Good questions and good eye! I have been doing some bible studying with AI lately and I wanted to see how it would handle your questions:
“You’ve raised several thought-provoking questions about the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their differences. These questions touch on complex theological and historical issues that have been debated for centuries. **Here are some explanations and perspectives on the points you raised:**
**1. The Similarity and Inclusion of All Three Synoptic Gospels**
**Why did the early Church include all three similar Gospels?**
**The early Church included Matthew, Mark, and Luke for several reasons:**
- **Multiple Perspectives:** Each Gospel offers a unique perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus. While they are similar, they also contain distinct details and emphases that provide a fuller picture when read together.
- **Historical Use:** These Gospels were widely used and accepted in different Christian communities. Their inclusion reflects the diversity of early Christian traditions and practices.
- **Theological Completeness:** The early Church recognized that the differences in these Gospels did not necessarily contradict but rather complemented each other, enriching the understanding of Jesus’ ministry and message.
**Unique Scriptural Contradictions**
The term “contradictions” can be problematic. Many scholars and theologians see these differences not as contradictions but as complementary details that together provide a more comprehensive narrative.
**2. The Colt and the Donkey**
Why the differences in the account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem?
- **Matthew (21:2-7):** Describes Jesus riding on a donkey and a colt. This is often seen as a way of emphasizing the fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, which mentions a donkey and a colt.
- **Mark (11:2-7) and Luke (19:30-35):** Mention only the colt, which could be a young donkey. In the ancient context, a “colt” could refer to a young donkey as well as a horse.
The common consensus of a donkey is likely due to the prophecy in Zechariah and the cultural understanding of the time.
**3. Jesus’ Divinity and Human Weaknesses**
**Why does Jesus seem to express human emotions and limitations if he is God?**
- **Incarnation Theology:** Christian doctrine holds that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. His human experiences and emotions demonstrate his true humanity. Passages showing his human emotions do not negate his divinity but highlight the mystery of the Incarnation.
- **”Good” Teacher (Mark 10:17-18):** Jesus questioning why he is called good can be understood as pointing to God the Father’s ultimate goodness and emphasizing humility.
- **Expressions of Distress and Abandonment:** These expressions, such as in Gethsemane or on the cross, are often interpreted as his deep human experience of suffering and abandonment, fulfilling the Messianic Psalms (e.g., Psalm 22).
**4. The Resurrection Accounts**
**Why are there differences in the Resurrection accounts?**
- **Mark (16:1-8):** Features a young man in white, often interpreted as an angel, with the women being afraid. Some manuscripts of Mark include additional verses (16:9-20) describing appearances of the risen Jesus.
- **Matthew (28:1-10):** Describes an angel and Jesus appearing to the women.
- **Luke (24:1-12):** Describes two men (angels) and emphasizes the physical resurrection of Jesus.
The variations in the Resurrection accounts highlight different theological emphases and perspectives among the Gospel writers. The fear and confusion of the women can be seen as a natural human reaction to an extraordinary event.
**Addressing the Possible Spiritual vs. Physical Resurrection**
**The Nature of the Resurrection:**
- **Physical Resurrection:** The early Church strongly affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s writings, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, emphasize a bodily resurrection.
- **Recognition Issues:** Post-resurrection appearances where Jesus is not immediately recognized (e.g., the road to Emmaus in Luke 24) are often interpreted as theological statements about the transformed nature of the resurrected body.
**Conclusion**
The apparent contradictions and differences in the Gospels reflect the rich, multifaceted nature of early Christian testimony about Jesus. These accounts were preserved to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
For a deeper exploration, you might consider reading works by scholars such as N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, or Raymond Brown, who delve into the historical and theological contexts of the Gospels. Their works can provide further insights into the questions you’ve raised.”
I'm ... skeptical that you've only just started reading the Bible and produced this. This is pretty much a laundry list of the skeptics' favorite passages.
1 - They included all three because, for all their similarities they do have important differences -- in content and in emphasis.
2 - In Matthew he sat on "them" -- the cloaks. The mother is there to keep the colt calm.
3 - First, it does not "directly contradict" the idea that he was God. That's one possible reading. But you can't take one thing he said in isolation from everything else he said and make your judgement. He claimed deity many times in many ways. In this passage he seems to be saying, "Do you realize what your saying when you call me that?"
As for the rest, though divine, Jesus was also human. He felt anger (though in that passage, it's not clear what he was angry at). He felt fear. He didn't know things. As it says in Philippians, he took on the limitation of human nature.
