I often wonder from an outsiders point of view, how people can believe that the bible is accurate and truthful, I mean why does each gospel differ why are there the synoptic gospels and then John why do the dates differ, different actions occur, who's right who's wrong? etc. so heres a little comparison of the gospels and the inaccuracies with one another. My problem is that a man wrote these, and that even if it is divinly inspired it is filteredt hrough a man whom has his own intentions and the want to know how accurate a mans filter can be.. not to mention where the hell are women in the new testament?

Mark:
• Says they say he is the king, but does not say he is king
• Pilate offers ultimatum let Jesus go or Barabbas a murderer, Priest stir things up and get Barbarras
• Gives reason for why Barabbas is in jail unlike Matthew does
• Mark and Matthew in both Pilate realizes it is out of jealousy the priest are doing this
• Chief priests pick punishment to have done to him
• Purple coat, twisted thorn crown, mocking, spat struck with reed,
• 9 o’clock in the morning when they crucify him
• He saved others he cannot save himself
• Others being crucified also taunt him
• 3 o clock Jesus cries out my god my god why have you forsaken me
• Response is bystanders say he’s crying for Elijah
• They then sponge him with sour wine, then he gives loud cry and breathes his last breath
• Centurion realizes he is god’s son

Matthew
• In Matthew unlike Mark there is the last supper before the crucification
• Apostle cut’s soldiers ear, Jesus repairs it and tells him to be peaceful
• In both gospels Peter denies Jesus 3 x and the others desert him
• In Matthew Judas brings the money back and says he has sinned and betrayed the innocent blood then throws the money
• Again when asked if he is the king by Pilate he replies with “ you say so” like in Mark
• Pilate realizes it’s out of jealousy like in mark , however here his wife sends a message to him about a dream she had saying Jesus is an innocent man, this is not found in mark
• Also the wording here in 27.21 the wording of how the priest gathered the crowds to make them say they wanted the murderer instead of Jesus is different
• Pilate also says a lot more to the crowd, it seems as if Matthew is trying to convey Pilate as a much more “sincere Roman,” than the monstrous ruler he was
• He then washes his hand with water and tells the crowd that this mans blood is on their hands, and the crowd agrees it will be on them and their children
• Here his robe is scarlet instead of purple,
• Here they come across Simon ad have Jesus carry the cross, the wine is made of gall instead of myrrh ,
• In both gospels they divide Jesus’ clothes among them,
• Here unlike in Mark it does not say that at 9 he was hung, however it does say at 3 o clock he yelled eli eli lema saathani,
• They again fill the sponge with sour wine and give it to him on a stick, however a line is added where by standers want to see if Elijah will actually come, and then Jesus dies just like in mark
• Again it is the centurion that realizes Jesus is the son of God
• This gospel has a lot more added into it than in Mark, many of the passages are very similar but differ in either a word, or have line(s) added in.

Luke
• Peter again in this gospel like Matthew and mark denies Jesus 3x
• Here the Jews beat Jesus then bring him to Pilate, this section is definitely different from Mark and Matthew , here it says that he was found perverting the nation and forbidding to pay taxes to emperor and other things
• Like Matthew and mark Jesus answers to Pilate’s question of “ are you king,” with “ you say so”
• Here it differs again from Mark and Matthew in adding more about Pilate saying he finds no accusation against Jesus, but the Jews keep on saying he stirs up people, Pilate then learns he is a Galilean and sends him off to Herod to make judgment on.
• Here Herod treats Jesus like a celebrity questioning him and kind of mocking as well, Jesus gives him no answer and then Herod puts a fancy robe on Jesus and sends him back to Pilate( this is a scene not found in Mark or Matthew)
• Pilate then sees Jesus for a second time then gathers the priest, leaders, and people and say that he finds him not guilty
• However the crowd starts up and asks Pilate to release Barabbas, unlike Matthew the text agrees with Mark and it tells why Barabbas was imprisoned ( but uses different wording)
• Here another section is found different from Mark and Matthew where he asks up to 3 times what evil has Jesus done but the crowd continues shouting to crucify him. So Pilate gives in
• First thing that happens is they run into Simon after this who they have walk behind him, instead of having Jesus carry his cross
• And here many people followed them crying and wailing being their breasts
• Here Jesus tells them “ do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for you children” he goes on to give a parable to the people
• Again a 3rd time he is crucified with 2 other men, and his clothes are also divided among them
• He says this time father forgive them they know not what they do: this is not found in Mark and Matthew
• Here in Luke again like in Mark and Matthew he is told to save himself and the inscription is above his cross “ king of the Jews” for a third time
• Again like in the other Mark and Matthew the other criminal as well mocks him and says to save himself, however unlike the other the other criminal sticks up for Jesus saying that he and the other criminal are being punished justly but Jesus has done nothing wrong. He then asks Jesus to remember him, and Jesus tells him that he will be with him in paradise today. This is not found in Mark or Matthew but only in Luke
• Here in Luke it differs from Mark and Matthew again by saying noon darkness came over , temple curtain torn in two, and then Jesus cries (unlike Mark and Matthew) father into your hands I commend my spirit and he breathes his last breath … this is totally different from Mark and Matthews presentation of how Jesus has his last breath
• However for a third time it is the centurion that realizes that Jesus is the son of God.

