What does “Only Begotten” mean in Jesus’ case?
 |
What does “only begotten” mean in Jesus case? “Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means “the only one”, or “the only legitimate child” . . . Some interpretations of the word “unique” attempt to preclude birth, yet the full Greek meaning is always in the context of a child (genes). A unique child is also a born child, hence the full meaning of the word “begotten” as found in John 3:16 (KJV), for example”—Wikipedia
Because their dogma asserts that Jesus is eternal, Trinitarians claim that “only begotten” means “‘unique’ or ‘one of a kind'” (The Forgotten Trinity, p 58). But the Bible says the Son had an “origin” to his life (Micah 5:2 NRSV), whereas the Father didn’t (Psalm 90:2).
To cover up this embarrassing fact, Trinitarians claim, “Being the ‘only begotten Son of God’ tells us Jesus is exactly what His Father is.” “In John 1:14 . . . Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God . . . what Origin called the Eternal generation of the Son” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol 5, p 4-5, by A T Robertson).
“Only Begotten” as Applied to Jesus
“The Word became flesh . . . and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (John 1:14 LSB). The Father begot the Son, Jesus.
“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18 LSB). Jesus is in the bosom of the Father.
“God . . . gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16 LSB). God gave us his Son.
Jesus is “the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18 LSB). Jesus is “the only begotten Son of God”.
“God has sent his only begotten Son into the world” (1 John 4:9 LSB). God is someone other than “his only begotten Son”.
“Only Begotten” Means A Son Or Daughter Of A Parent
“A dead man was being carried, the only begotten son of his mother and she was a widow” (Luke 7:12 LSB margin). He was widow’s son.
“Jairus . . . an official of the synagogue . . . had an only begotten daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying” (Luke 8:41,42 LSB margin). Jairus’ twelve year old daughter was dying.
“A man from the crowd shouted , saying, ‘Teacher, I beg You to look at my son, for he is my only begotten'” (Luke 9:38 LSB margin). This man’s son was possessed by a demon (verse 49).
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son” (Hebrews 11:17 NASB). Abraham was in the process of sacrificing his son Isaac before being stopped by God’s angel.
26 thoughts on “What does “Only Begotten” mean in Jesus’ case?”
God does not exist. We now know this and have proven it.
But if God did exist, he would not beget any sons or daughters. He would not use offspring, angels, messengers, or intermediaries of any kind to do his work. God would do his own work.
God would not create any other deities, including Jesus Christ.
Jesus of Nazareth was born from a human mother and father probably in the early first century CE. This Jesus was not Jesus Christ, a fictional or mythical character.
GW—God does not exist. We now know this and have proven it.
BA—Your “proofs” have been falsified many times.
GW—But if God did exist, he would not beget any sons or daughters. He would not use offspring, angels, messengers, or intermediaries of any kind to do his work. God would do his own work.
God would not create any other deities, including Jesus Christ.
BA—God can do anything he wants to.
“Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His vigor and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing”—Isaiah 40:26 Legacy Standard Bible
“and he said, “O Yahweh, the God of our fathers, are You not God in the heavens? And are You not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand so that no one can take their stand against You”—2 Chronicles 20:6 Legacy Standard Bible
GW—Jesus of Nazareth was born from a human mother and father probably in the early first century CE
BA—While he was “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4), he was “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), “through the holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:32-35), not by a human father.
GW—This Jesus was not Jesus Christ, a fictional or mythical character.
BA—False. 39 ancient sources (in addition to the NT), such as Pliny, Josephus, and the Talmud, refer to the life of Christ, his teachings, execution, and/or resurrection.
GW—God does not exist. We now know this and have proven it.
BA—Your “proofs” have been falsified many times.
GW: False. My proofs have never been falsified. You have found no errors in any of them. Now you evade them.
GW—But if God did exist, he would not beget any sons or daughters. He would not use offspring, angels, messengers, or intermediaries of any kind to do his work. God would do his own work…God would not create any other deities, including Jesus Christ.
BA—God can do anything he wants to.
GW: If he did exist, of course God would do anything he wanted to. Duh. That’s a no brainer. However, God would not want to use offspring, angels, messengers, or intermediaries of any kind to do his work. God would do his own work. Duh.
BA: “Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His vigor and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing”—Isaiah 40:26 Legacy Standard Bible
GW: There is no good evidence and nobody knows that the universe even had a beginning, a creation, or a creator. If it had a creator, it wouldn’t be God. We know independently that he does not exist. The LSB is not a credible translation among scholars.
BA: “and he said, “O Yahweh, the God of our fathers, are You not God in the heavens? And are You not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand so that no one can take their stand against You”—2 Chronicles 20:6 Legacy Standard Bible
GW: Again, God does not exist. We now know this and have proven it. Also, the LSB is not a credible translation among scholars.
GW—Jesus of Nazareth was born from a human mother and father probably in the early first century CE
BA—While he was “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4), he was “the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), “through the holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:32-35), not by a human father.
GW: False. Jesus of Nazareth was produced by a human mother and father. There is no “Son of God” since God does not exist. However, according to at least one biblical story God impregnated Mary without her prior consent. Today we call this “rape.” If God did exist, he would never do this. And so, we know that the Bible is not and could not be the “Word of God.”
GW—This Jesus was not Jesus Christ, a fictional or mythical character.
BA—False. 39 ancient sources (in addition to the NT), such as Pliny, Josephus, and the Talmud, refer to the life of Christ, his teachings, execution, and/or resurrection.
GW: Some nonbiblical authors refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a real person, but not to Jesus Christ as a real person. The latter is a fictional or mythical character. According to Google AI, Josephus wrote this: “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.”
GW: Celsus, was a second century philosopher and critic of Jesus. According to Google AI, he wrote: “O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.”
GW— The LSB is not a credible translation among scholars.
BA—You don’t know what you’re talking about. The LSB is highly regarded among scholars.
GW: Some nonbiblical authors refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a real person, but not to Jesus Christ as a real person. The latter is a fictional or mythical character.
