Gethsemane - Gospel Disparities

[mymistake]

Info on the New Testament Manuscripts:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/

 

 

Two things though...It is true that the four Gospels do not harmonize on every detail, but this does not 

destroy the story or themes in the text. I do not understand the assertion that this makes them invalid and untrustworthy.

The copies centuries later have little error between them.

 

To me, it makes each Gospel more trustworthy. These guys were not sitting in a cave together writing a myth.

 

How can you type so well using only one hand?   

[RipVanWinkle]

"The copies centuries later have little error between them."   ironhorse   

 

Where did you get that fascinating tidbit of information? From Josh McDowell? The Fundamentalist who used false logic to declare the bible perfect?

All of the manuscripts that were used in the NT were  copied  over and over by clerics but they still ended up exactly or virtually exactly as the originals? Really?

Guess  what: There were decades that passed before the first manuscripts that have been discovered  were written. It was word of mouth up until then.The new testament was written from word of mouth and from multiple manuscripts which were unidentified as to author and many of which were never seen by the authors of the NT. They were merely referenced  in other manuscripts.The NT authors are unknown, with a couple of possible exceptions. The names that were shown in the NT as authors were placed there much later by the Church. There were many other "gospels" which were excluded from the NT for no better reason than the reasons  which allowed manuscripts to be included in NT.

 

During the first decades after the death of christ, there was no uniformity in what manuscripts were used by Xtian churches so there was no uniform doctrine. Constantine ordered the bishops to get together and come up with the single doctrine or creed to apply to the entire church. With much thought and wine they came up with the Nicene  Creed, which was altered later at other meetings.

 

There were thousands of mistakes made by the clerics copying them for centuries, some of which were critical. Have you read about this from authors who did not swear to be Xtians before their research?

 

It took several hundred years for the "Cannon" to be agreed upon by the bishops. There were many alterations of the texts of the NT by the clerics during the centuries. There are material inconsistencies among the Gospels and between the Gospels and Acts. Major inconsistencies.

 

Do you always believe what the Xtian apologists tell you? Why don't you do some real research from perspectives other than those who want to sell Xtianity?  You doubt me? Then check out the above to see if it is not verified by scholars.   bill

[RipVanWinkle]

"How can you type so well using only one hand?"     mymistake

 

It's the Lawd who does it.

[buffettphan]

"The copies centuries later have little error between them."   ironhorse   

 

Where did you get that fascinating tidbit of information? From Josh McDowell? The Fundamentalist who used false logic to declare the bible perfect?

All of the manuscripts that were used in the NT were  copied  over and over by clerics but they still ended up exactly or virtually exactly as the originals? Really?

Guess  what: There were decades that passed before the first manuscripts that have been discovered  were written. It was word of mouth up until then.The new testament was written from word of mouth and from multiple manuscripts which were unidentified as to author and many of which were never seen by the authors of the NT. They were merely referenced  in other manuscripts.The NT authors are unknown, with a couple of possible exceptions. The names that were shown in the NT as authors were placed there much later by the Church. There were many other "gospels" which were excluded from the NT for no better reason than the reasons  which allowed manuscripts to be included in NT.

 

During the first decades after the death of christ, there was no uniformity in what manuscripts were used by Xtian churches so there was no uniform doctrine. Constantine ordered the bishops to get together and come up with the single doctrine or creed to apply to the entire church. With much thought and wine they came up with the Nicene  Creed, which was altered later at other meetings.

 

There were thousands of mistakes made by the clerics copying them for centuries, some of which were critical. Have you read about this from authors who did not swear to be Xtians before their research?

 

It took several hundred years for the "Cannon" to be agreed upon by the bishops. There were many alterations of the texts of the NT by the clerics during the centuries. There are material inconsistencies among the Gospels and between the Gospels and Acts. Major inconsistencies.

 

Do you always believe what the Xtian apologists tell you? Why don't you do some real research from perspectives other than those who want to sell Xtianity?  You doubt me? Then check out the above to see if it is not verified by scholars.   bill

 

 

 

 Regarding copies of the buybull, I always think of this oldie-but-goodie:

 

 

 

Importance of Original Knowledge

Principle #1: Don't trust retellers, get hold of the original sources.

 

A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, and not the original books.

 

So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies. The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."

 

So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong.

 

"The word is celebrate not celibate," says the old monk with tears in his eyes.

 

http://www.orcca.on.ca/~elena/site/DidacticJokes.html

 

[centauri]

Two things though...It is true that the four Gospels do not harmonize on every detail, but this does not 

destroy the story or themes in the text. I do not understand the assertion that this makes them invalid and untrustworthy.

The copies centuries later have little error between them.

