There are many scenarios that look as if they contradict each other in the four Gospels. i.e Mattew,Mark,Luke,John.

Examples,
Jesus Geneaology,Times(some events happened during the day,some at night).

But if we get a deep understanding of the four Gospels.
The four Gospels were written for only these purposes.i.e

"the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst Us,and the events of redemption i.e the death,burial and resurrection of Christ".

Many atheists and unbelievers are quick to tackle us Christians with these contradictions.

How to explain it is simple.

The four Gospels are eye-witnesses accounts, i.e they wrote what they saw or heard.


For example:-
three eyewitnesses at the same event will not give exactly the same account of the what happened. But there will be a lot of similarities in their accounts.

The facts still remain the same that
1)WORD became flesh and dwelt amongst Us.

2)He died,he was buried and the rose again on the third day.

These facts still remain intact.Every other thing is secondary.

Hope we are clear?
We win!
Remain Blessed!.

Cc winner01,malvisguy212,

cc vooks,Gombs,scholar8200.

Yup, that certainly clears up all those contradictions, insertions and alterations.

For the word of the Lord is upright, and all his work is done in faithfulness. Psalm 33:4

No one, Nothing, No teaching nor philosophy can bury the Truth. You can only bury a lie. They tried to bury the Truth, but He rose again and lives forevermore.
Hallelujah

God bless you for this bro.

sportsmaster:
There are many scenarios that look as if they contradict each other in the four Gospels. i.e Mattew,Mark,Luke,John.

Examples,
Jesus Geneaology,Times(some events happened during the day,some at night).

But if we get a deep understanding of the four Gospels.
The four Gospels were written for only these purposes.i.e

"the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst Us,and the events of redemption i.e the death,burial and resurrection of Christ".

Many atheists and unbelievers are quick to tackle us Christians with these contradictions.

How to explain it is simple.

The four Gospels are eye-witnesses accounts, i.e they wrote what they saw or heard.


For example:-
three eyewitnesses at the same event will not give exactly the same account of the what happened. But there will be a lot of similarities in their accounts.

The facts still remain the same that
1)God became flesh and dwelt amongst Us.

2)He died,he was buried and the rose again on the third day.

These facts still remain intact.Every other thing is secondary.

Hope we are clear?
We win!
Remain Blessed!.

Cc winner01,malvisguy212,

Nice one, But why use the word *God* because flesh and died? If God want us to know that He died He will state it openly. Lets not misinterprete the scripture. If Jesus did not ever say in a piece of the scripture that He is God. Why should we? If He openly said he is the son of God, why dont we accept it like that. His devine nature is not contestable. But we should be carefully. God bless you too.

plappville:


Nice one, But why use the word *God* because flesh and died? If God want us to know that He died He will state it openly. Lets not misinterprete the scripture. If Jesus did not ever say in a piece of the scripture that He is God. Why should we? If He openly said he is the son of God, why dont we accept it like that. His devine nature is not contestable. But we should be carefully. God bless you too.

to avoid arguements and unnecessary exegesis, lemme change it to "WORD"

just quickly look at 1Timothy3:16,
John 1:1-3,14.Colossians2:9,

sportsmaster:
There are many scenarios that look as if they contradict each other in the four Gospels. i.e Mattew,Mark,Luke,John.

Examples,
Jesus Geneaology,Times(some events happened during the day,some at night).

But if we get a deep understanding of the four Gospels.
The four Gospels were written for only these purposes.i.e

"the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst Us,and the events of redemption i.e the death,burial and resurrection of Christ".

Many atheists and unbelievers are quick to tackle us Christians with these contradictions.

How to explain it is simple.

The four Gospels are eye-witnesses accounts, i.e they wrote what they saw or heard.


For example:-
three eyewitnesses at the same event will not give exactly the same account of the what happened. But there will be a lot of similarities in their accounts.

The facts still remain the same that
1)WORD became flesh and dwelt amongst Us.

2)He died,he was buried and the rose again on the third day.

These facts still remain intact.Every other thing is secondary.

