Maamin:


How quick and easy for u to run to an european site for help..yet you claim they are against islam and the quran,saying articles from them are not to be trusted.

Besides why is it just a fragment dont the quran have a complete manuscript?

Scholar8200:


1. Give those embellishments and show how they contradict other prophesies, patterns and principles in the Law, Prophets, Epistles and other Gospels!

2. A good number of the other 'gospels' are the ones contaminated by the gnostics: a cult that existed in pre-christian times. It was the error of this same cult that Paul confronted in the Epistle to the Colossians. In fact it wont be illogical to say that the emphasis of the Divinity of Christ by John shows that he was also countering the lie of the Gnostics (existence of lesser, intermediary gods and perhaps trying to make Jesus one of them). That is why John specifically wrote:
1 John 4:2,3a
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist,

The highlighted was a direct rebuttal to the lie of the gnostic gospellers that Christ did not actual come in the flesh (rings a bell!.) because of their belief that the flesh is intrinsically evil.

5. The record of Zacchaeus, parable of Lazarus and the rich man etc are peculiar only to Luke, going by your parameter, do we then discredit those too?

Inspiration was not designed to foster independence and mental perfection; the 4 Gospels that made it into the Bible are complementary and prove that, in spite of what the devil may try God will preserve that which is His:

Isaiah 34:16
Seek from the book of the Lord, and read:

Not one of these will be missing;
None will lack its mate.
For His mouth has commanded,
And His Spirit has gathered them.

McSterling:
Asking this shows that you're either simply being insincere or plain ignorant.

What proof have you that the gnostic gospels were "contaminated"? There were diverse Christian sects beginning from the first century CE. As much as we know, gnosticism dates back to the first century too. The fact that the Christian view which you now consider orthodox was adopted by Constantine's state church, doesn't mean it is any more credible or less "contaminated".If the gnostics or any other sect had won the doctrinal war, perhaps gnosticism would be your "truth" today.

My parameter It isn't my parameter. Like I stated before, it is one of the methods used by historians to establish that an event did occur in the past. As a Christian, you can of course personally believe everything in the Bible by faith, but for any biblical account to be established historically as fact, it must pass the necessary tests. Just like there is the scientific method, there also is the historical method.

I fail to understand how the contradictions in the gospels are complementary?

I would like you to give precise answers to these questions:
What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?
Did the two thieves crucified with Jesus ridicule him or only one?
Who saw the risen Christ first?
Who were the group of women that visited the tomb that morning?
Was the stone rolled away before or after they arrived?
How many angels( or men) did they see?
Where did they see these angels? Inside the tomb? Outside it? Sitting on the rolled-away stone?Standing?
Did Magdalene see Jesus himself rather than the angels?
Where were the disciples told they'd see Jesus?
Where did Jesus appear to his disciples and gave his final command?

Scholar8200:
Interesting!
This is why I spoke about weighing each book with the balance of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Epistles! Since the Gospels were about Christ, we consider all that was said about Him in the Law,Prophets and Psalms both in prophesy and type. Using this method, it will be easy to differentiate truth from counterfeit gospels. I am persuaded that some authors of the other 'gospels' were oblivious of the fact of the prophesies.

Even in sciences, methods have been changed meaning they were discovered to be faulty; I guess the same liberty should be allowed academic historians.

when I said complementary, I mean Matthew will include details left out by Luke vice versa. You may ask," were they not supposed to be inspired?" I answer," Inspiration does not make us an Island/Repository of all knowledge. Else, we wouldnt need church/fellowship since those who receive the Spirit are to 'know everything'!"

I believe this will answer your questions, patiently read through.

The apostle Paul stated, “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ.… And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins… . If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (I Corinthians 15:14, 15, 17, 19, KJV).

A common objection to the fact of the resurrection is that the four Gospel narratives contain hopeless contradictions. If the four accounts were placed in parallel columns, a number of apparent differences would be highlighted. However, these apparent differences ultimately confirm the truthfulness of these accounts, rather than refute them.