BA—The documented reports of Jesus recorded in the NT Gospels and letters were all written within 35 years of Jesus’ death. If Jesus didn’t exist, or the documents were false or corrupt, those who knew Jesus, either friend or foe, would have objected to the misinformation. But there are no such extant contemporary objections.
GW— The LSB is not a credible translation among scholars.
BA—You don’t know what you’re talking about. The LSB is highly regarded among scholars.
GW: False. If the LSB were as highly regarded, as you claim, then it would be among the top two translations used by the experts. It is not.
GW: Some nonbiblical authors refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a real person, but not to Jesus Christ as a real person. The latter is a fictional or mythical character.
BA—The documented reports of Jesus recorded in the NT Gospels and letters were all written within 35 years of Jesus’ death.
GW: Jesus of Nazareth (JON) was not Jesus Christ. As we have previously discussed, none of the Gospels is a first-person, contemporaneous, low biased, eye witness report of events in the life of JON or its aftermath. The Gospels are replete with inconsistencies, contradictions, falsehoods, probable falsehoods, and unproven claims. As Ehrman has noted, even the claim that Jesus was placed in a tomb after he was removed from the cross is a probable falsehood.
BA: If Jesus didn’t exist, or the documents were false or corrupt, those who knew Jesus, either friend or foe, would have objected to the misinformation. But there are no such extant contemporary objections.
GW: This is a non sequitur error. Jesus of Nazareth did exist. We are not debating that. But the Gospels include many falsehoods and corruptions. They should not be trusted. But your main error here is in thinking that the Gospels were written during the time that there were still people alive who knew Jesus or that such people would have spoken up to object.
GW: Here is something new for you to consider:
Argument to the Best Explanation of the Stories of Jesus’ Resurrection:
1. Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher of the first century CE, who lived for 30-35 years.
2. The Romans crucified Jesus.
3. Jesus died while on the cross because of the crucifixion.
4. Jesus remained hanging on the cross for a few days, as was typical for crucifixion victims.
5. Romans removed the corpse of Jesus from the cross and pitched it into a common grave for criminals, insurrectionists, and unknown people.
6. Although they did not attend the crucifixion, one or two of Jesus’ close followers had grief hallucinations of him after his death, and these hallucinations were the basis of claims that Jesus came back to life.
7. The Gospel writers told some lies about Jesus’s death and alleged resurrection, or used liars as informants, or both.
8. The stories of Jesus’ resurrection became popular because of wishful thinking about the existence of God and about humans coming back to life.
BA—You don’t know what you’re talking about. The LSB is highly regarded among scholars.
GW: False. If the LSB were as highly regarded, as you claim, then it would be among the top two translations used by the experts. It is not.
BA—The “scholars” you refer to often use the popular translations for public consumption.
Accuracy, i.e., faithfulness to the original Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek texts, is entirely another matter.
This is why we use the LSB and NAB as our top two translations.
GW: This is a non sequitur error. Jesus of Nazareth did exist. We are not debating that. But the Gospels include many falsehoods and corruptions. They should not be trusted. But your main error here is in thinking that the Gospels were written during the time that there were still people alive who knew Jesus or that such people would have spoken up to object.
BA—There is an abundance of proof that you’ve been provided with, and much more is publicly available.
GW—1. Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher of the first century CE, who lived for 30-35 years.
2. The Romans crucified Jesus.
3. Jesus died while on the cross because of the crucifixion.
BA—True.
You used to claim he “swooned”, and later “revived” in the tomb. Nice to see you now believe what the scriptures say about Jesus’ death.
GW—4. Jesus remained hanging on the cross for a few days, as was typical for crucifixion victims.
5. Romans removed the corpse of Jesus from the cross and pitched it into a common grave for criminals, insurrectionists, and unknown people.
6. Although they did not attend the crucifixion, one or two of Jesus’ close followers had grief hallucinations of him after his death, and these hallucinations were the basis of claims that Jesus came back to life.
7. The Gospel writers told some lies about Jesus’s death and alleged resurrection, or used liars as informants, or both.
8. The stories of Jesus’ resurrection became popular because of wishful thinking about the existence of God and about humans coming back to life.
BA—Entirely speculative nonsense.
GW: If the LSB were as highly regarded, as you claim, then it would be among the top two translations used by the experts. It is not.
BA—The LSB accurately translates God’s name “Yahweh” over 6,800 times, rather than rendering it by the typical generic substitutions “LORD” or “God”.
These substitutions are often admitted in the prefaces to many Bible versions.
Many Trinitarians resent the use of Yahweh because it helps to undermine the Trinity dogma.
Many Jews are offended by the use of Yahweh because of their age-old tradition that “God’s name is sacred to pronounce.”
GW: This is a non sequitur error. Jesus of Nazareth did exist. We are not debating that. But the Gospels include many falsehoods and corruptions. They should not be trusted. But your main error here is in thinking that the Gospels were written during the time that there were still people alive who knew Jesus or that such people would have spoken up to object.
BA—There is an abundance of proof that you’ve been provided with, and much more is publicly available.
GW: False. I challenge you to prove that even one author of any of the four Gospels was alive when Jesus was alive and observed Jesus during his life. The authors and their true names aren’t even known.
GW—1. Jesus was an itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher of the first century CE, who lived for 30-35 years.
2. The Romans crucified Jesus.
3. Jesus died while on the cross because of the crucifixion.
BA—True.
GW: Great! We agree on these three points!
BA: You used to claim he “swooned”, and later “revived” in the tomb. Nice to see you now believe what the scriptures say about Jesus’ death.
GW: It’s all about probabilities. Death on the cross is more probable than swoon and revival which is more probable than death and resurrection. I have a new proof that Jesus was not resurrected by God.
GW—4. Jesus remained hanging on the cross for a few days, as was typical for crucifixion victims.
5. Romans removed the corpse of Jesus from the cross and pitched it into a common grave for criminals, insurrectionists, and unknown people.
6. Although they did not attend the crucifixion, one or two of Jesus’ close followers had grief hallucinations of him after his death, and these hallucinations were the basis of claims that Jesus came back to life.
7. The Gospel writers told some lies about Jesus’s death and alleged resurrection, or used liars as informants, or both.
8. The stories of Jesus’ resurrection became popular because of wishful thinking about the existence of God and about humans coming back to life.
