Emusan:


I have done that and replied, you forgot?

I am not satisfied with your answer. Got a problem with that?

TheMadame:
I am not satisfied with your answer.

You never said so, you only quoted definition of discrepancy which is never inline with the OP.

Got a problem with that?

Never!

Emusan:


You never said so, you only quoted definition of discrepancy which is never inline with the OP.



Never!

I am going to tell you something today,you don't come to another person's thread and try to bully your ideas onto them. You explain your argument and points succinctly and carefully. If you have a superior point, everyone will acknowledge and accept that superior argument and learn from it. As such everyone learns and gains from it.

You on the other hand have come here and been a bully trying to force me to accept what is not correct. Only a blind person or a religious famatic would argue in a weak and watery way that there are no discrepancy in the way the resurrection stories are told in the gospels. From the time,to how the event occurred,to the personalities involved,to whether the women told the Apostles or they kept quiet about it. Discrepancies run through the four stories.

It even makes a lot more sense to even say the difference stems from translations.
Not to come here and bully that there is no discrepancy. You need to check some of my threads here. I am a Christian but I am not a mindless one who does not ask questions.

TheMadame:



I am going to tell you something today,you don't come to another person's thread and try to bully your ideas onto them. You explain your argument and points succinctly and carefully. If you have a superior point, everyone will acknowledge and accept that superior argument and learn from it. As such everyone learns and gains from it.

You on the other hand have come here and been a bully trying to force me to accept what is not correct. Only a blind person or a religious famatic would argue in a weak and watery way that there are no discrepancy in the way the resurrection stories are told in the gospels. From the time,to how the event occurred,to the personalities involved,to whether the women told the Apostles or they kept quiet about it. Discrepancies run through the four stories.

It even makes a lot more sense to even say the difference stems from translations.
Not to come here and bully that there is no discrepancy. You need to check some of my threads here. I am a Christian but I am not a mindless one who does not ask questions.

👍👍👍👍👍

TheMadame:
I am going to tell you something today,you don't come to another person's thread and try to bully your ideas onto them.

Take it easy, don't let your blood rise!

You explain your argument and points succinctly and carefully.

Which I did!

If you have a superior point, everyone will acknowledge and accept that superior argument and learn from it. As such everyone learns and gains from it.

You people and superiority! Are you collecting prize for it?

You on the other hand have come here and been a bully trying to force me to accept what is not correct.

Where did I bully you and force you to accept what is not correct?

Only a blind person or a religious famatic would argue in a weak and watery way that there are no discrepancy in the way the resurrection stories are told in the gospels.

Yes I said it again there is not discrepancies in the four accounts of resurrection but only those with dishonesty will see one there as those accounts never GAVE POINT ON "ONLY"

From the time,to how the event occurred,to the personalities involved,to whether the women told the Apostles or they kept quiet about it. Discrepancies run through the four stories.

About the time 3 said "EARLY IN THE MORNING" except one who used "while still dark" so is this a discrepancy or lack of understanding of time by the critics?

4:00-5:00AM is early in the morning and still dark. So how can a reasonable and honest person sees something wrong with this.

About personalities: they both report PLURAL of WOMEN visited the tomb and no any account used "ONLY"

Are you arguing that ALL THE FOUR MUST REPORT THIS EVENT WORD FOR WORD?

It even makes a lot more sense to even say the difference stems from translations.

Not at all, the problem is inability to reconnect the four reports into one.

Not to come here and bully that there is no discrepancy.

Where did I bully you?

Yes! There's no discrepancy.

Discrepancy will mean one account said there's an earthquake while the other will say THERE'S NO EARTHQUAKE

Or

The women met Angel and another will say the women didn't meet any Angel.

You need to check some of my threads here.

I don't need to.

I am a Christian

Congratulations on that.

but I am not a mindless one who does not ask questions.

I've already said it's good to ask questions.

Me too do ask questions.

Emusan:


Take it easy, don't let your blood rise!



Which I did!



You people and superiority! Are you collecting prize for it?



Where did I bully you and force you to accept what is not correct?



Yes I said it again there is not discrepancies in the four accounts of resurrection but only those with dishonesty will see one there as those accounts never GAVE POINT ON "ONLY"



About the time 3 said "EARLY IN THE MORNING" except one who used "while still dark" so is this a discrepancy or lack of understanding of time by the critics?