 

To me, it makes each Gospel more trustworthy. These guys were not sitting in a cave together writing a myth.

Do you believe that dead people rose to life and walked into Jerusalem and were seen by many after Jesus died?

Where can a person find confirmation for this claim?

[Kris]

The gospels directly contradict each other's at times. The genealogy of Jesus is completely different. Why does Joseph have two different dads? This IS the inerrant word of god isn't it? How about what Jesus said on the cross-- why so different? He must have been doing a lot of babbling to have everyone hear something different!! These are just a few examples.

[ironhorse]

The gospels directly contradict each other's at times. The genealogy of Jesus is completely different. Why does Joseph have two different dads? This IS the inerrant word of god isn't it? How about what Jesus said on the cross-- why so different? He must have been doing a lot of babbling to have everyone hear something different!! These are just a few examples.

 

I have said before that these minor discrepancies only confirm for me the reliability of the text.

 

If we had four Gospels that were in perfect harmony on every detail would that

change your view of Jesus? 

[Adam5]

If we had four Gospels that were in perfect harmony on every detail would that change your view of Jesus? 

 

Yes it would.  The Bible contradictions were the main reason I left Christianity.  The gospels are the main evidence supporting Christianity.  When you find out that the gospels have many contradictions, this causes a loss of belief in Jesus.  The letters of Paul say virtually nothing about the life of Jesus.  This "life" was literally made up decades afterwards.

 

The books which make up the Bible are purely a human product, without any divine intervention. At most this leaves you with Deism, but puts us on the path to Atheism.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I have said before that these minor discrepancies only confirm for me the reliability of the text.

Translation:  I am willing to overlook anything and everything that contradicts my delusion in order to continue deceiving myself into believing it is true.

[ironhorse]

 

If we had four Gospels that were in perfect harmony on every detail would that change your view of Jesus? 

 

Yes it would.  The Bible contradictions were the main reason I left Christianity.  The gospels are the main evidence supporting Christianity.  When you find out that the gospels have many contradictions, this causes a loss of belief in Jesus.  The letters of Paul say virtually nothing about the life of Jesus.  This "life" was literally made up decades afterwards.

 

The books which make up the Bible are purely a human product, without any divine intervention. At most this leaves you with Deism, but puts us on the path to Atheism.

 

 

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

We're not talking about minor details of the events.  Did you not read Kris' post above?

 

 

The gospels directly contradict each other's at times. The genealogy of Jesus is completely different. Why does Joseph have two different dads? This IS the inerrant word of god isn't it? How about what Jesus said on the cross-- why so different? He must have been doing a lot of babbling to have everyone hear something different!! These are just a few examples.

We have two completely different genealogies showing Joseph to be from two different fathers.  I'd consider that to be a major discrepancy.

[Kris]

I would also think that if these eyewitnesses were around to see something as profound as Christs death that they would be hanging on his last words and then report that correctly. Every gospel has him saying something different. How can that be--- unless of course, these are made-up embellishments!!

 

This is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. But you say that there are minor discrepancies. So, I guess you then agree that the bible is wrong in some places. Some day maybe you will even be willing to go so far as to say that it was simply written by men trying to further their new religion!

[mymistake]

 

I have said before that these minor discrepancies only confirm for me the reliability of the text.

 

 

They cannot even agree about what one must do in order to be saved.  Hello?  That is the main topic.  These are not minor discrepancies.  One church was based in Jerusalem and commissioned a gospel that says the real disciples stayed in Jerusalem.  Another church was based in Galilee and commissioned a gospel that says the real disciples went to Galilee.  They are novels and Jesus Christ is just as real as the Easter Bunny.  The gospels disagree with each other because people thought the other ones were wrong.

[ironhorse]

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

We're not talking about minor details of the events.  Did you not read Kris' post above?

 

 

The gospels directly contradict each other's at times. The genealogy of Jesus is completely different. Why does Joseph have two different dads? This IS the inerrant word of god isn't it? How about what Jesus said on the cross-- why so different? He must have been doing a lot of babbling to have everyone hear something different!! These are just a few examples.

We have two completely different genealogies showing Joseph to be from two different fathers.  I'd consider that to be a major discrepancy.

 

 

 

Explanation on this from CARM:

 

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

 

Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

 

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

 

[ironhorse]

I would also think that if these eyewitnesses were around to see something as profound as Christs death that they would be hanging on his last words and then report that correctly. Every gospel has him saying something different. How can that be--- unless of course, these are made-up embellishments!!

 

This is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. But you say that there are minor discrepancies. So, I guess you then agree that the bible is wrong in some places. Some day maybe you will even be willing to go so far as to say that it was simply written by men trying to further their new religion!