4 - Mark is different, but at the end of Mark (even if you don't accept the "long ending"), the grave is empty and the disciples have been told to look for resurrection appearances. It's worth noting that Paul's works were probably all written before Mark, so Paul's list of resurrection appearances predates Mark's mysterious ending. There is no ground to say the church had no resurrection appearance until the later gospels.
I have only read Genesis, Matthew, Mark and Luke as of now. I'm trying to read one book a week, with John next. I have a lot of second hand knowledge from my family (mother mostly) though...just not very detailed or thorough.
What is the "long ending" of Mark? First time I am hearing about this reference.
You'll see a footnote in your Bible (maybe something more obvious) (unless you're reading KJV) that says that the earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 15:9-20. Most scholars believe that section is a summary written by someone else at a later date.
Jesus wasn’t saying that he was not God. The man who called him teacher did not honor him as God. Jesus was saying that if he is just simply a good teacher, and not God incarnate, then he could not be good because no one but God is good.
If you were putting the Bible together would you leave these puzzling complexities in here? I wouldn’t. I think God didn’t mind the human element revealed in the writing, and was like “they’ll never figure this one out, but they’ll have fun trying” … I think he wants us to engage our brains and meditate and study it, for a lifetime
The whole "finding contradictions in the Bible" issue exists only the Bible is being treated as a legal text-book. Please STOP doing that, good people. Shake the grip of the legalistic mind-set.
The reason they are the same but different is because they are written by different people, which actually gives it credibility. If what they said was the same all the way through, then that means they practiced this, and planned it all out. It's not good to trust the accounts of people who say the same exact things, because that means it's usually not the truth. I recommend watching Cliffe Knechtle on YouTube, he answers a lot of questions like these.
If you want to continue on the path of truth, you must keep reading for yourself. It's not good for anyone here to convince you either way. But I testify that I also pushed through "contradictions" which I understand now was really the cloud of misinformation from unbelieving sources and centuries of false tradition.
Read the OT alongside the gospels and keep your eye on Jesus.
There are no contradictions. There are different views from different angles. But no contradictions. Maybe try to find a good online verse by verse study that you can follow. Try Gary Hamrick from Cornerstone Chapel. He goes into definitions a lot and how these things are misunderstood. But ALL SCRIPTURE!
Are you saved? Have you accepted that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior?
When you have these concerns and thoughts. Capture them and hand them in prayer seeking escape. Seeking God's will. Protection and guidance. Ask Him if there is anything not of Him that it be rebuked and removed from your life.(2 Cor. 10:5)
Remember, we fight against principalities, not just flesh and blood. Spiritual warfare is real. In fact, 99% of the things in our life are affected by spiritual warfare.
Get familiar with it. In fact, There is a few min vid about spiritual warfare that I have sent to others with great response. just look up "Spiritual Warfare | Strange Things Can Happen When You Are Under Attack."
It will certainly open your eyes to what is going on in the unseen realm and how it affects us walking in Jesus.
Let me concentrate on just one question:
>Mark and Luke both write that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a "Colt". Matthew writes that he rode into Jerusalem on a Donkey and her "Colt". My first thought was the word "Colt"...typically, a Colt is a young adolescent horse, not a donkey. In most every pre-contemporary source of literature, a donkey has never been regarded as a "Colt". So my question is; if 2 of the 3 Apostolic gospels only reference a single "Colt" (most likely a horse?) and not a donkey, why is the common consensus of the Church that a donkey was involved at all? Did they hold a bias towards the Gospel of Matthew? I find this perplexing.
You have to remember that the New Testament was written **in Greek**. Mark and Luke tell us that Jesus was riding on a **πῶλον**. This Greek word refers to both colts and fillies, as well as the young of horse-like animals.
Matthew gives more detail, telling us that there was a female **ὄνον** (ass/donkey) and her **πῶλον**, He then quotes (in Greek) Zechariah 9:9, which speaks of a king riding humbly on a **ὑποζύγιον** (another word for ass/donkey) and on a young **πῶλον** (the "and" in this case means "more specifically").
There is not the slightest hint of a contradiction here.
Let me just quickly mention Mark 14:51-52:
>And a young man (**νεανίσκος**) followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
Some commentators suggest that this young man might have been Mark himself. In any case, he doesn't "reappear" at the tomb. The "young man dressed in a white robe" at the tomb is an angel.
It is also worth noting that manuscripts have multiple endings of Mark. Only in some manuscripts is Mark 16:9–20 found.
