Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[The New California Republic]

Sure they can do, but how does one know where the line is in the creation stories? How does one know where to say "this is just myth" and "but this part is true"?

It takes a deep amount of study, and even then there is debate. For example I personally would posit that Israel's history starts with Abraham, thus that is where one should start viewing it much more literally. The Creation and flood accounts appear to be much later accounts that entered into the Israelite tradition during the Babylonian Diaspora. While they're useful in conveying certain truths, I wouldn't call them historical.



Arch on the other puts that way on the other side of Exodus, I guess perhaps starting with David, but you'd have to ask him where he specifically draws the line.

Yes, but I also could get into the contradictory testimonies depending upon which Apostle you listen to in the NT too which must be mutually exclusive, which also indicates myth much later as well, vis-à-vis what happened when Jesus was arrested, and Jesus' last words on the Cross. But heading to bed, so theology needs to wait.

[Tarsonis]

It takes a deep amount of study, and even then there is debate. For example I personally would posit that Israel's history starts with Abraham, thus that is where one should start viewing it much more literally. The Creation and flood accounts appear to be much later accounts that entered into the Israelite tradition during the Babylonian Diaspora. While they're useful in conveying certain truths, I wouldn't call them historical.



Arch on the other puts that way on the other side of Exodus, I guess perhaps starting with David, but you'd have to ask him where he specifically draws the line.

Yes, but I also could get into the contradictory testimonies depending upon which Apostle you listen to in the NT too which must be mutually exclusive, which also indicates myth much later as well, vis-à-vis what happened when Jesus was arrested, and Jesus' last words on the Cross. But heading to bed, so theology needs to wait.

If there was a murder in the middle of the room of 30 people. You ask each person what happened you're gonna get 30 different accounts of what happened. It doesn't mean 1 is right and 29 are wrong.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, but I also could get into the contradictory testimonies depending upon which Apostle you listen to in the NT too which must be mutually exclusive, which also indicates myth much later as well, vis-à-vis what happened when Jesus was arrested, and Jesus' last words on the Cross. But heading to bed, so theology needs to wait.

If there was a murder in the middle of the room of 30 people. You ask each person what happened you're gonna get 30 different accounts of what happened. It doesn't mean 1 is right and 29 are wrong.

It kinda does though when the claims are mutually exclusive.

[Tarsonis]

If there was a murder in the middle of the room of 30 people. You ask each person what happened you're gonna get 30 different accounts of what happened. It doesn't mean 1 is right and 29 are wrong.

It kinda does though when the claims are mutually exclusive.

No it doesn't. Each person has a different perspective, and remembers things differently. Their accounts will vary based on their positioning, how much they saw, and the order they remember the events. You don't pick one and throw out the other 29, you build a cohesive narrative from all 30.

[The New California Republic]

It kinda does though when the claims are mutually exclusive.

No it doesn't. Each person has a different perspective, and remembers things differently. Their accounts will vary based on their positioning, how much they saw, and the order they remember the events. You don't pick one and throw out the other 29, you build a cohesive narrative from all 30.

Yes it does. If the accounts given contradict each other, in that the accounts cannot sit side by side and be true, and cannot be merged coherently and be true, then some of the accounts must be false. There is no escaping it. This has been noted in witnesses of air accidents. Some people will claim that the plane was on fire in the air, others will say that it only caught fire when it hit the ground. Both claims cannot be true. Both claims cannot sit side by side and be true, and nor can they be merged coherently and be true. The accounts of Jesus' arrest and his last words on the Cross are just such claims.

[Tarsonis]

No it doesn't. Each person has a different perspective, and remembers things differently. Their accounts will vary based on their positioning, how much they saw, and the order they remember the events. You don't pick one and throw out the other 29, you build a cohesive narrative from all 30.

Yes it does. If the accounts given contradict each other, in that the accounts cannot sit side by side and be true, and cannot be merged coherently and be true, then some of the accounts must be false. There is no escaping it. This has been noted in witnesses of air accidents. Some people will claim that the plane was on fire in the air, others will say that it only caught fire when it hit the ground. Both claims cannot be true. Both claims cannot sit side by side and be true, and nor can they be merged coherently and be true. The accounts of Jesus' arrest and his last words on the Cross are just such claims.

