The gospels are far from uniform. They are contradictory in places and the each tell of a rather different Jesus. The synoptic gospels share a similar story, but the details change as Jesus becomes less man-like and more god like:

Quote:33 When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land[h] until three in the afternoon. 34 At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[i] 35 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” 36 And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

Mark 15:33-39 Recorded sometime around 70 CE

This depiction of Jesus is of a man in the desolation of despair. He is not expecting salvation. The centurion's declaration is inexplicable. How would he know if the curtain of the temple was torn? And even if he did, why would that be so impressive to a Roman?

Quote:45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 46 And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 47 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “This man is calling for Elijah.” 48 At once one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink. 49 But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” 50 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

Mathew 27:45-54
Recorded around 85 CE or later.

Jesus is still a man in despair. But, notice, the addition of the earthquake, and the bodies rising up out of the graves. No wonder the centurion is impressed. But it's very hard to imagine how Mark could have neglected these rather fantastic details if they'd actually happened.

Quote:44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 while the sun’s light failed;[b] and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last. 47 When the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, “Certainly this man was innocent.”

Luke 23:44-47 Recorded about 85 CE

Again only the curtain torn in two, but this Jesus is sure he's headed to heaven.

And now for something completely different:

Quote: After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

John 19: 28-30 Recorded in stages between 90-110 CE.

Whoops, what happened the the centurion and the curtain? The earthquake? This is a calm resigned Jesus diligently fulfilling prophecy.

This kind of comparison can be made with the resurrection too. And the birth, and the John the Baptist.

Even if one grants the existence of Jesus, one is left to choose which one to believe in. They appear to be rather different men.

Ohhhh snap* giggles

Rev is not gonna be happy about this

[modhat] Thread re-opened following moderation as title contravened rule #13 - No calling out. Happy debate people [/modhat]

Bart Ehrman refers to the gospel of markmatthewlukejohn to highlight the xtian tendency to run all this bullshit together into one story making a mockery of all 4 and saddling them with the inconsistencies you mention.

These were different stories, told to different groups at different times and each author had a different purpose in mind.

Four turds not one.

Ehrman makes for great reading.

(July 18, 2014 at 11:04 am)Minimalist Wrote: Bart Ehrman refers to the gospel of markmatthewlukejohn to highlight the xtian tendency to run all this bullshit together into one story making a mockery of all 4 and saddling them with the inconsistencies you mention.

These were different stories, told to different groups at different times and each author had a different purpose in mind.

Four turds not one.

What I find interesting is not the little factual inconsistencies, but that they suggest doctrinal and/or mythic growth. How Jesus reacts to death is very telling. Whether you choose, his birth, baptism, how he answers questions about himself, his death, or his resurrection, the Jesus' of the Gospels are rather different. They go from human prophet, to acknowledged son of god, to born son of god, to god on earth.

It's also interesting to ask who was the intended audience for each gospel. Many odd additions to the story can be explained that way.

I especially like the changes from one Gospel to another in the depiction of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus and in the baptism narratives themselves. As Minimalist mentioned, the standard Christian reading of the Gospels results in an unwarranted (and irresponsible) conflation of these books, resulting in nonsense as they try to square the different accounts. To paraphrase Nietzsche, Christianity has done more to propagate the art of reading badly than virtually any other school or movement in Western history.

"Matthew" was written for a Jewish audience which understood references to OT themes. The others were written for Greco-Roman audiences but at different times. "Mark" was first and "luke" was basically a fan-fic add on to fill in some of the obvious holes.

"John" was much later and depicts a significantly different tradition.

The other important point is geographical. There were far more than 4 gospels. 4 is simply the number that were successfully edited to conform to doctrinal realities at the time the bible was pieced together by a committee of scumbag bishops. It seems as if each xtian group had their own "gospel" and it was not until the group which Ehrman styles the proto-orthodox came to power - by backing the right horse at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge - that the proto-orthodox were able to start enforcing their particular version of bullshit on all other self-styled xtians.

I highly recommend Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It is a study of the various "heretical groups" (heretical because they disagreed with the proto-orthoox.) It's great reading.

(July 18, 2014 at 12:18 am)Jenny A Wrote: The gospels are far from uniform. They are contradictory in places and the each tell of a rather different Jesus. The synoptic gospels share a similar story, but the details change as Jesus becomes less man-like and more god like:

This depiction of Jesus is of a man in the desolation of despair. He is not expecting salvation.

If you start reading a little earlier, you'll see that he is expecting salvation:
Mark 14
24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new[c] covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

28 “But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee.”