Hope we are clear?
We win!
Remain Blessed!.

Cc winner01,malvisguy212,

the four gospel are similar and not identical. There are many people suffering from SIMILAR disease so we should expect similar miracle. For example if you are to check the book of a lifetime achievement of a successful doctor , NO doubt you will find similar disease but different people.
But atheists and muslims don't know all this they are just waiting by the corner like the devil seeking for any advantage to attack the word of God.

This is what is going on today with those who attack scripture.They claim that two different books of scripture, which are reporting two different events, are actually reporting the same event! And then they say these books cannot be
trusted because this same event is
different from one another, and thus
contradictory! Instead of admitting the truth that these are two different events in two different books! Let us see an example of this.

The prayer in Matthew 6 is slightly
different from the prayer in Luke 11.
If you look closely at the text, you will see that Jesus taught this prayer on two different occasions and to two different groups of people. Matthew's version was part of the Sermon on the Mount. "DISCIPLES" in this context referred to a rather large group of followers. In Luke's account, Jesus is speaking only to the twelve apostles.

sportsmaster:


to avoid arguements and unnecessary exegesis, lemme change it to "WORD"

just quickly look at 1Timothy3:16,
John 1:1-3,14.Colossians2:9,

Just like u said to avoid argument. I dont want to indulge in any as par this subject neither. No verse ever said it and that stands. Thanks.

How did you come to the conclusion that the canonical Gospels were eye witness accounts?

Chizzled06:
How did you come to the conclusion that the canonical Gospels were eye witness accounts?

lets hear from luke
Luke 1:1
1forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set foth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us
2even as they were delivered them unto us,which were from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.
read Vs 3.

Lets hear from John.

John21:24-25,
24 This is the disciple which testified(gave evidence,gave witness) of these things,and wrote those things and we know his testimony is true.
25read it on your own.
I cant type.

sportsmaster:


lets hear from luke
Luke 1:1
1forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set foth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us
2even as they were delivered them unto us,which were from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.
read Vs 3.

Lets hear from John.

John21:24-25,
24 This is the disciple which testified(gave evidence,gave witness) of these things,and wrote those things and we know his testimony is true.
25read it on your own.
I cant type.

So if I write a book about an event and in the book I claim that I saw all that I've written, that'll be enough to convince you?

(By the way, only one canonical Gospel (John) claims to be an eye witness account)

Chizzled06:


So if I write a book about an event and in the book I claim that I saw all that I've written, that'll be enough to convince you?

(By the way, only one canonical Gospel (John) claims to be an eye witness account)

did you read my post at all.

Luke himself said he is an eye-witness.
John too said the same thing.

These guys simple wrote what they saw or heard.
Is that too hard too understand

Chizzled06:


So if I write a book about an event and in the book I claim that I saw all that I've written, that'll be enough to convince you?

(By the way, only one canonical Gospel (John) claims to be an eye witness account)

The Gospels repeatedly affirmed their own historical,eyewitness nature,mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as
eyewitnesses:

John 1:6-7
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a WITNESS , to TESTIFY about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

Jesus Himself understand the important of being an eyewitness that why He continuously challenge His disciples to be witnesses of His gospel:

Luke 24:44-49
Now He said to them, “These are My
words which I spoke to you while I was
still with you, that all things which are
written about Me in the Law of Moses
and the Prophets and the Psalms must
be fulfilled.” Then He opened their
minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. YOU ARE WITNESSES OF THESE THINGS. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 1:6-8
So when they had come together, they
were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at
this time You are restoring the kingdom
to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for
you to know times or epochs which the
Father has fixed by His own authority;
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be MY WITNESSES both in Jerusalem,and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

sportsmaster:


did you read my post at all.

Luke himself said he is an eye-witness.
John too said the same thing.

These guys simple wrote what they saw or heard.
Is that too hard too understand

Since when does writing what you heard translate as being an eyewitness? You say that Luke claimed to be an eye-witness to the accounts he wrote and I tell you he lied. Let us examine this claim to be an eye-witness logically (I appreciate Christians don’t do logic but let’s try) here are my reasons.