BA—Entirely speculative nonsense.
GW: False. There is evidence to support all of them. Conclusions 4-6 are likely to be true, and conclusions 7 and 8 are certainly true. What is “entirely speculative nonsense” is that Jesus died and God caused him to come back to life. We now know and have proven that this is false.
“Even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence. The books were written anonymously and evidently not by eyewitnesses”—Bart D. Ehrman
The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, nor did they include any eyewitness testimony, so says the popular agnostic Bible scholar, who has quite a following. While such claims were rare prior to the 1800’s, they have been increasing, and ever more so in recent times.
How do you know you were born? Yes, you’re alive now, and you’ve been told everyone is born. Superman is supposed to be from the planet Krypton. Maybe that’s how you arrived on earth. Such an idea has about as much credibility as Ehrman’s claims.
Do you remember being born? True, your parents said you were, hospital staff said you were. How do you know they’re not lying? How about your birth certificate? Documents have been known to be falsified.
How about photos said to be taken on the day you were born? How do you know that’s you? Photos can be doctored.
The point is that by using the same standard Ehrman is using regarding the Gospels, you can’t prove that any event from the distant past occurred. However, each witness testimony increases the probability that certain events did occur. And the most valuable testimony comes from eyewitnesses–from people present when the past event occurred.
There are several articles on this website that discuss the evidence for the eyewitness testimony in the New Testament.
Gospel writer Luke says that he used eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-3). Gospel writer John says he himself was an eyewitness to many things he recorded. “The one who saw this is an eyewitness” (John 19:35 GWT). “This disciple was an eyewitness of these things and wrote them down” (John 21:24 GWT). The Muratorian Fragment of about 160-170 CE confirms these two claims by Luke and John.
The apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-32). Many early church writers identified Matthew as the writer of the first gospel. Papias of Hierapolis in the early 2nd century said that Gospel writer Mark recorded the apostle Peter’s eyewitness testimony (1 Peter 5:13), and that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name. A few years later, Irenaus of Lyons linked each of the four gospels to an eyewitness of Jesus Christ. In the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr referred to a quote from Mark 3:16,17 as “the recollections of Peter.”
“He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”—1 Corinthians 15:6 NIV
Paul wrote to the Corinthians over twenty years after Jesus’ death. By this this time, Matthew may have been written, and Luke would be written within the next few years. Most scholars admit that the four Gospels were written between 40 and 100 CE, which is well within the lifetime eyewitnesses of Jesus. There is more than sufficient testimony that the Gospel writers used eyewitnesses as sources available for anyone who wishes to check. There are many articles about this subject on the internet, as well as some on this site, to view. On this site, put the word “eyewitness” in the search bar, and several articles will appear.
The proven eyewitness testimony in the four Gospels are more evidence of the Bible’s authenticity as the infallible word of God (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Peter 1:24,25).
BA: “Even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence. The books were written anonymously and evidently not by eyewitnesses”—Bart D. Ehrman
BA: The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, nor did they include any eyewitness testimony, so says the popular agnostic Bible scholar, who has quite a following. While such claims were rare prior to the 1800’s, they have been increasing, and ever more so in recent times.
GW: Yes, scholars of the Bible have become more skillful in the last 250 years and have undermined the myths, superstitions, and wishful thinking.
BA: How do you know you were born? Yes, you’re alive now, and you’ve been told everyone is born.
GW: Oh, that’s easy. There is lots of evidence.
1. Birth certificate.
2. Hospital record.
3. Photographs.
4. Interviews with people who saw me being born and grow up.
5. My similarity to other human persons who I know were born. I have watched other human persons being born. I am like them in many respects.
The evidence is sufficient to know that I was born. Maybe the evidence for you is not sufficient.
BA: Superman is supposed to be from the planet Krypton. Maybe that’s how you arrived on earth. Such an idea has about as much credibility as Ehrman’s claims.
GW: Superman is already known to be a fictional character. Ehrman’s claims are highly credible, backed by evidence, and supported by a consensus of experts.
BA: Do you remember being born?
GW: No. Psychological research has shown that most human persons do not recall events in their life occurring before they were two years of age.
BA: True, your parents said you were, hospital staff said you were. How do you know they’re not lying?
GW: Because they have a long history of telling the truth.
BA: How about your birth certificate? Documents have been known to be falsified.
GW: Knowledge does not require certainty. Like proof, it just requires evidence sufficient to support belief beyond a reasonable doubt. But I don’t know that you were born. Maybe you were created out of common chemicals by highly advanced aliens.
BA: How about photos said to be taken on the day you were born? How do you know that’s you? Photos can be doctored.
GW: What is the probability that all five of the pieces of evidence I listed above were all faked? Very low. I don’t know about you, but I suspect my finger prints taken at my birth match my finger prints taken when I worked for the federal government as an adult.
BA: The point is that by using the same standard Ehrman is using regarding the Gospels, you can’t prove that any event from the distant past occurred.
GW: I have pointed out all the good evidence supporting my claim that I was born. On the other hand, Ehrman has pointed out that there is insufficient good evidence supporting the authorship of the Gospels. So, your analogy fails.
BA: However, each witness testimony increases the probability that certain events did occur.
GW: In the Gospels all you have is stories. You don’t know if any eye witnesses of Jesus contributed to these stories, either as authors or informants. You are completely in the dark on this. Take the collision of planes into the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001. We had thousands of eye witnesses of this event, and there is corroboration there. In contrast, you don’t have a single verified eye witness of any event in the life of Jesus. Stop acting as if you have more than stories. You are misleading people.
BA: And the most valuable testimony comes from eyewitnesses–from people present when the past event occurred.
GW: The testimony of eyewitnesses is better than the testimony of persons who are not eyewitnesses, of course. But besides Reports, other valuable kinds of evidence are Recordings and Remnants. DNA left at the scene of a crime is a good example of Remnants.
BA: There are several articles on this website that discuss the evidence for the eyewitness testimony in the New Testament.
GW: And those several articles are refuted by the consensus of New Testament experts, including Bart Ehrman.