If all four Gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with exactly the same details, we would immediately become suspicious. We could also wonder why all four writers did not simply attach their names as co-authors of one account. Obviously, this is not the case. None of the four Gospels gives all the details of what transpired.

Matthew is the only writer who records the first appearance to the women, while only in Luke do we find the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The appearance of Mary Magdalene is omitted by both Matthew and Luke. Only John records the appearance of our Lord in the upper room, when Thomas was absent and the appearance on the sea of Galilee.

It is quite clear that all of the Gospels relate their portraits of Jesus differently. This is what we should expect. No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail. If they did, there would be obvious collusion.

If the differences concerned the main points of the story, then there would be justification for doubt, but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, insignificant differences add to, rather than subtract from, the validity.

It should be noted, too, that none of the details necessarily flatly contradicts any others, but in some plausible way they correlate together to supply the larger picture. The variations in detail the different writers chose to include in the resurrection narratives consist of incidental things which in no way jeopardize the main plot of the story.

One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time the women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark’s account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.

This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure.

The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb.

This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possibly one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized. There is no need to assume a discrepancy.

Though they report some of the details differently, the Gospels agree in all important points. The accounts are in harmony on the fact that Jesus was dead and buried; that the disciples were not prepared for His death, but were totally confused; that the tomb was empty on Easter morning; that the empty tomb did not convince them that Jesus had risen; that Mary thought the body had been stolen.

The Gospel writers also concur that the disciples had certain experiences which they believed to be appearances of the resurrected Christ. That normative first century Judaism had no concept of a dying and rising Messiah is a historical fact.

The disciples proclaimed the resurrection story in Jerusalem, in the place where Jesus had been killed and buried. All these facts considered together constitute a powerful argument for the validity of the resurrection story.

The venerable scholar, Wilbur Smith, had this to say about the differences in the resurrection accounts and the areas in which the Gospels agree:

“In these fundamental truths, there are absolutely no contradictions. The so-called variations in the narratives are only the details which were mostly vividly impressed on one mind or another of the witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection, or on the mind of the writers of these four respective Gospels.

“The closest, most critical, examination of these narratives throughout the ages never has destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many” (The Supernaturalness of Christ, W.A. Wilde Company, 1954, p. 205).
George Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, Eerdmans, 1975
Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, W.A. Wilde Company, 1954
W.J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection and the Christian Faith, Zondervan, 1968
Merrill Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection, Harper and Row, 1963
Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith, P. 85
http://www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/how-do-you-explain-contradictions-in-the-resurrection-story/

McSterling:
What prophecies? You sure know the Jews have different interpretations of these "prophecies" which have nothing at all to do with the Messiah or Jesus. In fact, some of these so called "prophecies" that the early Christians feasted on clearly had nothing to do with Jesus, since they had already happened.

Certainly, inspiration by a divine, omniscient entity[b] should make one an island of knowledge[/b]. The knowledge we are even concerned with here isn't brobdingnagian. It is rather quite simple. A precise, punctilious chronological account of Jesus' life. This shouldn't be such a big deal especially when one is under the influence of an omniscient entity.

This epistle you've posted precisely makes my point. You can not precisely answer the questions I posed. Because by attempting to do so, you'd also be invalidating some of the other gospel accounts. Certainly, there couldn't have been one and two angels in the tomb at a time. The stone couldn't have been both in place and rolled away when the women arrived. They can't all be right. Something's got to give. At least some, if not all, of the gospels are very wrong about what really happened

Scholar8200:
I wish you will outline some of these prophecies! The other time I made a similar request your response was to accuse me of insincerity! Is it the prophecy of Jesus being born in Bethlehem (unmistakably affirmed by the Jews also stated in Micah 5:2) or that He will be killed for sins He never committed (Daniel 9/ Isaiah 53)? Even if the Jews gave many interpretations we have the same prophecies and the Spirit gives their meanings!

As per the highlighted, that was not the purpose of His coming; just like saying the Body of Christ should consist of just one person!
Ephesians 4:11-13
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

12 for the equipping of the [d]saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature [f]which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Verse 11 shows God intends everyone function in his office if Knowledge of Christ will be clear Vs13. In spite of your opinion,this is God's purpose, take it or leave it!