John
• Here Peter again cuts off the priest’s slaves ear, and Jesus tells him to calm down like found in Matthew
• Here Simon peter and another disciple follow Jesus instead of just Peter like the other 3 gospels mark Matthew and Luke
• They also take him to Anna’s which is not mentioned in other 3 gospels
• Peter again denies Jesus as he did in mark, Matthew, and Luke
• Here Jesus is tested/questioned by a high priest where Jesus says he has always preached out loud and says to ask those who heard him, and he is hit, and then says if he said something wrong to strike him, if not then why did he hit him
• They then take Jesus to Pilates where they do not enter to avoid “ ritual defilement,” I do not remember this being mentioned in the other 3 gospels
• Here the Jewish high priests do not tell Pilate what Jesus is guilty of, but says he is a criminal where as Pilate says to judge him their selves according to their laws; however Jews reply that they are not able to put anyone to death. This is not found in Mark, Matthew, or Luke the conversation usually tells why they brought him
• So Pilate asks him if he is the kin of the Jews, Jesus answer differs from mark Matthew and Luke by him saying “ do you ask this on your own or did others tell you about me,” where then Pilate replies that he is not a Jew and that it is his own nation that is handing him over , and this whole conversation on why it is okay for his followers not to fight for him being handed over occurs, which again differs from the other 3 gospels
• After Pilate questions what is truth he then answers with what seems to be pity that he finds no case again Jesus, however he gives them the option ( like in the other 3 gospels) of choosing either Jesus or Barabbas , and they say Barabbas however, this gospel differs from the other 3 in saying that Barabbas was a bandit.
• Here he goes off the first time and like in Mark he is put in a purple robe with a thrown crown and they strike him and mock him, however unlike the other 3 gospels Pilate goes out after this beating and says he finds no case against him, so Jesus is brought out however the people shout to “ crucify” him, so Pilate tells them to crucify him themselves, however they again state their law, then Pilate goes again to talk to Jesus and they have a conversation not found like this whole section isn’t found in any of the other 3 gospels, where Jesus declares he is the son of God and Pilate has no authority over him, again Pilate goes out to the people saying he finds no case against this man, but the Jews keep pressing it declaring if he lets Jesus go he is no friend of the emperor.
• Day of preparation for pass over at noon Jesus is brought out and Pilate question “should I crucify your king?” and the Jews reply that they have no king but the emperor and demand he be crucified. This again is only found in John
• Now Jesus is forced to carry the cross all by himself, there is no Simon that they run across like in Matthew and Luke
• When he gets to the place he has “ Jesus of Nazareth king of the Jews” inscribed in the cross the Jesus of Nazareth is an added part that differs from other 3 gospels also it is written in 3 languages
• Here the priest say not to say King of the Jews but to have it say man who said I am king of the Jews and Pilate refuses to change it
• Then it does into that they split his clothes into 4 parts, and then to casts lots for his tunic this is similar to the other gospels in that it speaks of splitting his clothes however it’s more specific, and the part about his tunic is added in
• It then unlike the other 3 gospels gives scripture from where this line is important
• Here his mother Mary, mothers sister, Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene when Jesus sees them he says “ woman here is you son”
• And then it says that from that hour of him saying “ here is your mother to the disciple” that he took her into his home
• Then Jesus knew that all was finished and in order to fulfill scripture he says “ I am thirsty,” so that sour wine may be sponged against him and then he declares “ it is finished” and then he bows his head and gives up his spirit

This gospel is extremely different than Mark, Matthew, and Luke it does have a few similarities but for the most part there are many sections that are found here but not in the others, and the others share passages that are unique to the other 3 gospels but not to John

I suggest the Book "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" , it's writer, Douglas Adams was a open Atheist and I like to think when he talks about religion, he does so in a fairly good "outsider view".

see wasn't this a waste of your 2 minutes lol

Your Jewish roots I admire. But why is Talmud more than Torah? Blessings ... Miles

S-gurl;

In order to understand how and why the gospels differ from one other - the question of who wrote the gospels, for what purpose were they written, and who is the intended audience needs to be examined. Matthew's gospel was written with the intention of demonstrating to his intended audience (the jews) that Jesus was in fact the messiah, and sites references to the old testament, and the events he witnessed himself (miracles, sermons, parables, etc) as evidence of this fact.