 

Going back to a question:

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

[Storm]

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

 

 The problem you have is that you make assumptions about things that you cannot prove are true. The probability that the writers of the four gospels actually witnessed the events they wrote about is very very low. The average life expectancy of a person in Jesus' time was between 20-35 years old. Link for source (pg 1719 left column second paragraph).If they were 30 years old when Jesus was killed, the dating of the earliest gospel is in the mid 60's to mid 70's CE. That is 30 to 40 years after Jesus' death. Secondly, we know that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and possibly a document called "Q" to create their stories. And who knows exactly where John got his stuff.

 

Secondly, the actual identity of the authors of the gospels is not known. Simply because you know them as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in no way validates that those men, if they even existed, wrote the books. Pseudopigraphy was a very common practice in those days and it is highly likely that the authors were people who were trying to further a religion that was fledgling.  

 

There is simply too much evidence that prove to me that these stories were fabrications and not actual eyewitness accounts.

 

I just don't understand how you can place such blind faith in something that you clearly do not understand or have shown that you comprehend all the intricacies of.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I would also think that if these eyewitnesses were around to see something as profound as Christs death that they would be hanging on his last words and then report that correctly. Every gospel has him saying something different. How can that be--- unless of course, these are made-up embellishments!!

 

This is supposed to be the inerrant word of god. But you say that there are minor discrepancies. So, I guess you then agree that the bible is wrong in some places. Some day maybe you will even be willing to go so far as to say that it was simply written by men trying to further their new religion!

 

 

Going back to a question:

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

 

The gospels are not four separate narratives, since Matthew and Luke, each w/ some indiv. twists, make heavy use of Mark, sometimes directly copying. Ironhorse, you really need to get away from websites like CARM and get to some serious scholarship, if you want to discuss very complex textual matters like these.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

We're not talking about minor details of the events.  Did you not read Kris' post above?

 

 

The gospels directly contradict each other's at times. The genealogy of Jesus is completely different. Why does Joseph have two different dads? This IS the inerrant word of god isn't it? How about what Jesus said on the cross-- why so different? He must have been doing a lot of babbling to have everyone hear something different!! These are just a few examples.

We have two completely different genealogies showing Joseph to be from two different fathers.  I'd consider that to be a major discrepancy.

 

 

 

Explanation on this from CARM:

 

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.

 

I call bullshit.  If the bible really is the inerrant, infallible revelation of an omnipotent, omniscient god, then it should mean the same thing today as it did when it was first given. 

 

As I've said before, Romeo and Juliet can be understood and enjoyed by people from all walks of life all over the world even if they are not historians who are well-versed in Elizabethan English.  It was written by a mortal; an omnipotent god should be able to do just as good (if not better).

[Kris]

To answer your question regarding eyewitnesses--- you ask whether it would be possible for them to write a few MINOR things differently--- but we are not talking minor, we are talking MAJOR discrepancies! Joseph's' dad? Come on--- you need this induration to prove Jesus came from David's line. Yet, the gospel writers have different people listed, including Jesus' own grandpa!

[mymistake]

 

Would four people who witnessed several events write four narratives that

agreed, not only on the major happenings of the events events,

but on every minor detail of the events?

 

 

None of the gospel writers were witnesses.  They were not even Aramaic.  These guys wrote in excellent Greek.  They were not uneducated fishermen.  Mark is obviously the oldest gospel chosen by Rome.  Mark is the shortest and has no resurrection story!  Mark's origin story is plagiarized strait from Paul's.  Jesus alone saw a vision.  That is what set him off on his mission.  While being baptized one man saw a private vision.  Mark gives the impression that the Son of Man will come immediately.  Mark demonstrates serious ignorance of local geography.

 

Matthew and Luke say that is all wrong.  They go about correcting the mistakes of Mark.  Each writer of Luke and Matthew had a copy of Mark in front of them and copied word for word except for the parts they wanted to change.  But each goes about it differently.  Matthew makes up prophesies that do not exist.  Luke makes up history that isn't real.  Both demonstrate ignorance of Jewish culture.  They were outsiders writing novels.

 

John starts over because Mark, Matthew and Luke all got it wrong.  John adds new ideas and new theology that did not even exist when the earlier gospels were written.  John takes the Greek concept of Logos and adds that to the story.  The character John creates loves to talk.  He gives long, descriptive speeches about himself and philosophy.  These speeches happen in places where the other gospels specifically say Jesus spoke in riddles or asked people to not say who he was. The ministry of Jesus gets two extra years added to it because the other gospels were wrong.  Now Jesus is the passover lamb.  Now Jesus doesn't quote the prophets or cry in pain.  The Jesus created by John had planed everything from the beginning and shouts "It is finished" when his plan comes together.