The author of Luke gave us the third Gospel, we know that Luke drew on the author of the gospel of Mark which was completed around 60-75 CE, so we can reliably date Luke no earlier than the year 75CE possibly closer to around 80-90 CE which makes it fully half a century after the death of Jesus that Luke commences his eye-witness account.

There is also the added dimension that the author Luke is also considered the author of the Acts of the Apostles, we can disregard the first part of Acts as fantasy and concentrate on the second part known as the “We” documents during which we know the author apparently accompanied Saul of Tarsus on some of his journeys, we can reliably date Paul’s movements to the 50’s and 60’s (we know he was summoned by Nero)also there are references in the Acts that tell us the book was composed during the reign of the Emperor Domitian who ruled between 81CE and 96CE

If we date the birth of Jesus to around 6CE, Luke would have us believe that he witnessed the birth of Jesus, his eventful life and subsequent death in roughly 36 CE and somehow hooked up with the loquacious Saul of Tarsus in the 50’s, witnessed the inception of Pauline theology and eventually wrote his memoirs around 90CE.

Personally I believe Luke was a storyteller, perhaps you would like to clarify?

Sarassin:


Since when does writing what you heard translate as being an eyewitness? You say that Luke claimed to be an eye-witness to the accounts he wrote and I tell you he lied. Let us examine this claim to be an eye-witness logically (I appreciate Christians don’t do logic but let’s try) here are my reasons.

The author of Luke gave us the third Gospel, we know that Luke drew on the author of the gospel of Mark which was completed around 60-75 CE, so we can reliably date Luke no earlier than the year 75CE possibly closer to around 80-90 CE which makes it fully half a century after the death of Jesus that Luke commences his eye-witness account.

There is also the added dimension that the author Luke is also considered the author of the Acts of the Apostles, we can disregard the first part of Acts as fantasy and concentrate on the second part known as the “We” documents during which we know the author apparently accompanied Saul of Tarsus on some of his journeys, we can reliably date Paul’s movements to the 50’s and 60’s (we know he was summoned by Nero)also there are references in the Acts that tell us the book was composed during the reign of the Emperor Domitian who ruled between 81CE and 96CE

If we date the birth of Jesus to around 6CE, Luke would have us believe that he witnessed the birth of Jesus, his eventful life and subsequent death in roughly 36 CE and somehow hooked up with the loquacious Saul of Tarsus in the 50’s, witnessed the inception of Pauline theology and eventually wrote his memoirs around 90CE.

Personally I believe Luke was a storyteller, perhaps you would like to clarify?

Luk 1:1 Since many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 [size=18pt] Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word[/size];
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto you in order, most excellent Theophilus,

sportsmaster:



Luk 1:1 Since many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 [size=18pt] Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word[/size];
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto you in order, most excellent Theophilus,

So, Luke was not an eyewitness then? he wrote hearsay?

Sarassin:

So, Luke was not an eyewitness then? he wrote hearsay?

Obviously.

Rilwayne001:


Obviously.

Probably not quite that obvious yet, lets hear it from the OP.

Sarassin:

Probably not quite that obvious yet, lets hear it from the OP.

You are right. Lets wait for him.

Sarassin:


Probably not quite that obvious yet, lets hear it from the OP.

did you read luke1:3

sportsmaster:


did you read luke1:3

Yes of course I read Luke 1v3, I don’t have perfect understanding perhaps you or any others would care to explain it.

You still haven’t answered the question, was Luke an eyewitness as you stated earlier or did he write hearsay?

sportsmaster:


did you read my post at all.

Luke himself said he is an eye-witness.
John too said the same thing.