Let's say I'm closer to a person commiting a murder than you are. We can both see clearly what happened but I being closer hear him say "Bigtopia will be free", but you don't, it doesn't make your account incorrect. It means I heard something you didn't.

The Gospels are first hand account, they're will be discrepancies based on who was where and saw/heard what. None of the accounts differ to the level at which you're suggesting.

[The New California Republic]

Yes it does. If the accounts given contradict each other, in that the accounts cannot sit side by side and be true, and cannot be merged coherently and be true, then some of the accounts must be false. There is no escaping it. This has been noted in witnesses of air accidents. Some people will claim that the plane was on fire in the air, others will say that it only caught fire when it hit the ground. Both claims cannot be true. Both claims cannot sit side by side and be true, and nor can they be merged coherently and be true. The accounts of Jesus' arrest and his last words on the Cross are just such claims.

Let's say I'm closer to a person commiting a murder than you are. We can both see clearly what happened but I being closer hear him say "Bigtopia will be free", but you don't, it doesn't make your account incorrect. It means I heard something you didn't.

That's not what is happening here though. There is an assertion of a matter-of-fact of two different kinds that cannot be explained away in such a manner, in that a more apt example would be you heard the person say "Bigtopia will be free", while I heard him say "Bigtopia cannot be free", rather than there just being an absence of me hearing anything. There was something that happened in a certain instance of which there are two accounts, which is not simply an instance of one just not noticing it, there is an active contradiction rather than a passive one. An example was how Jesus was identified, whether it was from a kiss or from Jesus owning up himself with no prompting. Both cannot be correct.

The Gospels are first hand account, they're will be discrepancies based on who was where and saw/heard what. None of the accounts differ to the level at which you're suggesting.

They actually do though.

[Hakons]

Happy Easter! We may not have been able to physically gather in Church, but the Body of Christ is still, and always, connected by He who was raised today. By Him we are individually loved and through Him we are united to Christians around the world and the saints in Heaven.

[Tarsonis]

Let's say I'm closer to a person commiting a murder than you are. We can both see clearly what happened but I being closer hear him say "Bigtopia will be free", but you don't, it doesn't make your account incorrect. It means I heard something you didn't.

That's not what is happening here though. There is an assertion of a matter-of-fact of two different kinds that cannot be explained away in such a manner, in that a more apt example would be you heard the person say "Bigtopia will be free", while I heard him say "Bigtopia cannot be free", rather than there just being an absence of me hearing anything. There was something that happened in a certain instance of which there are two accounts, which is not simply an instance of one just not noticing it, there is an active contradiction rather than a passive one. An example was how Jesus was identified, whether it was from a kiss or from Jesus owning up himself with no prompting. Both cannot be correct.

Seriously? Thats your hangup? That John differs from the synoptic gospels on a slight detail.

Ffs man, In this case both are easily correct. Matthew and Luke focus on the Judas' betrayal while John really doesn't. John's gospel focuses more on the teachings of Christ, while the Synoptics focus more on events and actions.

In this case Luke and Matthew focus on Judas' betrayal while John focus on Christ's words. Both can easily be true, based on what each author focuses on and emphasizes. Perhaps John didn't see the kiss, or just didn't think it was important.

The Gospels are first hand account, they're will be discrepancies based on who was where and saw/heard what. None of the accounts differ to the level at which you're suggesting.

They actually do though.

No. It sounds like to me you prefer to make mountains out of molehill in absence of substantial arguments.

[Northern Davincia]

They actually do though.

You are free to give as many examples as you like.

[Lost Memories]

Hi all, so I just want to get your take on something:
Trollzyn the Infinite said on his blaming God thread something to the effect of, "It's commonly accepted in Christianity that God turns off his Omniscience sometimes."

This is news to me, and I had to do a double-take to make sure I had understood him correctly. Because it doesn't seem like something a self-respecting Christian theologian would ever seriously suggest. But maybe I'm just ignorant?

Let me know what you think. I want to see what the consensus here is.

If he did make any examples of that, it could have been possible to contextualize that assertion.
But otherwise it's hard to understand what he was talking about.

It sounds indeed as an odd assertion. Being specific about omniscience.