4:00-5:00AM is early in the morning and still dark. So how can a reasonable and honest person sees something wrong with this.

About personalities: they both report PLURAL of WOMEN visited the tomb and no any account used "ONLY"

Are you arguing that ALL THE FOUR MUST REPORT THIS EVENT WORD FOR WORD?



Not at all, the problem is inability to reconnect the four reports into one.



Where did I bully you?

Yes! There's no discrepancy.

Discrepancy will mean one account said there's an earthquake while the other will say THERE'S NO EARTHQUAKE

Or

The women met Angel and another will say the women didn't meet any Angel.



I don't need to.



Congratulations on that.



I've already said it's good to ask questions.

Me too do ask questions.

Once again you just skimmed through and gave your usual watery answers. Like I said only a fanatical person will insist there are no discrepancy in the resurrection stories in the four gospels. Your bullying and condescending tone does not and cannot change that.
My last response to you.

MaxInDHouse:



When you people get information instead of you to ask questions when someone say another thing you just stick to what you've heard earlier as if all other informations are false.

Well this is not ATHEISM where you people are so dogmatic regarding information.

Those gospel accounts were written by each of those names after them.

You are very ignorant and typing rubbish.
The gospel accounts were written by each of those names after them INDEED!

TheMadame:
Good day.
Recently I was reading the four gospels (Mathew,Mark,Luke and John) accounts of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and found that the four accounts are surprisingly very different.
I said surprisingly because I found out that in some accounts it was many women that visited the tomb while in others it was at least two women.
In one account the women ran away and told the Apostles but in other accounts the said nothing. In fact in one account Peter even followed them to the tomb to see for himself.
There is also discrepancies in how the stone in front of the tomb was rolled away. One account says there was an earthquake while other accounts say the women found the stone rolled away when the women arrived at the tomb.
The accounts also differ on the number of angels at the entrance or inside the tomb. Were they two or was it one angel?
I ask these questions because such a significant event such as the resurrection of our Lord should be a constant and consistent account.
I will post the passages from the four gospels for those more enlightened to cast more light and explanation. Thank you.

U sound like a sincere person and it's a good thing u looking into accuracy and historicity of the bible.

Now in Christianity, there's a difference btw the message and the book. They are not the same.
The message giveth life but the letter killeth.

And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthians 3:4-6

The message is the spirit, the book is the letter.
God delivers his message to his prophets. This message is consistent and devoid of contradiction or errors.
These men of God or prophets writes down this message and pass it across it to us with their human understand and capacity which are most times limited and imperfect.
A good example is when prophets see God in a vision and describe him with a face or hand or sitting on a throne. God is a spirit and is invisible, nobody has ever seen God not even the angels except the son of God.
What the bible writers are describing is what we call anthropomorphism. They assign human characteristics to God to help us understand his action and nature. That doesn't mean the writers were in error or wrong about God, they simply wrote within their own restricted human cognition.
God wants his message to be perfect and preserved, but not the messengers. God doesn't need his messengers to be perfect for his message to be delivered or perfect.
God had never looked for perfection in men and wouldn't do so when it comes to writing his message. He is more than able to protect and preserve his message.

God's message is very clear when it comes to the redemption work of Jesus Christ. He came as a Messiah to redeem mankind by being the eternal atonement for sin. He was crucified, died and resurrected. He was seen by hundreds after his resurrection and ascended into heaven.
All gospel writers confirm and attest to these facts. There's no ambiguity or contradiction regarding his resurrection.
Now as to adjuvant description of the events surrounding the resurrection, each witness would likely give an account of what he could recall or remember. The gospel letters were written few decades after they actually happened, each writer got his source from independent different sources who are likely to give different narratives according to their perception of events. That's not to say they were wrong, and it's possible they were all correct. If we take a careful look into each narrative and do a detailed chronology of events, we may be able to come to a logical non-contradictory conclusion of what happened.
But honestly it doesn't matter. It's the letter and deliberating on such serves no useful purpose.
The key is that the tomb was empty which is the message. The 4 gospels all confirmed this fact.