BA: Gospel writer Luke says that he used eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-3).
GW: So, you agree that Luke was not an eye witness. That is what Ehrman and I have claimed. Thank you for agreeing with our conclusion. Who were these eyewitnesses of Jesus who allegedly informed Luke? Ah, Luke doesn’t say. Where are their written reports? Ah, we don’t have any.
BA: Gospel writer John says he himself was an eyewitness to many things he recorded. “The one who saw this is an eyewitness” (John 19:35 GWT). “This disciple was an eyewitness of these things and wrote them down” (John 21:24 GWT). The Muratorian Fragment of about 160-170 CE confirms these two claims by Luke and John.
GW: It is highly likely that this Gospel writer is lying. His book is full of improbabilities, falsehoods, uncorroborated claims, and moral atrocities. Because John was written last, anywhere from 90 to 110 CE, it is the Gospel least likely to have been written by an eyewitness of Jesus. Once again, the consensus of scholars is that it was not written by an eye witness of Jesus.
BA: The apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-32).
GW: Nope! First, you haven’t quoted Matthew here. Secondly, you presented citations of Mark and Luke which are irrelevant. Once again, the consensus of scholars is that Matthew was not written by an eye witness of Jesus. He doesn’t even specify any informants or document any interviews with them.
BA: Many early church writers identified Matthew as the writer of the first gospel.
GW: The first was Mark, not Matthew. This is well known by the NT experts.
BA: Papias of Hierapolis in the early 2nd century said that Gospel writer Mark recorded the apostle Peter’s eyewitness testimony (1 Peter 5:13),…
GW: So, you agree that Mark was not an eye witness. That is what Ehrman and I have claimed. Thank you for agreeing with our conclusion. Why should we believe Papias? Did he observe Mark interviewing Peter? Did Mark tell Papias that he interviewed Peter? We don’t know. Papias was just speculating.
BA: and that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name.
GW: The consensus of modern experts contradicts Papias’ claim.
BA: A few years later, Irenaus of Lyons linked each of the four gospels to an eyewitness of Jesus Christ.
GW: “Linked”? That’s not sufficient for validation. How would Irenaus know?
BA: In the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr referred to a quote from Mark 3:16,17 as “the recollections of Peter.”
GW: How would he know? What is his evidence?
BA: “He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”—1 Corinthians 15:6 NIV
GW: This is just another story. Who were these people? Where are their eye witness reports? We don’t know who they might have been and we have no reports from them. Paul could just be fabricating this supposed event. Or he is reporting some event that occurred BEFORE Jesus was crucified.
BA: Paul wrote to the Corinthians over twenty years after Jesus’ death.
GW: This is probably a true statement, probably the first you have made in this little essay.
BA: By this this time, Matthew may have been written, and Luke would be written within the next few years.
GW: “May have”? Speculation here. Actually, “probably not.” Paul does not mention that he read or relied on any of the Gospels. Surely he would have mentioned them if he had seen them.
BA: Most scholars admit that the four Gospels were written between 40 and 100 CE, which is well within the lifetime eyewitnesses of Jesus.
GW: False! The consensus of scholars is that the four Gospels were written between 70 and 110 CE. I just heard a scholar say on YouTube a few days ago that Mark was the first Gospel, and it was surely written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
BA: There is more than sufficient testimony that the Gospel writers used eyewitnesses as sources available for anyone who wishes to check.
GW: No, there is not! But here at least, you are no longer claiming that the Gospel writers themselves were eye witnesses of Jesus, and so you are coming more in line with the modern experts, like Ehrman.
BA: There are many articles about this subject on the internet, as well as some on this site, to view. On this site, put the word “eyewitness” in the search bar, and several articles will appear.
GW: No, I don’t need to do that and I am not interested in doing it. For one, I have already read most of your articles on this website. And secondly, your conclusions are refuted by the consensus of modern scholars.
BA: The proven eyewitness testimony in the four Gospels are more evidence of the Bible’s authenticity as the infallible word of God (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Peter 1:24,25).
GW: Pure nonsense! God does not exist! We now know this and have proven it. I even have devised many arguments which prove this, and you have found no errors in any of them. The word is getting out. Christianity is dying, slowly but surely. And this is a good thing. Let’s celebrate!
BA: Gospel writer John says he himself was an eyewitness to many things he recorded. “The one who saw this is an eyewitness” (John 19:35 GWT). “This disciple was an eyewitness of these things and wrote them down” (John 21:24 GWT). The Muratorian Fragment of about 160-170 CE confirms these two claims by Luke and John.
GW: It is highly likely that this Gospel writer is lying. His book is full of improbabilities, falsehoods, uncorroborated claims, and moral atrocities. Because John was written last, anywhere from 90 to 110 CE, it is the Gospel least likely to have been written by an eyewitness of Jesus. Once again, the consensus of scholars is that it was not written by an eye witness of Jesus.
BA—All you’re doing is using possibiliter fallacies.
Consensus is a poor “proof point”.
“Join the crowd” is another common reasoning fallacy that you often use.
For example, the consensus of the “experts” was that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” at the time of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
BA: Gospel writer John says he himself was an eyewitness to many things he recorded. “The one who saw this is an eyewitness” (John 19:35 GWT). “This disciple was an eyewitness of these things and wrote them down” (John 21:24 GWT). The Muratorian Fragment of about 160-170 CE confirms these two claims by Luke and John.
GW: It is highly likely that this Gospel writer is lying. His book is full of improbabilities, falsehoods, uncorroborated claims, and moral atrocities. Because John was written last, anywhere from 90 to 110 CE, it is the Gospel least likely to have been written by an eyewitness of Jesus. Once again, the consensus of scholars is that it was not written by an eye witness of Jesus.
BA—All you’re doing is using possibiliter fallacies.
GW: Since nobody KNOWS the answers to these questions, all of our opinions are based on probabilities. But my opinions are more likely to be true than yours since mine are based on more and better evidence and logic.
BA: Consensus is a poor “proof point”.
GW: The consensus of experts is the second best basis for correctness. Evidence and logic are the best.
BA: “Join the crowd” is another common reasoning fallacy that you often use.
