in different time periods
Oh, I get it. You're just going relativist to make the differences okay. Nice going.
@shikkruh I'm not trying to discredit the bible. It does it for itself.