(September 9, 2013 at 9:20 am)John V Wrote: No, you’re a critic. Note your name and tag-line.

Your point?

Quote:Incorrect. You’re reading in words like “starts with,” “begins to gather,” and “kickoff” that aren’t in the texts. I’m sticking with the actual texts.

So am I. That's how the story reads to me. I'm reading what's there and not trying to rationalize away the continuity gaffes.

Quote:The time in the wilderness wasn’t in the original analysis. It would come between between the booming voice and the extra bit of ministry, due as you note to the “immediately” in the text.

Fail!

Jesus can't immediately go into the wilderness for 40 days AND also spend the next three days after his encounter with JtB gathering disciples and attending a wedding.

Either he went to the wilderness afterwards (and John is wrong) or he spent the next three days with the disciples and the wedding (and Mark is wrong).

Quote:No, now we have a 5-point timeline to make:

1. Spirit like a dove (checked and didn’t see booming voice in John)
2. Immediately went to the wilderness for 40 days.
3. Ministry specific to john
4. JtB thrown in prison.
5. Jesus comes to Galilee preaching

Point #3 fails.

John specifies that Jesus spent the next three days gathering disciples and attending a wedding. John's timeline specifically doesn't allow for the 40 days in the wilderness in between because he specified "The next day" and "the day following".

You lose. sir! Bite the bullet and admit the continuity gaffe.

Quote:OK, I’ll concede a conflict between Mark (not et al, the others don’t say immediately) and John on this.

Your concession of loss is acknowledged.

Matt and Luke based their work on Mark and distinctly imply right away after the baptism.

The Bible Wrote:Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
Matt 4:1 Then [in context, right after the booming voice] was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

"Then" and "and" would imply right away. Especially since Luke has Jesus going to the wilderness in the same sentence.

Quote:I’ve addressed it by noting your misunderstanding of the word disciple. Again, Jesus gathered disciples throughout his ministry. “Disciples” aren’t limited to the twelve apostles.

Jesus had no disciples OR apostles when he went into the wilderness. He was alone, tended to by angels and tempted by Satan.

Quote:But, if the chronicler thinks these things were legitimate, you dismiss his account as Christian mythology.

Only if they were Christian authors writing religious tracts. A mention by Philo or Josephus, just to toss out a few non-Christian names, or by a rival sect (a Jewish reference) would have been convincing.

Quote:We’re still discussing Jesus today, so he obviously got attention.

Yeah. Constantine's. But that was three centuries later.

(September 9, 2013 at 9:47 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Your point?

That we're both biased on this issue.

Quote:Incorrect. You’re reading in words like “starts with,” “begins to gather,” and “kickoff” that aren’t in the texts. I’m sticking with the actual texts.

So am I. That's how the story reads to me.[/quote]
In that case, "immediately" in Mark reads to me as "immediately after the wedding in John," and I retract my concession of that conflict.

(September 9, 2013 at 12:32 pm)John V Wrote: That we're both biased on this issue.

Skepticism isn't a bias. It's critical thinking applied to another person's bias.

Quote:In that case, "immediately" in Mark reads to me as "immediately after the wedding in John," and I retract my concession of that conflict.

And with that, we're done.

(September 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 9, 2013 at 12:32 pm)John V Wrote: That we're both biased on this issue.

Skepticism isn't a bias. It's critical thinking applied to another person's bias.

Quote:In that case, "immediately" in Mark reads to me as "immediately after the wedding in John," and I retract my concession of that conflict.

And with that, we're done.

I'm not done. You did identify a single discrepancy of a single word - immediately. However, check the usage of the underlying Greek word. When the context indicates time, it's translated as "immediately" or something similar. When the context involves geography, it's translated "straight." The context is that Jesus was going to the desert, so it could be that Mark was indicating he took a straight path to the desert, and translators are incorrect in interpreting it as a time reference in this verse.

Why can't theists just realize that if they even have to interpret a story to the best of their abilities in order to make sense of it, that perhaps the story wasn't worth one's time in the first place?

Oh, because they're batshit crazy.

(September 9, 2013 at 1:08 pm)John V Wrote: I'm not done. You did identify a single discrepancy of a single word - immediately. However, check the usage of the underlying Greek word. When the context indicates time, it's translated as "immediately" or something similar. When the context involves geography, it's translated "straight." The context is that Jesus was going to the desert, so it could be that Mark was indicating he took a straight path to the desert, and translators are incorrect in interpreting it as a time reference in this verse.

Quote:I read mat and john and still don't see it..

Then you are fucking blind....or more probably deluded.

This shit you call "gospels" was never intended to be read the way you insist on reading it. Whoever the authors were they were not writing part of a coherent series. These were stand-alone books written at different times for different audiences. "Matty" seems to have taken "mark" and tried to put it into a jewish context, "Luke" (Lucius, btw, a Roman name) seems to have tried to put it into a greco-roman context replete with references to Roman political figures like Augustus, Tiberius and Quirinius.

And, john, with its fantastic claims seems to have been written for a Harry Potter audience! In many cases it seems that john strives to clean up some of the messes created by the earlier writers....for instance he obviously couldn't stand the idea that fucking jesus stood there like a pussy while Pilate questioned him so he creates a whole dialogue for his godboy to say. Or, the synoptics agree that jesus was so beat up that he couldn't carry his cross so they invented some guy named "Simon" to do the hard work but "john" is having none of that shit. No "simon" is needed....jesus takes a licking and keeps on ticking so he says "get lost, motherfucker....I can carry my own cross!"

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Synop...rences.htm

Stuff like this seems to fly right over your head because you are so deeply invested in believing that it is ALL TRUE.

Well...it isn't.

Matty tried to put a Jewish spin on Mark? Have you read Mark? Its one of the most Jewish books I ever read.

How Jewish can Matthew be?

On the other hand - how Jewish could Jesus be? Way more Jewish than me - and I have 2 Jewish parents.

(September 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm)max-greece Wrote: Matty tried to put a Jewish spin on Mark? Have you read Mark? Its one of the most Jewish books I ever read.

How Jewish can Matthew be?

On the other hand - how Jewish could Jesus be? Way more Jewish than me - and I have 2 Jewish parents.

Matthew cleaned up a lot of the mistakes that Mark made regarding Jewish law and Jewish theology. For example, Jesus in Mark says divorce is never allowed. Matt taps Mark on the shoulder and says, "actually, we allow divorce if the woman isn't chaste on her wedding night."

Mark was a gentile and obviously clueless regarding Jewish theology.

Matthew also went to great lengths to write OT prophecy into the story to try to prove JC was the messiah, shamelessly lying his ass off about what the OT says to make that happen.

Matthew also has Jesus talking about who is most or the least in Heaven based on who has kept the law.

The problem with find "contradictions" in the texts is the difference in writing styles of the authors. All four authors had distinct penmanship that influenced what events are recorded. With that said, how can we understand the bias of each of the authors? For example, the apperent bias towards the "villan" Judas Iscariot, the only disicple with his full named mentioned. I merely stating this that skepticism is needed when reading these gospels. I have my fathers entire theology library and can reference alot of archeology and history, and I can tell you that the harmony of the gospels are not as apperent. Due to catholic rule and influence, we lost alot of history to what really happened when the sect of judaism started to grow upon the death Jesus of Nazareth.