Another thing to remember is that Mark is often in a thematic rather than chronological order (as Papius says), whereas Matthew and Luke are more chronological.
They did not have tape recorders or video cameras back then. They did not carry around paper and ink to write down every word as it was spoken. So of course they were paraphrasing the words and deeds of Jesus. Some were paraphrasing a more condensed version of events, etc.
THAT plus: (as simple as possible) Two witnesses of an accident: 1st: the car came from the left and it smashes into all those people. 2nd: the car came from the right and hurt at least 3 ... Do they contradict each other ? Or they have different perspectives ?
The actual point is whether the Gospels are true or not. If you are Jewish or a Buddhist or a non believer you will not see them as the word of God. What then do you make of them? Are they special or divine? There are a number of religions which have books which they think are divine. Muslims think that the Koran is the actual physical word of God. Christians disagree with them. If you look at the Gospels as a non believer a lot of the content is clearly made up. In Mathew the tombs breaking open and the dead saints coming alive is a literary device. It clearly did not happen. It was created to give a sense of importance to Jesus death. The idea of a census in which people returned to the land of their birth if clearly nonsense. Apart from the fact that it did not happen the idea is absurd. The reason for a Roman census is to establish data for taxation. You want to know where a person lives. In the case of Joseph is he lived under King Heron he would not be subject to Roman taxes. The various prophecies in Mathew rely on mistranslations of Old Testament material. The differences in the narratives further are evidence of the fact that the Gospels are not inspired. Now fundamentalists do not believe any of this. But this is the reason why non Christians are interested in the various different accounts in the Gospels and Acts
Ever since Copernicus published his book on the revolutions of the heavenly spheres, religion has been on the backfoot. Science continually tries to prove itself wrong, whereas religion continually tries to prove itself right. How is it that these apologists can change the meaning just to "justify" their crazy beliefs.
The Bible is a huge stretch to believe, especially the supernatural claims. Some histories are more easy. Faith is not a good path to truth. Most people who turn claims into facts have a dog in the fight, it's their income.
Faith in its Biblical meaning (pistis is the Greek word) means a response to truth, not a path to it. I think you're confusing the Biblical meaning with the atheist propaganda lie about what Biblical faith is. This is ironic since that requires faith in just the false meaning way you repudiate. I guess that makes you basically a hypocrite.
Who, exactly, are you saying is angry about gospel self-contradictions? I thought that maybe you'd angered some Christians who need to believe the Bible is the word of God, but you seem to be dismissing the contradictions as a fabrication of unimaginative skeptics. If you've encountered anger, it wouldn't have to do with the contradictions, because they are what they are.
You have made a very ad-hoc statement and given absolutely no valid argument to support your claim. So please explain how you can say that there is no hyperbole. Are you going to deny any poetic license, metaphor, simile? So I repeat the question, why not?
"if the bible is god breathed then there should be no hyperbole in the bible." I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't really matter if there's hyperbole, because the hyperbole argument doesn't address the actual contradictions. The author is knocking down straw men in this video. It isn't possible to stitch together a single story out of the gospels that includes all the claims of all four gospels.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
If every witnesses testimony was identical it would tell you right away their story was false.
Another thing to remember is that Mark is often in a thematic rather than chronological order (as Papius says), whereas Matthew and Luke are more chronological.
They did not have tape recorders or video cameras back then. They did not carry around paper and ink to write down every word as it was spoken. So of course they were paraphrasing the words and deeds of Jesus. Some were paraphrasing a more condensed version of events, etc.
THAT plus:
(as simple as possible)
Two witnesses of an accident:
1st:
the car came from the left and it smashes into all those people.
2nd:
the car came from the right and hurt at least 3 ...
Do they contradict each other ?
Or they have different perspectives ?
gotta love people who run away with half baked arguments based on barely understood concepts.
It seems you may be scratching a fear some folks have of a slippery slope. Perhaps assuring them of what "sticks" will help allay those fears.
The actual point is whether the Gospels are true or not. If you are Jewish or a Buddhist or a non believer you will not see them as the word of God. What then do you make of them? Are they special or divine? There are a number of religions which have books which they think are divine. Muslims think that the Koran is the actual physical word of God. Christians disagree with them.
If you look at the Gospels as a non believer a lot of the content is clearly made up. In Mathew the tombs breaking open and the dead saints coming alive is a literary device. It clearly did not happen. It was created to give a sense of importance to Jesus death. The idea of a census in which people returned to the land of their birth if clearly nonsense. Apart from the fact that it did not happen the idea is absurd. The reason for a Roman census is to establish data for taxation. You want to know where a person lives. In the case of Joseph is he lived under King Heron he would not be subject to Roman taxes. The various prophecies in Mathew rely on mistranslations of Old Testament material.
The differences in the narratives further are evidence of the fact that the Gospels are not inspired. Now fundamentalists do not believe any of this. But this is the reason why non Christians are interested in the various different accounts in the Gospels and Acts
Ever since Copernicus published his book on the revolutions of the heavenly spheres, religion has been on the backfoot. Science continually tries to prove itself wrong, whereas religion continually tries to prove itself right. How is it that these apologists can change the meaning just to "justify" their crazy beliefs.
The Bible is a huge stretch to believe, especially the supernatural claims. Some histories are more easy. Faith is not a good path to truth. Most people who turn claims into facts have a dog in the fight, it's their income.
Faith in its Biblical meaning (pistis is the Greek word) means a response to truth, not a path to it. I think you're confusing the Biblical meaning with the atheist propaganda lie about what Biblical faith is. This is ironic since that requires faith in just the false meaning way you repudiate. I guess that makes you basically a hypocrite.
@@grantbartley483 But you're still *claiming* the the bible/Christianity is truth.
@@2Snakes Yes. But only because that's what the evidence points to.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Who, exactly, are you saying is angry about gospel self-contradictions? I thought that maybe you'd angered some Christians who need to believe the Bible is the word of God, but you seem to be dismissing the contradictions as a fabrication of unimaginative skeptics. If you've encountered anger, it wouldn't have to do with the contradictions, because they are what they are.
mike makes a great living spinning christian bs. if the bible is god breathed then there should be no hyperbole in the bible.
Why not?
@@grantbartley483 why not what? ask a full question
@@NI-pi2ne Duh
You have made a very ad-hoc statement and given absolutely no valid argument to support your claim.
So please explain how you can say that there is no hyperbole.
Are you going to deny any poetic license, metaphor, simile?
So I repeat the question, why not?
"if the bible is god breathed then there should be no hyperbole in the bible." I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't really matter if there's hyperbole, because the hyperbole argument doesn't address the actual contradictions. The author is knocking down straw men in this video. It isn't possible to stitch together a single story out of the gospels that includes all the claims of all four gospels.