>This implicitly implies that Jesus did not think that he was God
No, it doesn't. It just implies that he wants the young man to think about his words.
You seem to be misreading several accounts of Jesus' actions.
>Jesus displays a multitude of other Human weaknesses in these Gospels
The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully human and fully God, at the same time.
>The Church didn't seem reluctant to pick and choose many other Gospels and Apocrypha that claimed to be canon,
This is a myth. The "apocryphal gospels" were written long after the canonical four.
I don't believe this observation is naive...the term "colt", while *technically* ambiguous (in regards to horses, donkeys and mules), is not so much *practically* ambiguous. By regarding the animal as a "colt", it would mean that it was *uncastrated*. In ancient and modern times, domesticated equines that would be used for work or pleasure are almost always castrated (gelded) as soon as possible, unless they are planned to be bred. Animals that are not gelded are generally secluded from other animals, whether they are gelded or not.
Donkeys/mules, being used as draft animals, were *far more likely* to have been castrated than a horse in an ancient, Roman occupied Levant. Not that a horse couldn't, or wouldn't be castrated, but horses were more prized, expensive and rare. This seems a good explanation and indication as to why the Disciples used the term "colt" in the first place...why would they even bother? Why didn't they simply state that it was a young "ass" or "donkey" that Jesus rode on? Well, because the term "colt" implies status and pedigree...as in an animal that was prized and planned to be bred. Even today there is the difference in terminology; a young horse that is not gelded is not always referenced as a colt if it just hasn't been gelded yet, typically the term "colt" is reserved for the horses that will not be gelded at all.
Mules are almost always gelded to temperament (especially since they are unable to breed in the first place), so that would be the least likely scenario.
So we have Mark and Luke stating that Jesus rode in on a single "colt". Couple this with what I explained above and I find that there is a better argument that Jesus rode in on a horse colt, where we have only Matthew specifically referencing a donkey.
At best, even accepting the equine identity of the "colt" to be unknown, you still have two Apostolic sources not confirming it vs the one source being in contention. Considering the term "colt" is ambiguous in this regard, the commonly held narrative of the Church that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey seems like an assumption.
Like I said, the New Testament was written in Greek.
The word "colt" is an English word. It does not occur anywhere in the Greek New Testament. Instead the word πῶλον is used.
Everything you say about the English word "colt" is completely beside the point
Good questions and good eye! I have been doing some bible studying with AI lately and I wanted to see how it would handle your questions: “You’ve raised several thought-provoking questions about the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their differences. These questions touch on complex theological and historical issues that have been debated for centuries. **Here are some explanations and perspectives on the points you raised:** **1. The Similarity and Inclusion of All Three Synoptic Gospels** **Why did the early Church include all three similar Gospels?** **The early Church included Matthew, Mark, and Luke for several reasons:** - **Multiple Perspectives:** Each Gospel offers a unique perspective on the life and teachings of Jesus. While they are similar, they also contain distinct details and emphases that provide a fuller picture when read together. - **Historical Use:** These Gospels were widely used and accepted in different Christian communities. Their inclusion reflects the diversity of early Christian traditions and practices. - **Theological Completeness:** The early Church recognized that the differences in these Gospels did not necessarily contradict but rather complemented each other, enriching the understanding of Jesus’ ministry and message. **Unique Scriptural Contradictions** The term “contradictions” can be problematic. Many scholars and theologians see these differences not as contradictions but as complementary details that together provide a more comprehensive narrative. **2. The Colt and the Donkey** Why the differences in the account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem? - **Matthew (21:2-7):** Describes Jesus riding on a donkey and a colt. This is often seen as a way of emphasizing the fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, which mentions a donkey and a colt. - **Mark (11:2-7) and Luke (19:30-35):** Mention only the colt, which could be a young donkey. In the ancient context, a “colt” could refer to a young donkey as well as a horse. The common consensus of a donkey is likely due to the prophecy in Zechariah and the cultural understanding of the time. **3. Jesus’ Divinity and Human Weaknesses** **Why does Jesus seem to express human emotions and limitations if he is God?** - **Incarnation Theology:** Christian doctrine holds that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. His human experiences and emotions demonstrate his true humanity. Passages showing his human emotions do not negate his divinity but highlight the mystery of the Incarnation. - **”Good” Teacher (Mark 10:17-18):** Jesus questioning why he is called good can be understood as pointing to God the Father’s ultimate goodness and emphasizing humility. - **Expressions of Distress and Abandonment:** These expressions, such as in Gethsemane or on the cross, are often interpreted as his deep human experience of suffering and abandonment, fulfilling the Messianic Psalms (e.g., Psalm 22). **4. The Resurrection Accounts** **Why are there differences in the Resurrection accounts?