Besides, the substance of the Gospel (Christ's birth, death and resurrection) remains unchanged and that was the purpose of the Gospels. Most questions that arose in those days was in the area of prophecies and principles according to the Law and Prophets and the Gospels were written to lead readers to faith in Christ. Issues being raised today on , who rolled the stone, who did not go afishing etc are peripheries the inclusion or omission neither adds to nor diminishes the essence of the Gospel!

Alright consider this:


An angel rolls away the stone from the tomb before sunrise (Matthew 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee.
2. Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1).
3. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2).
4. Other women remain at the tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ's resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:4-.
5. Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10).
6. Christ's First Appearance: Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
7. Christ's Second Appearance: Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matthew 28:8-10).
8. At this time, the guards report the events to the religious leaders and are bribed to lie (Matthew 28:11-15).
9. Christ's Third Appearance: Jesus privately appears to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5).
10. Christ's Fourth Appearance: Jesus appears to Cleopas and companion (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
11. Christ's Fifth Appearance: Jesus appears to 10 apostles, with Thomas missing, in the Upper Room (Luke 24:36-43).
12. Christ's Sixth Appearance: Eight days after His appearance to the 10 apostles, Jesus appears to all 11 apostles, including Thomas (John 20:26-28).
13. Christ's Seventh Appearance: Jesus appears to 7 disciples by the Sea of Galilee and performs the miracle of the fish (John 21:1-14).
14. Christ's Eight Appearance: Jesus appears to 500 on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 15:6).
15. Christ's Ninth Appearance: Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
16. Christ's Tenth Appearance: In Jerusalem, Jesus appears again to His disciples (Acts 1:3-.
17. Christ's Eleventh Appearance: Jesus ascends into Heaven while the disciples look on (Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

Conclusions

The different perspectives in the gospel's accounts of Christ's resurrection are indicative of the veracity of the eye witness statements. Those who have seen something unexpected often report the details in somewhat of a frenetic and seemingly disconnected way, as they attempt to communicate the depth of what they have witnessed even while processing the events for themselves. Were the gospel writers or the disciples lying, they would have presented a uniform story. And the same critics who try to point out contradictions in the gospels would no doubt cry 'collusion' if they found exact verbal parallelism and a singular account of the resurrection.

In the end, the recordings of the resurrection found in the four gospels harmonize quite well upon closer examination, and perhaps most importantly, strongly agree on the one key fact that has universal life impact: Christ is risen from the dead!
http://www.compellingtruth.org/resurrection-accounts.html

McSterling:
Apologies if I irked you with my choice of words: "insincere" and "ignorant". I just didn't expect you to ask me such questions. I don't think I can outline these so called "prophecies" more brilliantly than Thomas Paine did in this link: www.deism.com/paine_essay_false_prophecies_of_jesus_1.htm
These seemingly quibbling issues are to be explicated punctiliously if the gospels were to be regarded as infallible. The gospels aren't simply wholly fallible human personal accounts of the life of Jesus by non-eye-witnesses decades after Jesus' death now or are they?

Not a very bad attempt. But as much as I appreciate this attempt, I can't help but notice its flaws. Some of the points you make invalidate some claims in another gospel, e.g. two angels invalidates one angel; Matthew quoted in your first point invalidates Mark and the two angels, etc. Your designation of 1st appearance of Jesus et al., is quite interesting too. For example, the supposed third appearance to Peter which is no where mentioned in the gospels, but only by Paul who himself wasn't an eyewitness. Some of these separate appearances you outlined actually are not distinct at all if one would take a closer look. In all this attempt seems like a frantic effort to sew together different contradictory pieces of information into one fabric. Certainly not approved of by critical scholars. A clever attempt though. It most likely will sate a christian. Would have loved to look at each reference for comparison just to make sure but I don't have the time now. What I however noticed almost immediately however is the quoting of verse 9 downwards of Mark 16. You sure know those verses are not part of the original gospel of Mark, but are later additions, right? Mark actually stops in verse 8.