GW: No, I never do that. But I sometimes agree with the consensus of experts, and you should do more of that. This is a good strategy when we don’t have the time or resources to dig deeply into an issue.
BA: For example, the consensus of the “experts” was that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” at the time of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
GW: No, that was a majority of the politicians in power who had that opinion, specifically a majority of the G.W. Bush cabinet, unfortunately including Colin Powell. The actual evidence was pretty weak.
GW: The Gospel of John is so far different from and inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels that we can be confident that John is lying much of the time. For example, the other three Gospel writers say nothing about these things which John mentions: Jesus existed before the beginning of the world, there was a “beloved disciple,” with a spear a Roman soldier pierced the body of Jesus on the cross. John was pushing a theological agenda.
GW: The Gospel of John is so far different from and inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels that we can be confident that John is lying much of the time.
BA–92% of John’s gospel is unique compared to the Synoptics. It is obvious John had the other 3 gospels before him when he wrote, and simply filled in many gaps, which is a good thing.
The unique content of John’s gospel doesn’t brand it as false. Each of the 4 gospels has its own unique facts, which doesn’t brand any of them as false.
There are no contradictions between the synoptics and the 4th gospel.
GW—For example, the other three Gospel writers say nothing about these things which John mentions: Jesus existed before the beginning of the world
BA—Since Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 LSB), and Jesus, as wisdom personified said, “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (Proverbs 8:22 NJB), naturally, Jesus was already in existence before “the beginning” when “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).
GW— there was a “beloved disciple,” with a spear a Roman soldier pierced the body of Jesus on the cross.
BA—The omission of these facts in the synoptics doesn’t brand them or John as untrue. Different witnesses fill in details others omit. If they were all identical, it would be natural to suspect collusion. The gospels bear all the hallmarks of truth.
GW—John was pushing a theological agenda.
BA—No, he wasn’t. His stated purpose was to prove that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”.
GW: The Gospel of John is so far different from and inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels that we can be confident that John is lying much of the time.
BA–92% of John’s gospel is unique compared to the Synoptics. It is obvious John had the other 3 gospels before him when he wrote, and simply filled in many gaps, which is a good thing.
GW: No, it is not obvious that John had the other 3 Gospels before him. You don’t know that. But if he filled in gaps, then it appears that he mostly filled them with fabrications.
BA: The unique content of John’s gospel doesn’t brand it as false.
GW: If John mentions a major detail, such as the three I mentioned, and none of the other three Gospels say anything about that detail, then this increases the probability that John is fabricating the detail. Also, he has more incentive to fabricate since 1) There are less eyewitnesses available to him to potentially use. And 2) He is pushing a strong theological position, focusing on the divinity of Jesus, even saying that Jesus existed before the beginning of the world with God.
BA: Each of the 4 gospels has its own unique facts, which doesn’t brand any of them as false.
GW: That’s an overly simplistic and naive view. A described detail is not necessarily a fact, and you should not automatically assume it is. A major detail not corroborated by anybody else has a low probability of being true and a high probability of being fabricated or invented.
BA: There are no contradictions between the synoptics and the 4th gospel.
GW: I disagree. I think these are contradictions:
1. According to John, Jesus carried his own cross to the crucifixion site, but Mark, Matthew, and Luke said that Simon, the Cyrennian, was conscripted to carry Jesus’ cross for him.
2. Mark said that Jesus’ crucifixion began in the third hour, but John said that it didn’t begin until after the sixth hour.
3. Mark, Matthew, and Luke said that Jesus’ women supporters stood from afar and watched the crucifixion, but John said that they stood at the foot of the cross.
4. According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus’ last words on the cross were “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” According to Luke they were “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” And according to John, they were “It is finished.”
5. According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene handled the feet of Jesus on Sunday morning, but according to John, Jesus forbade Mary to touch him.
GW—For example, the other three Gospel writers say nothing about these things which John mentions: Jesus existed before the beginning of the world
BA—Since Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 LSB), and Jesus, as wisdom personified said, “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (Proverbs 8:22 NJB), naturally, Jesus was already in existence before “the beginning” when “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).
GW: Here you mentioned three Bible books which are not even Gospels. Proverbs and Genesis aren’t even in the New Testament and don’t mention Jesus. Google AI says this about Colossians: “According to Bart Ehrman, the book of Colossians claims to be written by Paul the Apostle, but he argues that it is not genuinely Pauline; meaning he believes Paul did not actually write it. Ehrman, along with many other critical scholars, suggests that the letter was written by someone else, possibly a later follower of Paul, using Paul’s name.” I going to agree with Ehrman on this. Therefore, none of what you said above is relevant.
GW— there was a “beloved disciple,” with a spear a Roman soldier pierced the body of Jesus on the cross.
BA—The omission of these facts in the synoptics doesn’t brand them or John as untrue. Different witnesses fill in details others omit. If they were all identical, it would be natural to suspect collusion. The gospels bear all the hallmarks of truth.
GW: False. I already refuted this idea. If there were a “beloved disciple” or a spear thrust, then one, two, or three of the OTHER Gospels would surely have mentioned it, but none does. Therefore, John is probably lying. Never trust John.
GW—John was pushing a theological agenda.
BA—No, he wasn’t. His stated purpose was to prove that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”.
GW: That is a particular theological agenda and you failed to mention the idea that Jesus existed before the creation of the universe, according to John, but not according to the other three Gospel authors. Never trust John.
GW: But all four Gospels are false anyway. They all assume, without sufficient evidence or proof, that God exists. Furthermore, we now know and have proven that God does not exist. Also, we know that if God did exist, he would not use offspring, messengers, or intermediaries. He would do his own work. After all, he would be ALL-POWERFUL and PERFECTLY MORAL. And the idea that God would devise a system of atonement through Jesus Christ is one of the most ridiculous ideas in the history of ideas. That would violate objective morality.
GW: The Gospel of John is so far different from and inconsistent with the Synoptic Gospels that we can be confident that John is lying much of the time.
BA–92% of John’s gospel is unique compared to the Synoptics. It is obvious John had the other 3 gospels before him when he wrote, and simply filled in many gaps, which is a good thing.
