Proof that Matthew & Luke believed that the Gospel of Mark contained errors

[R_Collins]

Although millions of Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant (without error), it is quite easy to prove that, in a few cases, the authors of the Bible believed that some other books of the Bible DID contain errors. One easy way to do this is to compare the stories in the Gospel of Mark with the same stories reported in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. I've created a 10+ minute YouTube video which compares 9 different events in Mark, and shows that there are irreconcilable contradictions between Mark's report and reports of the same events in Matthew and/or Luke. I hope this gives you some interesting things to discuss with your Christian friends:

 

Did Matthew and Luke believe that Mark was infallible?

 

 

[TrailBlazer]

Thought provoking!

In the time when the gospels were being written, the Bible hadn’t yet been canonized; there was much debate among early Christians about the gospel message, what was true about theology/Jesus, etc.

I think the story was often tweaked a little to appeal to the intended audience; the authors chose to embellish different details which they felt were important. Matthew and Luke were speaking to different crowds than Luke was. And, no, they didn’t all agree with each other. 

 

Side thought: are christians saved by grace or by works? If they align with Paul they are saved by grace. If they agree with James- by works. (If a Christian actually reads the bible and believes in absolute biblical inerrancy, then they are saved by faith & denial of cognitive dissonance.)

I think this was one reason for canonization councils, because there were so many versions of the gospel being preached at that time.  

[Hole_In_My_Heart]

The way my pastor explained this away was that the gospels were all eyewitness records, and that eyewitnesses to the same event always have significantly different stories, so much so that if witnesses come in with the exact same story, the police know that they have been colluding and have agreed to tell the same life. So, the authors of the Gospels were all telling the exact truth as they perceived it, rather than claiming to tell God's complete and accurate version of each of the events. He said that if the authors were trying to create a fake story about a fake religion, they would have all agreed to tell the same story, rather than leaving in obvious contradictions. What you have to ask yourself is, WHY God would want eyewitness accounts rather than a single flawlessly accurate account? Does that make any sense to you?

[Justus]

On 3/16/2019 at 3:56 PM, R_Collins said:

One easy way to do this is to compare the stories in the Gospel of Mark with the same stories reported in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke

 

So when you first believed the scriptures were true you must have done some type of inquiry before just accepting them as the truth didn't you?   

 

It would stand to reason that if you did then obviously there was some defect in your reasoning which resulted  in your professing faith in the Gospels before claiming something was true when you are claiming that they are full or errors.   So if you didn't make any inquiry into the scriptures before accepting them as being true then leaving behind doctrine of Christ then how are your conclusions any less subjective than before if you do know what the doctrine of Christ is other than what you believe from reading a book.

 

By the way, believing something is not the same as having faith.  Belief is the hope something is true  without any underlying substance to support the belief is actually true while faith is the underlying reason(s) for the expectation that something is true being the evidence that supports the hope in that which is unseen actually being true. 

 

On 3/19/2019 at 10:46 PM, TrailBlazer said:

Side thought: are christians saved by grace or by works?

Good question since Christians will say they are are saved by their faith in the word of God yet faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Son of God but of course they don't hear that yet it is written in John 5:25 that the time will come when they that hear shall live.  
 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 3:17 AM, Justus said:

By the way, believing something is not the same as having faith.  Belief is the hope something is true  without any underlying substance to support the belief is actually true while faith is the underlying reason(s) for the expectation that something is true being the evidence that supports the hope in that which is unseen actually being true. 

 

I don't agree with your statement on belief here. Belief, broadly is the acceptance of a proposition. Your definition only accounts for one of the differences ( as I lay out below) as there are different 'levels' of belief. (I'll say levels as I can't think of the word I'm actually looking for)

 

Justified or reasonable belief is the acceptance of a proposition that has supporting evidence and argument.  

 

Unjustified or unreasonable belief is the acceptance of a proposition with inadequate or no evidence and/or bad arguments, which more closely aligns to your definition above.

 

I'm trying to get a handle on what you mean by faith in this case. You seem to be using the Hebrews 11 version "“Now Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1"

 

You seem to essentially be saying that belief is a hope and faith supports that hope that something unseen is true?

 

Where as I would say that if you are believing something that is not adequately supported it's an unreasonable belief. Which I guess is where faith comes in. If I might be tongue in cheek, I think faith is believing something for which there is no good reason or evidence to believe. If you have good evidence and reason you don't need faith, you just have a reasonable belief.