Though, god limiting himself, as much as it isn't commonly talked about, is the basis of the existence of human free will. Free will exists because god allows humans that freedom of action, and god does so by not overly interfering, which amounts to some degree of self-limitation. The moment he would stop limiting himself with regards to humans, free will would stop to exist. (but this is my own speculation, or interpretation, i'm not aware of it being "commonly accepted belief", so it would be hasty to claim it to be)

I mean, God played hide and seek with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:9, and again with Abel's corpse in Genesis 4:9, so...

What if god in genesis knew perfectly where adam was, and knew perfectly where abel was, but still wanted to involve adam and cain, as to have them tell him/it what happened and why?

There are always multiple possible interpretations of an event, what matters with christian interpretations is which one is more credible, historically founded on tradition, or generally which is more inspiring and gives way to deeper considerations, which leads to a better understanding of either god or the nature of humanity.
An interpretation deprived from the process of discerning is an act of idleness.

[The New California Republic]

Now that I’m not in bed and no longer on my phone and have a big computer monitor to use instead, I can cross-reference things much more easily. The accounts of Jesus’ arrest are contradictory in two main respects, specifically in terms of how Jesus' identity was ascertained and what was said and done during the ear lopping incident:

2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.

3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)

6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”

9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him

13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.

56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.”

45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him.

46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him.

47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?

49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,

52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him,

48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?”

50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?

53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”

First we have the aforementioned contradiction of no mention of the kiss by Judas in John, with a totally different means of ascertaining Jesus' identity (Jesus repeatedly pressing them on who they want, with Judas being passive as part of the crowd). Even in mentions of the kiss, Jesus' reply to it is totally different, with Matthew having him say “Do what you came for, friend” (Matthew 26:50), while Luke has him saying “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48), with an indication that Jesus interrupted Judas before Judas had a chance to kiss him. In Mark he doesn't react at all.

Second is what Jesus said and did when a sword was drawn and someone's ear was cut off. John has him say “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”, Matthew has him say “Put your sword back in its place [...] for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:52-54), Mark has him not reacting at all either verbally or by action (second time he has done that. Was Mark's attention elsewhere...?), while Luke has him simply saying “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51) and then healing the wounded man (not mentioned in any of the other three accounts, and you'd think Jesus performing a miracle by healing a man with his ear lopped off would be especially noteworthy regardless of the circumstances, but I guess not...).

[The New California Republic]

I mean, God played hide and seek with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:9, and again with Abel's corpse in Genesis 4:9, so...

What if god in genesis knew perfectly where adam was, and knew perfectly where abel was, but still wanted to involve adam and cain, as to have them tell him/it what happened and why?

I dunno man, the same verse describes Adam as hiding among the trees from the Lord, and the Lord asks him where he is; so was this like the games of peekaboo that one plays with a child, where the adult knows fine well where the child is?

[Albrenia]

What if god in genesis knew perfectly where adam was, and knew perfectly where abel was, but still wanted to involve adam and cain, as to have them tell him/it what happened and why?

I dunno man, the same verse describes Adam as hiding among the trees from the Lord, and the Lord asks him where he is; so was this like the games of peekaboo that one plays with a child, where the adult knows fine well where the child is?

Pretending not to know where a child is during hide and seek is surprisingly fun sometimes. I wouldn't blame God for doing it.

Although I thought God wasn't capable of lying, and that is dangerously close to one.

[Luminesa]

What if god in genesis knew perfectly where adam was, and knew perfectly where abel was, but still wanted to involve adam and cain, as to have them tell him/it what happened and why?

I dunno man, the same verse describes Adam as hiding among the trees from the Lord, and the Lord asks him where he is; so was this like the games of peekaboo that one plays with a child, where the adult knows fine well where the child is?

Kind of, but in the same sense it was also a test. How Adam responded determined whether or not he was open or closed to God. God knows this as well. But He gives Adam the chance to respond as he chooses, truthfully or disobediently. God asks this of Abraham and Samuel as well, even though He knows their hearts as well. Unlike Adam, both of them jump out and yell, “Here I am, Lord!”