GW: No, it is not obvious that John had the other 3 Gospels before him. You don’t know that. But if he filled in gaps, then it appears that he mostly filled them with fabrications.
BA: The unique content of John’s gospel doesn’t brand it as false.
GW: If John mentions a major detail, such as the three I mentioned, and none of the other three Gospels say anything about that detail, then this increases the probability that John is fabricating the detail. Also, he has more incentive to fabricate since 1) There are less eyewitnesses available to him to potentially use. And 2) He is pushing a strong theological position, focusing on the divinity of Jesus, even saying that Jesus existed before the beginning of the world with God.
There are several good reasons to accept the fact that John had the other 3 gospels before him when he wrote, and simply filled in many gaps, given the historical and textual evidence:
The Church Fathers Say John’s Gospel Came Last
The first century church leader, Clement of Rome, testified that John’s Gospel was written after the other gospels (according to Eusebius’ History of the Church, Book 4, Chapter 14.7), and Irenaeus, the ancient Bishop of Lugdunum, also affirmed this to be the case (see Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1). Later Church Fathers (like Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome) repeated this claim.
John Wrote As Though His Reader’s Already Knew the Apostles
In the “Synoptic Gospels,” (the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke re-counting events from a similar point of view), the disciples are named and described as they are first introduced in the narrative. John, on the other hand, seldom takes the time to provide any detail about each follower of Jesus as he introduces them in his account. In John 6:67, for example, John writes about “the twelve” as a special subset of the larger group of disciples, but he does so without describing who precisely is part of this group or why they are unique related to the other followers. John writes as though this information is already available to his readers (in the gospels that preceded his).
John Wrote As Though His Reader’s Already Knew About John the Baptist
In a similar way, John wrote to his audience as though they already knew a great deal about John the Baptist. For example, the apostle never refers to Jesus’ cousin as John “the Baptist”. Instead the apostle simply calls him “John” as if his readers would already know about Jesus’ cousin. In addition, the details surrounding John the Baptist’s death are never described. Instead, at one point in the narrative, the Apostle John simply writes that John the Baptist had “not yet been thrown in prison” (John 3:24) as though his readers were already familiar with the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist as recorded in the other gospels.
The Other Gospels Authors Don’t Seem to Know About John’s Gospel
While the Synoptic Gospels contain parallel pieces of information (as if they were aware of each other’s accounts), none of these texts contain information that appears to have come from the Gospel of John. While it appears that Mark, Matthew and Luke consulted with one another, nothing in their accounts reveal any knowledge of John’s text. This makes sense if John’s Gospel was written after the other three.
GW: If John mentions a major detail, such as the three I mentioned, and none of the other three Gospels say anything about that detail, then this increases the probability that John is fabricating the detail. Also, he has more incentive to fabricate since 1) There are less eyewitnesses available to him to potentially use. And 2) He is pushing a strong theological position, focusing on the divinity of Jesus, even saying that Jesus existed before the beginning of the world with God.
BA: There are several good reasons to accept the fact that John had the other 3 gospels before him when he wrote, and simply filled in many gaps, given the historical and textual evidence:
GW: He may or may not have had the other three Gospels before him. There is not enough good evidence to know either way. But yes, he filled in gaps in the story mostly with his lies, probably.
BA: The Church Fathers Say John’s Gospel Came Last
GW: It is the consensus of modern scholars that The Gospel According to John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, regardless of what the church fathers said.
BA: The first century church leader, Clement of Rome, testified that John’s Gospel was written after the other gospels (according to Eusebius’ History of the Church, Book 4, Chapter 14.7), and Irenaeus, the ancient Bishop of Lugdunum, also affirmed this to be the case (see Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1). Later Church Fathers (like Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome) repeated this claim.
GW: These citations are irrelevant. See above for the modern view.
BA: John Wrote As Though His Reader’s Already Knew the Apostles
GW: You don’t know this. We only know that John’s story is similar to the stories of the other Gospel writers, but also different. John (we are only assuming this to be his name) may have read the other three or not. I don’t think it is that important whether he read the other three. What is important is that much of his story is likely to be false. He was telling lies. He was fabricating. He was making up things he either did not know to be true or that he knew to be false.
BA: In the “Synoptic Gospels,” (the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke re-counting events from a similar point of view), the disciples are named and described as they are first introduced in the narrative.
GW: The story tellers (Gospel authors) talk about disciples, but their lists of disciples are not identical. However, none of the story tellers identify themselves within their own texts. We don’t know who they are. They are anonymous, as Ehrman explained.
BA: John, on the other hand, seldom takes the time to provide any detail about each follower of Jesus as he introduces them in his account.
GW: So what? This may be because he did not use any eyewitness informants, or if he did, they were different from any used by the other story tellers, or his informants were incompetent or heavily biased. Or he just made up crap.
BA: In John 6:67, for example, John writes about “the twelve” as a special subset of the larger group of disciples, but he does so without describing who precisely is part of this group or why they are unique related to the other followers.
GW: All the Gospel authors are sloppy and ambiguous in their definition of these terms: disciples, apostles, followers, the twelve.
BA: John writes as though this information is already available to his readers (in the gospels that preceded his).
GW: That is just your belief, but you have insufficient evidence to validate it. See above for alternative explanations.
BA: John Wrote As Though His Reader’s Already Knew About John the Baptist
In a similar way, John wrote to his audience as though they already knew a great deal about John the Baptist. For example, the apostle never refers to Jesus’ cousin as John “the Baptist”. Instead the apostle simply calls him “John” as if his readers would already know about Jesus’ cousin. In addition, the details surrounding John the Baptist’s death are never described. Instead, at one point in the narrative, the Apostle John simply writes that John the Baptist had “not yet been thrown in prison” (John 3:24) as though his readers were already familiar with the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist as recorded in the other gospels.
GW: Maybe, maybe not. See above for other alternative explanations. In the end, it doesn’t really matter if John read the other three Gospels. What matters is that he is probably lying with much of his “additional material.”