The Gospel of Mark was written by John-Mark - the Nephew of Barnabas (from Acts) and is essentially his documentation of the sermons given by Peter - who preached to both the Jews, as well as the Gentiles.

The Gospel of Luke - who was not an eye witness to the ministry of Jesus, was written to a very specific audience of close friends - as an accurate portrayal of the ministry of Jesus that he compiled by interviewing those people who were eyewitnesses of the events. Much like a biographer today would write about George Washington or Mary Baker Eddy.

The Gospel of John was written to a much broader audience (not specifically the Jews or the Gentiles) and his purpose was to demonstrate that Jesus was in fact the messiah - and more so, was God. Unlike Matthew and Mark - who were both eyewitnesses as well, John was there for every major event of Jesus' ministry - and as he says himself was the only disciple at the foot of the cross at the time of the crucifiction, as the other apostles were mostly in hiding for fear of their lives.

As a footnote - The book of Acts is esentially a continuation by Luke of his Gospel - but in this circumstance he was an eyewitness to the missionary journeys of Paul.

lj

Hi everyone. There was a game I made up, when I was a young teen. If I was reading something that was intended to give information or include truth - and then discovered another version, by someone else, I took pen to paper (today fingers to keyboard) and I wrote down all ONLY those things that all versions of the story had.

It didn't take me long to think - hey, why not do this with the Bible. You see at that time I was still trying to make sense of it all, trying to understand what others believed and why I didn't get it.

So compare all "like" stories, as you have begun. Then list ONLY those words or phrases that have been used in all versions of the story. Something like this:

Jesus and the crucifixion:

Jesus
crown of thorns
denial 3 x's
Pilot
cross
....etc.

At the end, look at what you have written. You should be seeing a set of common denominators. NOW, in the case of Biblical comparisons, you either decide to believe that the important facts are now known and that is the basic story, or you can look 'deep' into history, and look for confirmation, of the words you have written, to sources outside the accepted texts of the Bible.

Example: What was crucifixion, who used it and why? Who was Pontious Pilot and can we confirm he existed? How did Jesus come to be under Pilots law. Jews who committed sins against the faith were to be dealt with only by their Jewish superiors.
Is there documentation of any of the 'places' spoken of? And this list can go on and on, depending on the historical knowledge you already have as well as the knowledge you continue to gain as you read the history that we know from that time.

Those who have a deep and committed faith to Christianity, will tell you that the differences in the stories don't matter, because the 'facts' which boil down to the commonality and repeated use of words and phrases. However, that has NEVER stopped these same people from using any part of any story to prove a point. (sorry, I think that's amusing so I had to put it in there.)

By the way, I have read, there were many stories of the crucifixion and of Jesus life and teachings, attributed to different apostles as well as various versions of those inclusive of the Bible. The ones chosen to represent ALL of them, were supposedly chosen by the ecumenical council of Trent, because they were the most similar, included the most important information and therefore believed to be the most accurate. That is how they became a part of the Biblical text.

aww you guys i'm really proud of how you all responded great answers red and jay!!! enjoyed the read!

The four Gospels in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) -- and the 45 or so other Gospels that never became part of the official canon -- dealt primarily with the life of Jesus. The remaining hundreds of letters which were in circulation within the early Christian movement deal primarily with the development of Christianity after the execution of Christ circa 30 CE. Some of these, particularly some of Paul's letters, made it into the New Testament.

John 1:12: All people, men and women, have the opportunity to become children of God - presumably without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.


According to ACTS: Women were active in the "New Testament".

Acts 2:1-21: At the time of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was described as entering both men and women. In Verse 17, Peter recites a saying of the prophet Joel that talks about sons and daughters; Verse 18 talks about men and women.
Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple.
Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.
Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.
Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".


Now Romans:
Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".
Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 4
Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles." The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles." The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle. Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air. They converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's name) in order to warp St. Paul's original writing by erasing all mention of a female apostle. Junia was first converted into a man only in the "13th century, when Aegidius of Rome referred to both Andronicus and Junia as "honorable men." 5 ((( Hmmmmmmm????)))

Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 1:11: Chloe is mentioned as the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some ambiguity as to whether the women actually led the house churches. Similar passages mention, with the same ambiguity: The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and
Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and
Nympha in (Col 4:15).

1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."
1 Corinthians 16:3: Paul refers to a married couple: Priscilla and Aquila as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation...". Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).
Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel.
Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church.
1 Peter 4:10-11: This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and would have been expected exercise that gift.

Inferiority of women??? Heres where it gets strange.
Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. (((Another...hummmmmm???)))

Doesn't it seem obvious that some of these were written in by other people? I do not believe that they were in the original manuscript by Paul. Nor do others.
Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)
1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul's execution?? If the latter is true then the epistle's many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are:
1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home.
1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male.
1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)

Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.
Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.
1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

"There are questions to ponder" Next:

Who wrote Ephesians, Colossians, etc???

The New Testament passages which downgrade the status of women are in books which appear to be have been written by Paul and Peter. Until modern times, Christian theologians universally accepted the two apostles as the true authors. That belief is still followed by almost all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical theologians. Since the authors identified themselves as Paul or Peter in their writings, and since all books in the Bible are considered free of error as originally written, then "conservative Christians" conclude that Paul and Peter must have authored the books.

However, most liberal theologians have concluded that many of the writings attributed to Paul and Peter were in fact written by anonymous authors, often long after Paul and Peter died. They base these conclusions on internal evidence, and references to the books by other Christian leaders. They believe that some of the anonymous books are:

Ephesians: This was perhaps written about 30 years after Paul's death.
Colossians: This was written, in part, to combat Gnostic thought which did not become a concern to the church until the early second century, many decades after Paul's execution.
2 Thessalonians: This was probably written at least one decade after St. Paul's death
1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were written sometime during the first half of the second century - perhaps circa 130 CE.
Hebrews is impossible to date with any certainty. It is believed to have been written sometime between 60 and 96 CE.
1 Peter is obviously an early document, because the author refers to "elders" as the only level of church leadership. Deacons, deaconesses and bishops are not mentioned. Liberal theologians disagree about the authorship of this book.
2 Peter was written 125 to 150 CE.

More details.

If we accept the interpretation of many liberal theologians, then some of the books attributed to Peter and Paul were actually written much later by anonymous authors. So, many of the anti-female passages attributed to Peter and Paul actually reflect the policies of the developing church, as late as 150 CE - almost a century after Paul's death.

Kat

Ooops, I meant to mention this in the first post:
I was posting to the question of where are the women in the old testament? So, I ran with it.
Kat

Horray for the woman - nice Kat!

Gospels were written by different men. Each one experienced the Lord in a different manner. But most importantly each gospel was directed to a specific group of people and time. When they were written. They served an educational purpose when they were written.
The problem with those who do not see the main purpose of the gospels is that they try to find ways to make them untruthful.
A gospel can't be a precise relate of my Lords activities in this world because there is no way to do so. Therefore, the men who wrote the gospel picked certain events on the life of my Lord that at that moment served an educational purpose for a specific community.
Now the beauty of the gospels is the fact that with Gods blessing for those who believe in my Lord as savior, the gospels renew in each and every experience that we have.
For me in particular everytime i read a passage of the gospel it has a different meaning even if i have read it 10 times.
However, and sadly for those who don't see this beauty there is always a logical fallacy which they try to find, so they can justify their existance apart from my Lord.

BTW i did not read eljay post before posting my answer

>> BTW i did not read eljay post before posting my answer

Its all good, I think its awesome for people to say similar things in their own way! Different people's styles will resonate with different sets of people. Yay redundancy!

TLW;

You didn't read my post?!? HOW DARE YOU...



Actually - you added a different perspective to what I said, and yet we were both relating our particular experiences. I included some things that you didn't - you added a personal perspective that I omitted. If we use Redy's theory (Quite a wise and excellant approach) - we see that both posts are quite in agreement - though they could be assumed to be contradictory because of what was omitted.

Eljay I think that our posts complete each other

When I read this reply by LW, I had to laugh. All I can think of is "Jerry Maguire". Sorry Miguel.
Kat

why jerry maguire beautiful?

It's the "You complete me" sentence. Remember that?? Did you see the movie? Tom Cruise and Rene Zellwigger? Is that right? "Zellwigger"?Zellwiger. Zelwigger?
Kat

God did i sound that pathetic?