[Luminesa]

I dunno man, the same verse describes Adam as hiding among the trees from the Lord, and the Lord asks him where he is; so was this like the games of peekaboo that one plays with a child, where the adult knows fine well where the child is?

Pretending not to know where a child is during hide and seek is surprisingly fun sometimes. I wouldn't blame God for doing it.

Although I thought God wasn't capable of lying, and that is dangerously close to one.

Can confirm, when children hide right behind me and I act like, “Hmmmmm, where did X go?...I don’t see them!...”, they get giggle-fits, because they think they’re so sneaky. It’s very adorable.

[Salus Maior]

Now that I’m not in bed and no longer on my phone and have a big computer monitor to use instead, I can cross-reference things much more easily. The accounts of Jesus’ arrest are contradictory in two main respects, specifically in terms of how Jesus' identity was ascertained and what was said and done during the ear lopping incident:

2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.

3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)

6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”

9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him

13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.

56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.”

45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him.

46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him.

47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?

49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,

52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him,

48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?”

50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?

53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”

First we have the aforementioned contradiction of no mention of the kiss by Judas in John, with a totally different means of ascertaining Jesus' identity (Jesus repeatedly pressing them on who they want, with Judas being passive as part of the crowd). Even in mentions of the kiss, Jesus' reply to it is totally different, with Matthew having him say “Do what you came for, friend” (Matthew 26:50), while Luke has him saying “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48), with an indication that Jesus interrupted Judas before Judas had a chance to kiss him. In Mark he doesn't react at all.

Second is what Jesus said and did when a sword was drawn and someone's ear was cut off. John has him say “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”, Matthew has him say “Put your sword back in its place [...] for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:52-54), Mark has him not reacting at all either verbally or by action (second time he has done that. Was Mark's attention elsewhere...?), while Luke has him simply saying “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51) and then healing the wounded man (not mentioned in any of the other three accounts, and you'd think Jesus performing a miracle by healing a man with his ear lopped off would be especially noteworthy regardless of the circumstances, but I guess not...).

Mark in general is a shortened version of the Gospel. Mostly every story is told is a smaller form than the others.

And either way, whether one account is more true than the others, one thing is clear; Jesus was betrayed by Judas and arrested.

[The New California Republic]

And either way, whether one account is more true than the others, one thing is clear; Jesus was betrayed by Judas and arrested.

Indeed, I was just indicating the problem of creating a gospel harmony in relation to Jesus' arrest, since what is said by necessity involves chopping out some parts, since if one were to try to merge them wholesale into a single harmony then the result is utterly incoherent. Which parts get the axe, because they are untrue, is the problem.

[New Visayan Islands]

Pretending not to know where a child is during hide and seek is surprisingly fun sometimes. I wouldn't blame God for doing it.

Although I thought God wasn't capable of lying, and that is dangerously close to one.

Can confirm, when children hide right behind me and I act like, “Hmmmmm, where did X go?...I don’t see them!...”, they get giggle-fits, because they think they’re so sneaky. It’s very adorable.

Father to a four-year-old and uncle to a two-year-old here, can confirm.

[Auze]

And either way, whether one account is more true than the others, one thing is clear; Jesus was betrayed by Judas and arrested.

Indeed, I was just indicating the problem of creating a gospel harmony in relation to Jesus' arrest, since what is said by necessity involves chopping out some parts, since if one were to try to merge them wholesale into a single harmony then the result is utterly incoherent. Which parts get the axe, because they are untrue, is the problem.

Well, it shouldn't really be surprising. After all, all of this was written years later from memory, so of course a few details are somewhat different.

[Dylar]

Now that I’m not in bed and no longer on my phone and have a big computer monitor to use instead, I can cross-reference things much more easily. The accounts of Jesus’ arrest are contradictory in two main respects, specifically in terms of how Jesus' identity was ascertained and what was said and done during the ear lopping incident:

2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.

3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)

6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.

8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”

9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

11 Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

12 Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him

13 and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

14 Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people.

48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.”

49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.

56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.”

45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him.

46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him.

47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?

49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,

52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him,

48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?”

50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?