Caveatemptor:

You are a fraud!
This was the same kind of lies you were spreading on the founder of Jehovah Witnesses thread yesterday.
I repeat NONE of the canonical gospels was written less than 60 years after the crucifixion and non of them in the Aramaic language of Christ's nativity. All these gospels were written in GREEK language. Non of the gospels were titled, they were ALL anonymously written and the names and titles were added by elders of the early Church for easy identification.
@ the OP,
The reason why the resurrection accounts differ is probably because they were not written by eye Witnesses to Christ's ministry . The accounts were written over 60 years after the crucifixion and as such oral accounts after over 60 years are bound to be distorted!

No be atheist you be?

Even if you have no business with this topic you will chuk mouth just to malign God's word but i have no business with you my interest is the OP!

Dantedasz:

You are very ignorant and typing rubbish.
The gospel accounts were written by each of those names after them INDEED!

Mr Atheist go and sit down this has nothing to do with your faculty!

TheMadame:

Does the bolded point prove that the writers of the gospels were not anonymous as has been stated by other posters here?
Please post it so everyone can see it. Thanks.

Do you know how to upload pictures from your device and paste here on Nairaland?

I have the screenshot on my device copied from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

It contains all the 40 writers of the 66 books, where they wrote the books, time they started and time they ended each book.

But Nairaland system isn't responding as it used to be.

Caveatemptor:



Where did you get the emboldened from? Why tell lies because you want to win an argument?
It has been proven beyond doubt that none of the four gospels were written by immediate followers or even disciples of Jesus Christ!
In fact the gospels of the new testament were written over 80 years after the life of Christ. None of the writers was a disciple. These gospels were anonymous writings with no names attached but were later attributed to Mathew, Mark,Luke and John by the early Church for easy identification.
In the early church period there were more than over 100 various gospels of the life of Christ but when the Bible became a Canon many versions of the gospel were expunged and burnt and only these four were chosen and labelled the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

All 4 gospels were written in the 1st century AD, one of the criteria used for their canonisation. They were written by people who knew Christ or met with people who knew Christ.
We have evidence that the gospel letters were very much around and publicly read in churches in the 1st century AD
The apostolic fathers were very much aware about the gospel. They quoted from it on their own writings. Apostolic fathers were early church leaders who didn't meet Jesus Christ but knew Jesus disciples in person.
They lived and were active in the 1st century AD.
Father papias mentioned Mathew actually wrote the gospel of Jesus in Hebrew. Polycarp, irenaeus and papias all confirmed John also wrote the gospel of Jesus which is the last of the four to be written.

There's a fragment of John gospel with us now and this has been dated to around ~AD 125!
The John Rylands Fragment (P52) is quite small—only 2.5 by 3.5 inches—and it contains John 18:31-33, 37-38.
This showed all the 4 gospels were likely written within the 1st century.

Moreover, we have texts written in the first century AD that quoted the gospel letters.
The Didache (AD 95) is most likely the earliest extra-biblical manuscript. In 8.2, the Didache quotes from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:5, 9-13).

Father Clement of Rome dates very early as well, because he mentions the Temple still standing in his letters. And Clement cites Matthew (1 Clement 13.2) and the other Synoptic Gospels (1 Clement 24.5; 46..

MaxInDHouse:


No be atheist you be?

Even if you have no business with this topic you will chuk mouth just to malign God's word but i have no business with you my interest is the OP!

Who is the founder of Jehovah Witness cult?
Go to that thread,your expertise is needed there.
You are a fraud !

Caveatemptor:



Where did you get the emboldened from? Why tell lies because you want to win an argument?
It has been proven beyond doubt that none of the four gospels were written by immediate followers or even disciples of Jesus Christ!
In fact the gospels of the new testament were written over 80 years after the life of Christ. None of the writers was a disciple. These gospels were anonymous writings with no names attached but were later attributed to Mathew, Mark,Luke and John by the early Church for easy identification.
In the early church period there were more than over 100 various gospels of the life of Christ but when the Bible became a Canon many versions of the gospel were expunged and burnt and only these four were chosen and labelled the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Historical accounts of the gospel themselves is another strong evidence for their earlier dates.
The books of Luke and acts were written by the same author.
Since Acts is the sequel to Luke, then this must mean that Luke predates Acts. And if Mark predates both Luke and Matthew, then this would date Mark even earlier. Hence, if we can date Acts early, then we can date Luke earlier, and we get the date for Mark thrown in for free.

Arguments for dating the book of acts very early- AD 50s or early 60s.