These guys simple wrote what they saw or heard.
Is that too hard too understand

What you hear doesn't count as 'eye witness'

And that's what the Canonical gospel accounts are: Varying claims amongst early Christians about the story of the life of Jesus.

malvisguy212:
The Gospels repeatedly affirmed their own historical,eyewitness nature,mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as
eyewitnesses:

John 1:6-7
There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a WITNESS , to TESTIFY about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

Jesus Himself understand the important of being an eyewitness that why He continuously challenge His disciples to be witnesses of His gospel:

Luke 24:44-49
Now He said to them, “These are My
words which I spoke to you while I was
still with you, that all things which are
written about Me in the Law of Moses
and the Prophets and the Psalms must
be fulfilled.” Then He opened their
minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. YOU ARE WITNESSES OF THESE THINGS. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 1:6-8
So when they had come together, they
were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at
this time You are restoring the kingdom
to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for
you to know times or epochs which the
Father has fixed by His own authority;
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be MY WITNESSES both in Jerusalem,and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

You can't verify the words of a book simply because the same book says so. The Bible is nothing close to a history book, so you can't call it 'historical'
So let me rephrase:
Is there any evidence outside biblical text that these accounts are eye witness?

sportsmaster:


did you read my post at all.

Luke himself said he is an eye-witness.
John too said the same thing.

These guys simple wrote what they saw or heard.
Is that too hard too understand

What you hear doesn't count as 'eye witness'

And that's what the Canonical gospel accounts are: Varying claims amongst early Christians about the story of the life of Jesus.

Sarassin:
Yup, that certainly clears up all those contradictions, insertions and alterations.

hehehehehehehehehe, funniest quote of the day. BTW, i see no contradictions in all the Bible though, maybe misunderstandings.

Image123:



hehehehehehehehehe, funniest quote of the day. BTW, i see no contradictions in all the Bible though, maybe misunderstandings.

hahaha....,

I am not sure what you mean by misunderstandings, by whom ? I would say there are more than a few contradictions in the bible that cannot simply be "rationalised away"

Sarassin:



hahaha....,

I am not sure what you mean by misunderstandings, by whom ? I would say there are more than a few contradictions in the bible that cannot simply be "rationalised away"

Misunderstandings by humans, imperfections in comprehension and expression.

Image123:


Misunderstandings by humans, imperfections in comprehension and expression.

I take your point. Clearly it must be a misunderstanding if the OP is claiming the gospel authors of Mathew, Luke et al were eyewitnesses to the accounts they wrote.

sportsmaster:
There are many scenarios that look as if they contradict each other in the four Gospels. i.e Mattew,Mark,Luke,John.

Examples,
Jesus Geneaology,Times(some events happened during the day,some at night).

But if we get a deep understanding of the four Gospels.
The four Gospels were written for only these purposes.i.e

"the word was made flesh and dwelt amongst Us,and the events of redemption i.e the death,burial and resurrection of Christ".

Many atheists and unbelievers are quick to tackle us Christians with these contradictions.

How to explain it is simple.

The four Gospels are eye-witnesses accounts, i.e they wrote what they saw or heard.


For example:-
three eyewitnesses at the same event will not give exactly the same account of the what happened. But there will be a lot of similarities in their accounts.

The facts still remain the same that
1)WORD became flesh and dwelt amongst Us.

2)He died,he was buried and the rose again on the third day.

These facts still remain intact.Every other thing is secondary.

Hope we are clear?
We win!
Remain Blessed!.

Cc winner01,malvisguy212,

But una talk say holy spirit wrote the bible...how come ur saying that the 4 gospel books has lots of contradictions...Or is the holy spirit confused

My opinion:

The purpose of reading the Bible is to come to know the Lord,
once God has given us faith because we sought Him
then contradictions or seemingly contradictions don't matter,
they are there for those who don't want to believer, and who use them to try and discredit Christianity
and so they themselves never come to know the truth.

2Co 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

If you reject Christ, you will see contradictions and will never believe
If you reject Christ, He will reject you.

Sarassin:


I take your point. Clearly it must be a misunderstanding if the OP is claiming the gospel authors of Mathew, Luke et al were eyewitnesses to the accounts they wrote.

Maybe a combination of the factors. Misunderstandings by humans, imperfections in comprehension and expression.