When different people speak of things that happened in the past, there are usually differences in the version of events. I know I have heard different stories from different people about an event that happened a few hours or days before. So I would expect much more difference in a story about something that happened a few hundred years before. Those people talk of the inconsistencies, but what do they say about all the similarities between the gospels?
If they say that the similarities are because it was a myth copied from other sources, then why were there inconsistencies? Was it because the people copying the story were not very thorough? I would think that if the story was an effort to fool people by taking a myth and pretending it was an actual event, that they would try to be a little more consistent in their copying.
When I read the New Testament, what is important to I is the example that it teaches. The Example that I consider to be the Example of the Almighty God, which is the Example that I and I should Live. When I read the New Testament, I find that the Example that I see between the gospels is One Example. So differences in the records of events have very little consequence to I, the Example remains True and the same.
I will reason about some of the inconsistencies. But I don't want to spend too much of I time researching every one, so I won't talk about all. Especially considering what I see as important, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
I noticed the difference in the geneology of Christ between the two books the first time I read the New Testament. I don't know the reason for this mistake or if either of the geneologies are the correct one. But this geneology is not what I read the New Testament for.
In regards to the difference about the early childhood between Matthew and Luke. There are a lot of parts of the New Testament where one book gives more detail about a thing that happened and another book gives less, or one book writes about a time that was not written about in the other books. Mark and John don't mention anything about the birth or early childhood. Again, the details of the birth and where they were during Christ's early childhood is not what I read the New Testament for.
The other inconsistencies about the disciples are also of little interest to I. I don't come any closer to Jah by learning this or that about the meeting of and names of the disciples.
I have a comment about this comment made:
-----------------------------------------
This is especially significant as the first evening of Passover was and is one of the holiest days of the year for Jews, a day on which conducting business of any kind would be anathema.
-----------------------------------------
And later on they said,
-----------------------------------------
The trial is said to have taken place during Pesach, one of the holiest holidays for Jews then and now, on which such activities are most strictly forbidden. There was no need for the Jews to appeal to Roman authority for assistance in the trial; they had full authority from the Romans to execute anybody for any reason sanctioned by their own laws. There was even less reason for the Romans to agree to intervene in what would have been to them internecine provincial politics.
-----------------------------------------
People always bend the rules under certain circumstances. The opportunity arose and they wanted to crucify Christ before they lost their chance. And also, the scriptures say:
-----------------------------------------
John 18
31Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
32That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
---------------------------
Why was this not mentioned by those people in the "analysis" of the Jews taking Christ to Pilate? Why is it not lawful for the Jews to put any man to death? The laws of Moses allowed Jews to put a man to death, and as the authors of the "analysis" said, the Romans allowed the Jews to execute people. Maybe the reason they couldn't put any man to death and chose to bring Christ to Pilate was because it was a holy day(as mentioned by the "analysers") And maybe the reason Pilate first told them "Take ye him, and judge him according to your law" was because he didn't want to get involved in provincial politics.
In regards to the hearing
John 18
33Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Matthew 27
11And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
John 18 gives more detail regarding the question Art thou the King of the Jews?, as it gives more detail about a lot of things that happened and the things that Christ said in other parts of the story. The question Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? was not mentioned in John 18. So the fact that Christ didn't give an answer to this unmentioned question is also not mentioned. People write what is important to them, they leave out the details they choose, and they also write based on the information they have.
There are so many more things that happened in the Life of Christ that are not mentioned in the New Testament. They are very short books and account for only a small fraction of time. When stories are summarized, things get left out, and when stories pass from person to person, details change.
The title of this topic is a good one, "Strange".
I find all this "Strange" From the times when the Jews fought against the Christians for their beliefs. From the times when the so-called Christians forced their control onto the people they called Pagans and declared that everything they stood for was wrong. And today when everyone is picking a certain religion(or whatever you want to call it), whether of Rasta, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Buddhism, Hinduism, Voodoo and the list goes on and on, and those that pick their religion, want to call the others false, wrong and mythical. If you will notice I included Rasta as one of the religions, because I was refering to the religion of Rasta (because some deal with it as religion), not the Livity of RasTafarI.
Such "Strange" behaviour when all of them should be instead seeking that which will bring them closer to the Most High. And they should also instead be criticizing the wickedness that is done by people. Or criticizing the examples that go against righteousness. Or revealing heights that are hidden by others.
The authors that wrote that "analysis" didn't even have anything to say about the teachings of Christ, they spoke about everything but that.
The only religious book that I have come across that I actually have a serious issue with is the book of mormon. Because the purpose of that book was to justify the wickedness done against the First Nations people of America. It is not just the fact that it was used for that, it is because it was written for that purpose.
Ark I
RasTafarI
Haile Selassie I
|
|