First, the book of Acts doesn’t record the Jewish War or the Fall of Jerusalem (AD 66-70). The Romans completely decimated the city of Jerusalem in an absolute bloodbath. The Roman army killed 1.1 million Jews, and they took 200,000 captive as slaves. There was an initial siege with a consequent brutal starvation that lasted three years and was an absolute nightmare.

And yet, Luke didn’t write a word about it in the book of Acts! To put this in perspective, this would be similar to a reporter failing to mention World War II, while he was on assignment in Paris in the early 1940s.

Second, the book of Acts doesn’t record Emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians in Rome (AD 64). Nero began a horrific persecution of Christians after the great fire in Rome, crucifying Christians and burning them alive by the thousands. But yet again, Luke didn’t mention a word about this in his book.
Luke recorded other persecutions (Acts 8:1; 11:19), he also mentioned the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Emperor claudius but he didn’t mention this one, which was one of the worst of its kind. Indeed, a late date for Acts seems utterly out of character with Luke’s picture of the Romans being so friendly and positive to Christianity, which would make no sense after Nero’s campaign.

Third, the book of Acts doesn’t record the death of Peter (AD 67), Paul (AD 67), or James (AD 62). Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the death of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths.

Fourth, Acts presents theological disputes that would only be issues before AD 70. For instance, Acts 15 centers on the question of whether Gentiles should be circumcised. But after AD 70, most Jewish Christians were sadly gone, and Gentile-centered Christianity grew exponentially. Indeed, the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70. Luke never highlighted this new fact but left readers guessing if the disciples were indeed pushing for Christianity as a continuation of judaism.

Why did Luke fail to mention all of these cataclysmic events? At this point, the answer is surely obvious: These events hadn’t happened yet! To put this in perspective, this would be like a modern biographer writing an account of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King or JFK, but failing to mention their assassinations!

Of course, this is an argument from silence, but it is a conspicuous silence or deafening silence. That is, we should expect to read about these events, but we do not. This strongly suggests that Luke finished the Book of Acts before any of these events occurred.

This would place the gospel of Luke much earlier and then place the book of Mark and Mathew further earlier in the 1st century. It's just common sense.
There's strong possibility the first gospel was written in the early 50AD.

SIRTee15:


All 4 gospels were written in the 1st century AD, one of the criteria used for their canonisation. They were written by people who knew Christ or met with people who knew Christ.
We have evidence that the gospel letters were very much around and publicly read in churches in the 1st century AD
The apostolic fathers were very much aware about the gospel. They quoted from it on their own writings. Apostolic fathers were early church leaders who didn't meet Jesus Christ but knew Jesus disciples in person.
They lived and were active in the 1st century AD.
Father papias mentioned Mathew actually wrote the gospel of Jesus in Hebrew. Polycarp, irenaeus and papias all confirmed John also wrote the gospel of Jesus which is the last of the four to be written.

There's a fragment of John gospel with us now and this has been dated to around ~AD 125!
The John Rylands Fragment (P52) is quite small—only 2.5 by 3.5 inches—and it contains John 18:31-33, 37-38.
This showed all the 4 gospels were likely written within the 1st century.

Moreover, we have texts written in the first century AD that quoted the gospel letters.
The Didache (AD 95) is most likely the earliest extra-biblical manuscript. In 8.2, the Didache quotes from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:5, 9-13).

Father Clement of Rome dates very early as well, because he mentions the Temple still standing in his letters. And Clement cites Matthew (1 Clement 13.2) and the other Synoptic Gospels (1 Clement 24.5; 46..

Oga, stop turning amala for us here. The point I am raising is that none of the four gospels were written by the names ascribed on them. The gospels were written in Greek and they were nameless/anonymous. At a point in time the elders of the early Christian Church fraudulently ascribed names of Apostles to these anonymous books!
There is NO reasonable and true scholar who attributes any of these books to any of the Hebrew followers of Jesus who knew him or were part of his ministry.
Know this and know peace.

Caveatemptor:


Oga, stop turning amala for us here. The point I am raising is that none of the four gospels were written by the names ascribed on them. The gospels were written in Greek and they were nameless/anonymous. At a point in time the elders of the early Christian Church fraudulently ascribed names of Apostles to these anonymous books!
There is NO reasonable and true scholar who attributes any of these books to any of the Hebrew followers of Jesus who knew him or were part of his ministry.
Know this and know peace.