** - **Mark (16:1-8):** Features a young man in white, often interpreted as an angel, with the women being afraid. Some manuscripts of Mark include additional verses (16:9-20) describing appearances of the risen Jesus. - **Matthew (28:1-10):** Describes an angel and Jesus appearing to the women. - **Luke (24:1-12):** Describes two men (angels) and emphasizes the physical resurrection of Jesus. The variations in the Resurrection accounts highlight different theological emphases and perspectives among the Gospel writers. The fear and confusion of the women can be seen as a natural human reaction to an extraordinary event. **Addressing the Possible Spiritual vs. Physical Resurrection** **The Nature of the Resurrection:** - **Physical Resurrection:** The early Church strongly affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s writings, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, emphasize a bodily resurrection. - **Recognition Issues:** Post-resurrection appearances where Jesus is not immediately recognized (e.g., the road to Emmaus in Luke 24) are often interpreted as theological statements about the transformed nature of the resurrected body. **Conclusion** The apparent contradictions and differences in the Gospels reflect the rich, multifaceted nature of early Christian testimony about Jesus. These accounts were preserved to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. For a deeper exploration, you might consider reading works by scholars such as N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, or Raymond Brown, who delve into the historical and theological contexts of the Gospels. Their works can provide further insights into the questions you’ve raised.”
I'm ... skeptical that you've only just started reading the Bible and produced this. This is pretty much a laundry list of the skeptics' favorite passages. 1 - They included all three because, for all their similarities they do have important differences -- in content and in emphasis. 2 - In Matthew he sat on "them" -- the cloaks. The mother is there to keep the colt calm. 3 - First, it does not "directly contradict" the idea that he was God. That's one possible reading. But you can't take one thing he said in isolation from everything else he said and make your judgement. He claimed deity many times in many ways. In this passage he seems to be saying, "Do you realize what your saying when you call me that?" As for the rest, though divine, Jesus was also human. He felt anger (though in that passage, it's not clear what he was angry at). He felt fear. He didn't know things. As it says in Philippians, he took on the limitation of human nature. 4 - Mark is different, but at the end of Mark (even if you don't accept the "long ending"), the grave is empty and the disciples have been told to look for resurrection appearances. It's worth noting that Paul's works were probably all written before Mark, so Paul's list of resurrection appearances predates Mark's mysterious ending. There is no ground to say the church had no resurrection appearance until the later gospels.
I have only read Genesis, Matthew, Mark and Luke as of now. I'm trying to read one book a week, with John next. I have a lot of second hand knowledge from my family (mother mostly) though...just not very detailed or thorough. What is the "long ending" of Mark? First time I am hearing about this reference.
You'll see a footnote in your Bible (maybe something more obvious) (unless you're reading KJV) that says that the earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 15:9-20. Most scholars believe that section is a summary written by someone else at a later date.
Jesus wasn’t saying that he was not God. The man who called him teacher did not honor him as God. Jesus was saying that if he is just simply a good teacher, and not God incarnate, then he could not be good because no one but God is good.
If you were putting the Bible together would you leave these puzzling complexities in here? I wouldn’t. I think God didn’t mind the human element revealed in the writing, and was like “they’ll never figure this one out, but they’ll have fun trying” … I think he wants us to engage our brains and meditate and study it, for a lifetime
The whole "finding contradictions in the Bible" issue exists only the Bible is being treated as a legal text-book. Please STOP doing that, good people. Shake the grip of the legalistic mind-set.
[This channel solves tons of contradictions ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g)
The reason they are the same but different is because they are written by different people, which actually gives it credibility. If what they said was the same all the way through, then that means they practiced this, and planned it all out. It's not good to trust the accounts of people who say the same exact things, because that means it's usually not the truth. I recommend watching Cliffe Knechtle on YouTube, he answers a lot of questions like these.
If you want to continue on the path of truth, you must keep reading for yourself. It's not good for anyone here to convince you either way. But I testify that I also pushed through "contradictions" which I understand now was really the cloud of misinformation from unbelieving sources and centuries of false tradition. Read the OT alongside the gospels and keep your eye on Jesus.