53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”

First we have the aforementioned contradiction of no mention of the kiss by Judas in John, with a totally different means of ascertaining Jesus' identity (Jesus repeatedly pressing them on who they want, with Judas being passive as part of the crowd). Even in mentions of the kiss, Jesus' reply to it is totally different, with Matthew having him say “Do what you came for, friend” (Matthew 26:50), while Luke has him saying “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48), with an indication that Jesus interrupted Judas before Judas had a chance to kiss him. In Mark he doesn't react at all.

Second is what Jesus said and did when a sword was drawn and someone's ear was cut off. John has him say “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”, Matthew has him say “Put your sword back in its place [...] for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:52-54), Mark has him not reacting at all either verbally or by action (second time he has done that. Was Mark's attention elsewhere...?), while Luke has him simply saying “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51) and then healing the wounded man (not mentioned in any of the other three accounts, and you'd think Jesus performing a miracle by healing a man with his ear lopped off would be especially noteworthy regardless of the circumstances, but I guess not...).

I'm not seeing any contradictions to what Jesus said in any of the Gospels. They all get the same point across, they're just said differently.

[Salus Maior]

And either way, whether one account is more true than the others, one thing is clear; Jesus was betrayed by Judas and arrested.

Indeed, I was just indicating the problem of creating a gospel harmony in relation to Jesus' arrest, since what is said by necessity involves chopping out some parts, since if one were to try to merge them wholesale into a single harmony then the result is utterly incoherent. Which parts get the axe, because they are untrue, is the problem.

The thing is, the Gospels were written approximately around 70-90 AD, at least that's what most scholars agree upon.

That is not to say they weren't the accounts of the Apostles and written by those that knew them/the relevant people, but memory can change over time. Certain details can be forgotten or remembered differently. Luke wasn't there firsthand, for example, he was an associate of Paul's. But IIRC he got his gospels from interviewing people related to the events. I think Mary was one such person, with the childhood details and some bits referencing her own thoughts.

Considering we weren't there and there's not a way to see if something was remembered incorrectly, there's really no "axing" any of it anymore then there's "axing" details from Julius Caesar's accounts of his campaigns. We have what we have, and we make the best of it.

[Tarsonis]

I dunno man, the same verse describes Adam as hiding among the trees from the Lord, and the Lord asks him where he is; so was this like the games of peekaboo that one plays with a child, where the adult knows fine well where the child is?

Pretending not to know where a child is during hide and seek is surprisingly fun sometimes. I wouldn't blame God for doing it.

Although I thought God wasn't capable of lying, and that is dangerously close to one.

Lying, in so much as it is a sin, means telling falsehood with the intent to deceive. We don't blame actors/writers/comedians/etc for telling stories that aren't true, because the intent is not to deceive, but to entertain.

If we assume Genesis 3 literally happened, we can assume that God not being able to find Adam and Eve, wasn't meant to be deceitful, but probably more like what Lumi was saying and was just parental action. God knew exactly where they were, but rather than just opening the closet door and saying gotcha, He approached it in a way that forced Adam to face God like a man.

[Lower Nubia]

Indeed, I was just indicating the problem of creating a gospel harmony in relation to Jesus' arrest, since what is said by necessity involves chopping out some parts, since if one were to try to merge them wholesale into a single harmony then the result is utterly incoherent. Which parts get the axe, because they are untrue, is the problem.

The thing is, the Gospels were written approximately around 70-90 AD, at least that's what most scholars agree upon.

That is not to say they weren't the accounts of the Apostles and written by those that knew them/the relevant people, but memory can change over time. Certain details can be forgotten or remembered differently. Luke wasn't there firsthand, for example, he was an associate of Paul's. But IIRC he got his gospels from interviewing people related to the events. I think Mary was one such person, with the childhood details and some bits referencing her own thoughts.

Considering we weren't there and there's not a way to see if something was remembered incorrectly, there's really no "axing" any of it anymore then there's "axing" details from Julius Caesar's accounts of his campaigns. We have what we have, and we make the best of it.

We should not view memory in an anachronistic form, as we view memory today. As a society based on oral tradition and not writing, memory was a more significant tool in ancient societies than in modern times. Which is the basis for rote memory oral traditions: to accurately portray events through time.

[Albrenia]

Memory wasn't magically accurate in the past, however. Nor were the retelling of stories in oral traditions immune from slight variations cropping up over time.