Ok u've swallowed back your vomit that the gospels were written 60 yrs after the crucifixion of Jesus. Good.
Now we will examine the authorship of the gospel in detail.

TheMadame:
FOUR.


John 20: 1-18
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" 3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10Then the disciples went back to their homes, 11but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not recognize that it was Jesus. 15"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him." 16Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, 'Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). 17Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father, to my God and your God." 18Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

This account did some thing I can't explain in me when it was preached by a pastor who was interestingly his namesake- John.

It's important to know that the Bible is an inspired book. Inspired by the Holy Spirit but documented by humans.1 Peter 2:20-21, 2 Tim 3:16-17

If the 2 of us were to give an account of the same event, we will share different accounts though the major story will most likely be the same but while I may pay attention to certain details, you may pay more attention to other details.

I believe this also accentuates the fact that the Bible is True. They didn't try to change or hide the obvious inconsistencies.
I have come to realise that God himself wanted it that way. So that not everyone can understand the Truth except those whom he has checked their heart and passion, those are the ones He reveals the Truth to.

You should know the Power of the Truth is that it sets you Free. And who the Son sets free is free in deed.
So whatever you desires to know, pray about it and ask the Holy spirit to guide and teach you.
Some times immediately it will be revealed, some other times the journey begins- depending on God's grace and mercy and timing.

confusedlady:



Why do you always go around posting controversial issues?
Why do you always search for faults in the Bible?
These are books that were inspired by God but written by men subject to many translations. As a Christian, which I assume you are,read the Bible as a religious book and seize the MESSAGE intended. STOP looking for errors/faults and controversy .
There was a resurrection! He rose and ascended to heaven.FINISH.

But she is not wrong to want an answer to these significant inconsistencies which the enemy may exploit in some.1 Peter 3:15
It shows she is not just religious but studious like the Bereans.
You should learn from her.

Caveatemptor:

Who is the founder of Jehovah Witness cult?
Go to that thread,your expertise is needed there. You are a fraud !

If Jehovah the true God and Jesus Christ God's son were all fraud to you then who is Maximus that you shouldn't call him a fraud?

Well I have beautifully and competently answered that question so if you're really interested go there and figure out what FOUNDER means and who truthfully is the FOUNDER of the world's most peaceful organization as foretold in the Bible book of Isaiah 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-3

You be atheist nah, so if you're really sincere go to the thread and figure out the truth!

Talking about eyewitness of Jesus' execution all the four gospel accounts confirmed that John who was formerly a disciple of John the baptist became the most beloved among Jesus' closest confidants. This writer penned down a scenario that all the others omitted:

According to him when those sent to arrest Jesus got to Gethsemane with clubs, matchetts and swords the fearful appearance caught all the apostles unaware and they became really frightened but Jesus (having forgotten that he's on a death mission) angrily spoke but with a very strange voice that rendered all those evil men dead after regaining his consciousness he spoke with another voice and they all got up again with their weapons {John 18:1-9} with that Peter was confident that they've gotten a leader that's invincible so ready to fight he drew out his own sword and wanted to behead one of the attackers who tried to dodge but the sharp sword got his ear.
Of course Jesus once again healed that and told Peter such is unwarranted! John 18:10-11

Now if not recorded by an eyewitness do you think such could have been written?

Well the truth is that John who wrote that account was right there with the other eleven and very much awake than the rest who were tired and really sleepy. Matthew also recorded something similar at Matthew 26:40-56

These two gospel writers penned down their accounts like real eyewitnesses will do but there is a slight difference in what they wrote yet they both remembered vividly what really happened in their presence unlike the disciple Mark who got most of what happened that night from the things they told him. Mark 14:40-50

So just as i said earlier, during investigations we make sure that when compiling reports about an event our target is not to get witnesses whose narratives will all follow the same pattern that won't give us the clear picture of what really happened but you will notice that the police often catch both eyewitnesses and none eyewitnesses because some eyewitnesses may have left the scene of the event but they must have related the story in the presence of others. So if we're able to get eyewitnesses and some who also heard about the event we will get the clear picture after compilation of everything heard.

That's how professional investigations are carried out not just waiting for those that will come with the same pattern of narratives.

MaxInDHouse:

If Jehovah the true God and Jesus Christ God's son were all fraud to you then who is Maximus that you shouldn't call him a fraud?