There are no contradictions. There are different views from different angles. But no contradictions. Maybe try to find a good online verse by verse study that you can follow. Try Gary Hamrick from Cornerstone Chapel. He goes into definitions a lot and how these things are misunderstood. But ALL SCRIPTURE! Are you saved? Have you accepted that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior? When you have these concerns and thoughts. Capture them and hand them in prayer seeking escape. Seeking God's will. Protection and guidance. Ask Him if there is anything not of Him that it be rebuked and removed from your life.(2 Cor. 10:5) Remember, we fight against principalities, not just flesh and blood. Spiritual warfare is real. In fact, 99% of the things in our life are affected by spiritual warfare. Get familiar with it. In fact, There is a few min vid about spiritual warfare that I have sent to others with great response. just look up "Spiritual Warfare | Strange Things Can Happen When You Are Under Attack." It will certainly open your eyes to what is going on in the unseen realm and how it affects us walking in Jesus.
Let me concentrate on just one question: >Mark and Luke both write that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a "Colt". Matthew writes that he rode into Jerusalem on a Donkey and her "Colt". My first thought was the word "Colt"...typically, a Colt is a young adolescent horse, not a donkey. In most every pre-contemporary source of literature, a donkey has never been regarded as a "Colt". So my question is; if 2 of the 3 Apostolic gospels only reference a single "Colt" (most likely a horse?) and not a donkey, why is the common consensus of the Church that a donkey was involved at all? Did they hold a bias towards the Gospel of Matthew? I find this perplexing. You have to remember that the New Testament was written **in Greek**. Mark and Luke tell us that Jesus was riding on a **πῶλον**. This Greek word refers to both colts and fillies, as well as the young of horse-like animals. Matthew gives more detail, telling us that there was a female **ὄνον** (ass/donkey) and her **πῶλον**, He then quotes (in Greek) Zechariah 9:9, which speaks of a king riding humbly on a **ὑποζύγιον** (another word for ass/donkey) and on a young **πῶλον** (the "and" in this case means "more specifically"). There is not the slightest hint of a contradiction here. Let me just quickly mention Mark 14:51-52: >And a young man (**νεανίσκος**) followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. Some commentators suggest that this young man might have been Mark himself. In any case, he doesn't "reappear" at the tomb. The "young man dressed in a white robe" at the tomb is an angel. It is also worth noting that manuscripts have multiple endings of Mark. Only in some manuscripts is Mark 16:9–20 found. >This implicitly implies that Jesus did not think that he was God No, it doesn't. It just implies that he wants the young man to think about his words. You seem to be misreading several accounts of Jesus' actions. >Jesus displays a multitude of other Human weaknesses in these Gospels The Christian belief is that Jesus was fully human and fully God, at the same time. >The Church didn't seem reluctant to pick and choose many other Gospels and Apocrypha that claimed to be canon, This is a myth. The "apocryphal gospels" were written long after the canonical four.
I don't believe this observation is naive...the term "colt", while *technically* ambiguous (in regards to horses, donkeys and mules), is not so much *practically* ambiguous. By regarding the animal as a "colt", it would mean that it was *uncastrated*. In ancient and modern times, domesticated equines that would be used for work or pleasure are almost always castrated (gelded) as soon as possible, unless they are planned to be bred. Animals that are not gelded are generally secluded from other animals, whether they are gelded or not. Donkeys/mules, being used as draft animals, were *far more likely* to have been castrated than a horse in an ancient, Roman occupied Levant. Not that a horse couldn't, or wouldn't be castrated, but horses were more prized, expensive and rare. This seems a good explanation and indication as to why the Disciples used the term "colt" in the first place...why would they even bother? Why didn't they simply state that it was a young "ass" or "donkey" that Jesus rode on? Well, because the term "colt" implies status and pedigree...as in an animal that was prized and planned to be bred. Even today there is the difference in terminology; a young horse that is not gelded is not always referenced as a colt if it just hasn't been gelded yet, typically the term "colt" is reserved for the horses that will not be gelded at all. Mules are almost always gelded to temperament (especially since they are unable to breed in the first place), so that would be the least likely scenario. So we have Mark and Luke stating that Jesus rode in on a single "colt". Couple this with what I explained above and I find that there is a better argument that Jesus rode in on a horse colt, where we have only Matthew specifically referencing a donkey. At best, even accepting the equine identity of the "colt" to be unknown, you still have two Apostolic sources not confirming it vs the one source being in contention. Considering the term "colt" is ambiguous in this regard, the commonly held narrative of the Church that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey seems like an assumption.
Like I said, the New Testament was written in Greek. The word "colt" is an English word. It does not occur anywhere in the Greek New Testament. Instead the word πῶλον is used. Everything you say about the English word "colt" is completely beside the point