BA: The Other Gospels Authors Don’t Seem to Know About John’s Gospel
While the Synoptic Gospels contain parallel pieces of information (as if they were aware of each other’s accounts), none of these texts contain information that appears to have come from the Gospel of John. While it appears that Mark, Matthew and Luke consulted with one another, nothing in their accounts reveal any knowledge of John’s text. This makes sense if John’s Gospel was written after the other three.
GW: Again, it is the consensus of modern scholars that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke were written second, and John was written last. They also say that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. That’s it! Neither you nor anyone else knows that “Mark, Matthew and Luke consulted with one another.” We do not know they met with each other and had discussions about what happened.
BA: There are no contradictions between the synoptics and the 4th gospel.
GW: I disagree. I think these are contradictions:
1. According to John, Jesus carried his own cross to the crucifixion site, but Mark, Matthew, and Luke said that Simon, the Cyrennian, was conscripted to carry Jesus’ cross for him.
2. Mark said that Jesus’ crucifixion began in the third hour, but John said that it didn’t begin until after the sixth hour.
BA—These divergent details, rather than being contradictions, actually are complimentary, and give powerful evidence the gospel writers are telling the truth, rather than copying from a single fictional account, or writing new fiction, in which the details are harmonized, or smoothed out.
“Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus away. Carrying the cross by himself, he went to the Place of the Skull (in Hebrew Golgotha)”—John 19:16,17 NLT
This phrase highlights the Roman practice of requiring condemned criminals to carry the crossbeam of their own cross to the site of execution, symbolizing the weight of their punishment. “The vertical beam (Latin staticulum) of the cross was generally kept at the execution site, and the victim was forced to carry only the heavy crossbeam (Latin patibulum)” (NLT study Bible note on John 19:17), which weighed 30 to 40 pounds or more. John omits the help which Simon the Cyrenian was soon forced to render, as also what seems to be implied by Mark 15:22, that at the of the last of the journey, they might have even had to carry Jesus himself.
“As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross”—Matthew 27:32 NIV
How can these seemingly contradictory accounts be reconciled?
Jesus started out carrying the beam. He subsequently fell under its weight, at least about 30 to 40 pounds or more. Jesus had been severely beaten by flogging. Simon was pressed into service to carry it the rest of the way. Notice that Matthew reports, it was, “as they were going out”, that is, of “the Praetorium” (Matthew 27:27 NIV), that “they met . . . Simon”. They didn’t bring Simon into the Praetorium to carry the cross. They found him along the way, so Simon couldn’t have carried the cross the entire route. So someone else had to have carried it out of the Praetorium. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not tell us who that was, but John does. Thus, the gospels do not contradict about who carried Jesus’ cross.
Why, then, does John omit reporting anything about Simon carrying it? He wrote years after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and didn’t see the need to repeat all the details they had already recorded. In fact, 92% of John’s gospel is unique, so he filled in many of the historical gaps.
“They pressed into service a passerby-by Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross”—Mark 15:21 NAB
“Cyrene was an important city in what is today Libya. There was a large Jewish settlement in Cyrene going back several hundred years” (The Reformation Study Bible). “Simon had made a Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem all the way from Crete in North Africa” (The Reformation Study Bible not on Mark 15:21).
A SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT DETAIL
Why does Mark mention that Simon was “the father of Alexander and Rufus? They “are mentioned here probably because they became well known to the early church” (NLT Study Bible note on Mark 15:21).
Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) and Jerome (4th century) both report that Mark’s gospel is Peter’s memoirs about Jesus. Peter says he wrote his first letter from “Babylon”, likely a cryptic name for Rome, accompanied by his close associate Mark (1 Peter 5:13).
“Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too” (Romans 16:13 NIV). Among those being greeted in Paul’s letter to the Romans, Rufus is cited for special mention, and so is his mother. Mark is thought to written his gospel from Rome, and to a primarily Roman audience.
If this Rufus in Romans is the same Rufus as in Mark 15:21, then Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, would have been very familiar with his father’s memories of carrying Jesus’ cross, and known to Mark’s Roman readers. The coincidence is quite striking, and seems to account for a piece of gratuitous and needless information exclusively supplied by Mark.
Additionally, “a first-century AD ossuary (‘bone box’) . . . bearing the inscription ‘Alexander (son) of Simon was recently found in Jerusalem” (NIV Study Bible note on Mark 15:21). Alexander, son of Simon, would have been known Mark’s readers in the Jerusalem area.
Seemingly insignificant details such as these are what investigators look for in searching out whether a witness is truthful and credible.The gospels accurately, factually, and truthfully report events, and reveal that they do not contradict about who carried Jesus’ cross.
BA: There are no contradictions between the synoptics and the 4th gospel.
GW: I disagree. I think these are contradictions:
1. According to John, Jesus carried his own cross to the crucifixion site, but Mark, Matthew, and Luke said that Simon, the Cyrennian, was conscripted to carry Jesus’ cross for him.
2. Mark said that Jesus’ crucifixion began in the third hour, but John said that it didn’t begin until after the sixth hour.
GW: Where are the others I listed?
BA—These divergent details, rather than being contradictions, actually are complimentary, and give powerful evidence the gospel writers are telling the truth, rather than copying from a single fictional account, or writing new fiction, in which the details are harmonized, or smoothed out.
GW: I challenge you to prove that they are not contradictions.
BA: “Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus away. Carrying the cross by himself, he went to the Place of the Skull (in Hebrew Golgotha)”—John 19:16,17 NLT
GW: Focus your attention on “carrying the cross by himself.” That is clear.
BA: This phrase highlights the Roman practice of requiring condemned criminals to carry the crossbeam of their own cross to the site of execution, symbolizing the weight of their punishment. “The vertical beam (Latin staticulum) of the cross was generally kept at the execution site, and the victim was forced to carry only the heavy crossbeam (Latin patibulum)” (NLT study Bible note on John 19:17), which weighed 30 to 40 pounds or more.
GW: I agree with this part.
BA: John omits the help which Simon the Cyrenian was soon forced to render, as also what seems to be implied by Mark 15:22, that at the of the last of the journey, they might have even had to carry Jesus himself.