Well I have beautifully and competently answered that question so if you're really interested go there and figure out what FOUNDER means and who truthfully is the FOUNDER of the world's most peaceful organization as foretold in the Bible book of Isaiah 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-3

You be atheist nah, so if you're really sincere go to the thread and figure out the truth!

I rather enjoyed how you were totally exposed on that thread as a fraud! You were completely thrashed and you were dodging questions in your usual hypocritical way.
When the asked who founded your cult you were turning amala.
Your founder was exposed as a misogynist and a wife abuser,more turning of amala.
Your cult is a paradise for sexual abusers and sexual predators more amala and gbegiri soup.

In short Mad max you are a fraud!

Below is the thread for those who haven't seen it.
👇

https://www.nairaland.com/7817790/founder-jehovahs-witnesses-organization

SIRTee15:


Ok u've swallowed back your vomit that the gospels were written 60 yrs after the crucifixion of Jesus. Good.
Now we will examine the authorship of the gospel in detail.

Oga,
You are the one turning a pot of amala and trying to top it up with gbegiri soup. I on the other hand have been consistent that the gospels were written by anonymous people based on hearsay because none of the writers was a witness to the ministry. They only wrote based on he say,she say. None of them wrote in Jesus native tongue which is Aramaic. The gospels were written in GREEK language!
For reasons best known to the church elders they decided to attach the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to these anonymous books.

MaxInDHouse:
Talking about eyewitness of Jesus' execution all the four gospel accounts confirmed that John who was formerly a disciple of John the baptist became the most beloved among Jesus' closest confidants. This writer penned down a scenario that all the others omitted:

According to him when those sent to arrest Jesus got to Gethsemane with clubs, matchetts and swords the fearful appearance caught all the apostles unaware and they became really frightened but Jesus (having forgotten that he's on a death mission) angrily spoke but with a very strange voice that rendered all those evil men dead after regaining his consciousness he spoke with another voice and they all got up again with their weapons {John 18:1-9} with that Peter was confident that they've gotten a leader that's invincible so ready to fight he drew out his own sword and wanted to behead one of the attackers who tried to dodge but the sharp sword got his ear.
Of course Jesus once again healed that and told Peter such is unwarranted! John 18:10-11

Now if not recorded by an eyewitness do you think such could have been written?

Well the truth is that John who wrote that account was right there with the other eleven and very much awake than the rest who were tired and really sleepy. Matthew also recorded something similar at Matthew 26:40-56

These two gospel writers penned down their accounts like real eyewitnesses will do but there is a slight difference in what they wrote yet they both remembered vividly what really happened in their presence unlike the disciple Mark who got most of what happened that night from the things they told him. Mark 14:40-50

So just as i said earlier, during investigations we make sure that when compiling reports about an event our target is not to get witnesses whose narratives will all follow the same pattern that won't give us the clear picture of what really happened but you will notice that the police often catch both eyewitnesses and none eyewitnesses because some eyewitnesses may have left the scene of the event but they must have related the story in the presence of others. So if we're able to get eyewitnesses and some who also heard about the event we will get the clear picture after compilation of everything heard.

That's how professional investigations are carried out not just waiting for those that will come with the same pattern of narratives.

Honestly wallahi, you are a complete fraud!!!

Caveatemptor:


Oga,
You are the one turning a pot of amala and trying to top it up with gbegiri soup. I on the other hand have been consistent that the gospels were written by anonymous people based on hearsay because none of the writers was a witness to the ministry. They only wrote based on he say,she say. None of them wrote in Jesus native tongue which is Aramaic. The gospels were written in GREEK language!
For reasons best known to the church elders they decided to attach the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to these anonymous books.

if they accept that it was written by anonymous authors...then they might start questioning its authenticity..
they just don't waft their illusion destroyed..

Caveatemptor:

I rather enjoyed how you were totally exposed on that thread as a fraud! You were completely thrashed and you were dodging questions in your usual hypocritical way.
When the asked who founded your cult you were turning amala.
Your founder was exposed as a misogynist and a wife abuser,more turning of amala.
Your cult is a paradise for sexual abusers and sexual predators more amala and gbegiri soup. In short Mad max you are a fraud!
Below is the thread for those who haven't seen it.
👇
https://www.nairaland.com/7817790/founder-jehovahs-witnesses-organization

Your crying and wailing really sweet my belle no be small!