Scholar8200:


I am on it but perhaps we should consider the following:

Mark 16:6,7
But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.”

The above spoken by the angel perfectly agrees with what Jesus Himself had spoken of in Mark 10:33,34
Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and experts in the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, flog him severely, and kill him. Yet after three days, he will rise again.”


And since all these are consistent with the other Gospels, Epistles and Prophecies, it means that part was neither an embellishment or addition for a deceptive/subversive purpose!

McSterling:
Well, many pseudonymous writings were probably not for a deceptive/ subversive purpose. That's why they're referred to as pious fraud. The purpose of these embellishments and additions can be contended, but the fact that there are indeed such embellishments can not be denied. Maybe their authors had good intentions but the fact is that they ended up deceiving many people.

Did you read the link? You can take your time on it. Here's a less lengthy one too:
www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id21.html

Scholar8200:
I speak for the Four Gospels; as per the highlighted, deceiving them as regards what? What then is the Truth? How do you objectively establish this?

Both then and now, those who repent and truly believe on Jesus Christ (as the Gospels present Him) testify to a transformation of life; even those around them noticed this change (infact there were times when sheriffs testified to crime infested areas being turned around after a Gospel outreach! Do we then say that the devil now deals in righteousness, restitution, holiness of life?

The name of the website already gives me the mindset of the author. (I read some parts and scanned through the rest when it became obvious to me that the author was indeed a biased skeptic)
Right from Genesis when God spoke to Abraham of his Seed, any objective judge will see that God's declarations concerning His, usually have a proximate and ultimate fulfilment! Isaac was Abraham's Seed but ultimately he is not the One through Whom all the nations of the Earth was to be blessed or that will possess the gates of His enemies!(Isaac did not even fight any battle!!!) as stated in Genesis 22:17,18.

This principle alone refutes many of the authors points. Another example is the prophecy of Daniel that had its proximate fulfilment in the man, Antiochus Epiphanes but that was not the end; the ultimate fulfilment will be in the anti-christ!
Isaiah53:6,7 perfectly agrees with Daniel 9:26 then I wonder how Isaiah 53 was about the people of Israel?!

In a normal skeptic way, he falsely accuses Mark of mentioning Isaiah when what Mark said was that,"as it is written in the prophet[size=14pt]s[/size]" meaning Mark had more than Isaiah's prophecy in mind!!! Mark 1:2

I wish I could have those claims one after the other however it will be a waste of time because the above described principle was not recognised!

McSterling:

OK. The first link is an excerpt from the classic, "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. This "principle" of yours seems to me like the quintessential eisegesis. You do not have the liberty to read your own meaning into the text. If a prophecy or any pronouncement was made in a text, the only way we can correctly understand it is within the context of the text. If a fulfilment is seen to have occurred in the text, we do not have liberty to extrapolate and say the prophecy has an "ultimate" fulfilment in the future. That would be reading our own meaning into the text and thus meaning what the author never meant.

McSterling:


You should have at least given the author the benefit of the doubt. Seems you just wrote him off cos he's a sceptic. I'm a sceptic too, you know, and we've kept this back and forth on since. Why not approach the author this same way too.

Maksky:
Ask a Trinitarian for evidence of the divinity of Jesus and they will undoubtedly direct you to Gospel of John. Evidence put forward from this Gospel is ambiguous at best and often taken out of context or misinterpreted. Remove the Gospel of John from the New Testament equation and there is very little left in the Trinitarian’s armoury to appeal to for evidence of the divinity of Jesus. If you take away this Gospel, any Biblical foundation for the Trinity, ambiguous or otherwise, comes crashing down. So from a Trinitarian’s perspective the stakes for the Gospel of John are very high. The link below gives 10 reasons that the Gospel of John is not a reliable historical account of the life and teachings of Jesus:

NumberOne2:


STOP trying to make the bible believable, THAT IS THE WORK OF GOD. There are many who believe it as it is. Just share it "as is" and let God do the rest. Go read the scriptures, Salvation is not of works...

PS: Instead of removing, why not write your own. The gospel according to Maksky.