 

And right after that dozens of more gospels were written.  The Gospel of Peter has the wooden cross give a speech much like the ones Jesus gave in John.  There is also the Gospel of Philip, Mary, James, Gospel of the Savior, Gospel of Truth, of the Ebionites, of the Nazareans, of they Egyptians, of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Apostles.  Writing novels about Jesus became a popular pastime.  Just become these other Gospels were not selected by Rome doesn't make them less authentic then the ones that were.  They can all be equally unauthentic.

 

But you have never read any of those other books because you read only the scriptures selected by Martin Luther and Luther only choose from books that were originally selected by Rome.

[Roz]

Prof. Bart Ehrman on the gospel reliability:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTqrpu3iqy0

 

Now think about Joseph Smith as an example.  Only 28% of the nephi plate 'translation' survives, but that's much more than the biblical manuscripts, of which we have 0% of the originals.

 

Writing this not for Ironhorse who won't believe anything he doesn't want to believe, but for any guests who want to look at the history of the christian bible.

[centauri]

Explanation on this from CARM:

 

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

Dishonest apologetics like this was a major factor in my discarding this religion.

There is no reference at all to Mary anywhere in Luke 3.

None.

Tribal identity is determined by the father not the mother.

Women cannot pass on kingships.

 

Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam.

Blatant LIE.

Mary is not mentioned anywhere in Luke 3.

 

Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David)

There is no legal line in Matthew.

Jesus has no paternal blood link to David and Solomon, which is required by the Old Testament.

You cannot "adopt" someone into a physical bloodline requirement.

The Matthew genealogy also contains a cursed king, none of whose descendants can sit on the throne.

 

...and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David).

There is no biological link in Luke.

The apologist is lying, inserting Mary into the genealogy and pretending she is the offspring of David.

 

Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Repeat...there is no mention of Mary in the genealogy.

Pretending that Mary was the subject is grossly dishonest, but vital in propping up the lies.

 

There is nothing that even indicates Mary was descended from David.

Luke also traces his genealogy through Nathan, which invalidates it from producing a king.

God's promise was that a king would descend from Solomon not Nathan.

 

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom.

The throne of David is temporal not spiritual.

 

The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary.

Jesus has no biological connection to David because he has no biological father.

The apologist is simply basing the whole apologetic on a lie, that is magically connected to David and the claim that Luke really meant his genealogy to be about her.

Luke could have easily put the in-law designation into the text to verify that Joseph was really the son-in-law of Heli but he didn't do that.

Luke also passes the genealogy through Nathan and not Solomon.

This genealogy cannot produce a king for that reason alone.

 

Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

This is Christian apologetics at its worst.

There is no mention of Mary anywhere in Luke 3 or that she was in the bloodline of David.

The Old Testament requires a physical PATERNAL blood link to David and Solomon.

There is nothing that indicates Joseph ever "legally" adopted Jesus, in fact, Joseph kept quiet on the whole issue to avoid scandal.

The Matthew genealogy contains a cursed king, rendering the genealogy useless for producing a king.

Luke runs his genealogy through Nathan, rendering it useless.

Jesus never sat on the throne at any time.

It's really sad that apologetics like this are used to prop up this religion.

I've seen this apologetic hundreds of times and it smells to high heaven.

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

hey Centauri, great dissection of CARM.

 

This might deserve a separate thread, or maybe there's no good answer. Anyway: given how bad the two genealogies are, do you have a view on what the two evangelists were trying to accomplish with the genealogies they produced?

[Scottsman]

A most excellent read. Especially for ironhorse. Sums up this thread perfectly. Cliffs notes for lurkers.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

[centauri]

hey Centauri, great dissection of CARM.

 

This might deserve a separate thread, or maybe there's no good answer. Anyway: given how bad the two genealogies are, do you have a view on what the two evangelists were trying to accomplish with the genealogies they produced?

It seems to me that they obviously wanted to link Jesus to David to add credibility to Jesus as the expected king.

The virgin birth throws a wrench in that, which Luke (or someone) attempts to get around by adding the qualifier (as was supposed) to the text.

Luke 3:23(ESV)

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

 

Luke 3:23 (YLT)

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

 

Luke 3:23 (NRSV)

He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

 

Mark gives no genealogy or virgin birth story and Paul makes no mention of it either.

Paul indicates that Jesus was the product of a direct biological father, not the product of a supernatural impregnation.

Rom 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

Matthew and Luke wanted to link Jesus to David but also wanted to elevate Jesus in status from other birth events.

I suspect this is a case of wanting it both ways while ignoring the complications.

This is my best guess at this time.

Both Matthew and Luke botched the genealogy even if the virgin birth issue is cast aside.

Neither genealogy can produce a king.