Ọmọ continue wailing jàre thousands of Jews in Jerusalem were contradicting my teacher but they all failed to present a practical application of what they're saying.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ORGANIZATION is performing globally as expected let all your friends in that thread present a better performing group than JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES!

Caveatemptor:

Honestly wallahi, you are a complete fraud!!!

Atheist talking!

22jumpstreet1:

if they accept that it was written by anonymous authors...then they might start questioning its authenticity..
they just don't waft their illusion destroyed..

Before speaking against the New Testament why not agree with the atheist on the writers of other books in the Old Testament?

Caveatemptor:


Oga,
You are the one turning a pot of amala and trying to top it up with gbegiri soup. I on the other hand have been consistent that the gospels were written by anonymous people based on hearsay because none of the writers was a witness to the ministry. They only wrote based on he say,she say. None of them wrote in Jesus native tongue which is Aramaic. The gospels were written in GREEK language!
For reasons best known to the church elders they decided to attach the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to these anonymous books.

Consistent indeed!!!! It's like we need a new definition of consistency from u. Is this not u talking about 60 yrs gap, suddenly it's been debunked and next thing is to deny it
As I said, good thing u swallowed back your vomit

Caveatemptor:

None of them wrote in Jesus native tongue which is Aramaic. The gospels were written in GREEK language!

When making research you atheists are driven by your preconceived thought:

"There is no God"

So your IQ is tampered with.

Jesus didn't speak Aramaic rather he spoke the Hebrew language used in writing the first sets of books before the exiled Jews from Babylon returned. It's after they returned from Babylon that most of them began learning the language Moses and other prophets used to write their inspired books.

So by the time Jesus walked the earth it was the Greeks that reigned before the Romans gained dominance so most of the nations around the Mediterranean sea were speaking Greek that's why Jesus' disciples who wanted to spread the GOOD NEWS of God's Kingdom penned down their messages in the language that's wide spoken by many nations back then.

Later when Rome has gained power they used Latin (their own language) instead of Greek it's another strategy of strengthening themselves as many will be forced to learn the language of their rulers just as you are typing now in English.

So don't allow hearsay to becloud your sense of reasoning the gospel writers weren't the ones who named those books but those they handed over the books knew the one each writer wrote and they penned down their messages in the popular language back in their days: Greek!

MaxInDHouse:


When making research you atheists are driven by your preconceived thought:

"There is no God"

So your IQ is tampered with.

Jesus didn't speak Aramaic rather he spoke the Hebrew language used in writing the first sets of books before the exiled Jews from Babylon returned. It's after they returned from Babylon that most of them began learning the language Moses and other prophets used to write their inspired books.

So by the time Jesus walked the earth it was the Greeks that reigned before the Romans gained dominance so most of the nations around the Mediterranean sea were speaking Greek that's why Jesus' disciples who wanted to spread the GOOD NEWS of God's Kingdom penned down their messages in the language that's wide spoken by many nations back then.

Later when Rome has gained power they used Latin (their own language) instead of Greek it's another strategy of strengthening themselves as many will be forced to learn the language of their rulers just as you are typing now in English.

So don't allow hearsay to becloud your sense of reasoning the gospel writers weren't the ones who named those books but those they handed over the books knew the one each writer wrote and they penned down their messages in the popular language back in their days: Greek!

Mad Max,the fraud on the beat.

Caveatemptor:

Mad Max,the fraud on the beat.

You're a real atheist!

Just calling people names simply because they refused to be molded by your thinking but at then you're hypocritically supporting the same people against another adherent of the same book you want to debunk!

Welcome to my world where my name reigns in the brains of those who have stylishly made themselves my fans by maligning my name always!

SIRTee15:


Consistent indeed!!!! It's like we need a new definition of consistency from u. Is this not u talking about 60 yrs gap, suddenly it's been debunked and next thing is to deny it
As I said, good thing u swallowed back your vomit

Were the gospel writers anonymous or not?
Did they write the gospels in Greek or in Aramaic?
Did the church elders fraudulently name these anonymous books after Mark,Luke, Matthew and John knowing these were not the real names of the authors
We're the gospels not written at least 60 years after the crucifixion?
Were any of these anonymous writers witnesses to the Christ ministry or did they rely on unreliable hear say to write these gospels?