GW: Nope! You do not know if John knew anything at all about Simon, and so you do not know if John omitted a detail. You are speculating. John says Jesus carried his own cross, and this is contradicted by statements in the other Gospels.
BA: “As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross”—Matthew 27:32 NIV
GW: Yes, this contradicts the statement of John. Focus your attention on “as they were going out.” This points to the beginning of the trek. If Jesus had carried his own cross beam, it would be mentioned that he did so “as they were going out.” Matthew never says that Jesus carried the cross beam at any time in the trek. So, here is your contradiction: Jesus carried the cross beam vs Simon carried the cross beam, and Jesus and Simon are different persons. There you go.
BA: How can these seemingly contradictory accounts be reconciled?
GW: They can’t.
BA: Jesus started out carrying the beam. He subsequently fell under its weight, at least about 30 to 40 pounds or more.
GW: Where is this stated? Where is it corroborated? You are making this up. Matthew says that Simon carried the cross, and does not say that anyone else carried it. John says Jesus carried the cross himself. Duh, this is a contradiction.
BA: Jesus had been severely beaten by flogging.
GW: We agree on this detail.
BA: Simon was pressed into service to carry it the rest of the way.
GW: Where is it stated “the rest of the way”? Where is it corroborated? You are making this up. Matthew says “as they were going out” Simon carried the cross.
BA: Notice that Matthew reports, it was, “as they were going out”, that is, of “the Praetorium” (Matthew 27:27 NIV), that “they met . . . Simon”.
GW: Are you referring to two different verses out of context? Yes, you probably are.
BA: They didn’t bring Simon into the Praetorium to carry the cross. They found him along the way, so Simon couldn’t have carried the cross the entire route. So someone else had to have carried it out of the Praetorium. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not tell us who that was, but John does. Thus, the gospels do not contradict about who carried Jesus’ cross.
GW: Even in your story, someone besides Simon or Jesus could have carried the cross before exiting the Praetorium. John leads us to believe that only Jesus carried the cross, but the other Gospel writers do not. This is a contradiction. Either John had different informants or no informants at all regarding this detail.
BA: Why, then, does John omit reporting anything about Simon carrying it?
GW: You do not know that John omitted a detail that really happened. See above. You are speculating.
BA: He wrote years after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and didn’t see the need to repeat all the details they had already recorded. In fact, 92% of John’s gospel is unique, so he filled in many of the historical gaps.
GW: You do not know that John “didn’t see the need.” See above. You are speculating. And your speculation does not resolve the contradiction. If John knew all the details, perhaps he would have written “Jesus carried the cross beam first, as it was typical of the victim to do. On the way to Golgatha, Jesus stumbled and did not get up. The Roman centurion became impatient and recruited or forced a man, later known to be Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross beam the rest of the way, as Jesus struggled to walk.” John was a terrible journalist and very probably lied about many details. (I mentioned three probably lies of John.)
BA: “They pressed into service a passerby-by Simon, a Cyrenian, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross”—Mark 15:21 NAB
GW: Yes, Mark and John are contradictory on this detail of who carried the cross. If somebody read John alone, then they would conclude that Jesus carried his own cross beam all the way.
BA: “Cyrene was an important city in what is today Libya. There was a large Jewish settlement in Cyrene going back several hundred years” (The Reformation Study Bible). “Simon had made a Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem all the way from Crete in North Africa” (The Reformation Study Bible not on Mark 15:21).
GW: John says nothing about Simon of Cyrene. He leads readers to believe that only Jesus carried the cross beam, and this account is contradicted by the other Gospels.
BA: Why does Mark mention that Simon was “the father of Alexander and Rufus? They “are mentioned here probably because they became well known to the early church” (NLT Study Bible note on Mark 15:21).
GW: Probably irrelevant.
BA: Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century) and Jerome (4th century) both report that Mark’s gospel is Peter’s memoirs about Jesus. Peter says he wrote his first letter from “Babylon”, likely a cryptic name for Rome, accompanied by his close associate Mark (1 Peter 5:13).
GW: We should not trust Clement and Jerome’s reports here. Where is their evidence? Where does the author of Mark report in writing that he was producing Peter’s memoirs? Where do Clement and Jerome report in writing their interview with the author of Mark?
BA: “Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too” (Romans 16:13 NIV). Among those being greeted in Paul’s letter to the Romans, Rufus is cited for special mention, and so is his mother. Mark is thought to written his gospel from Rome, and to a primarily Roman audience.
GW: Irrelevant. This is not the type of evidence needed to confirm your claim.
BA: If this Rufus in Romans is the same Rufus as in Mark 15:21, then Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, would have been very familiar with his father’s memories of carrying Jesus’ cross, and known to Mark’s Roman readers. The coincidence is quite striking, and seems to account for a piece of gratuitous and needless information exclusively supplied by Mark.
GW: Insufficient evidence to confirm your claim. Very shaky.
BA: Additionally, “a first-century AD ossuary (‘bone box’) . . . bearing the inscription ‘Alexander (son) of Simon was recently found in Jerusalem” (NIV Study Bible note on Mark 15:21). Alexander, son of Simon, would have been known Mark’s readers in the Jerusalem area.
GW: So what? None of this resolves the contradiction.
BA: Seemingly insignificant details such as these are what investigators look for in searching out whether a witness is truthful and credible.
GW: John almost certainly is not truthful or credible in many of the details he describes. I gave you three examples.
BA: The gospels accurately, factually, and truthfully report events, and reveal that they do not contradict about who carried Jesus’ cross.
GW: That is what you WISH to be true. You start with that conclusion (to which you were idoctrinated) and then make up ad hoc explanations to support it.
GW: The Bible has a plethora of falsehoods, probable falsehoods, unproven claims, claims with little or no supporting evidence, contradictions, inconsistencies, and moral atrocities. And thus, we KNOW that the Bible is not and cannot be “the Word of God.” In fact, we KNOW and have PROVEN that God does not even exist! Wake up and smell the roses.
GW—2. Mark said that Jesus’ crucifixion began in the third hour, but John said that it didn’t begin until after the sixth hour.
BA—The issue here is:
What was the time of day when Jesus handed over to be crucified and put on cross:
· Mark 15:25 – “It was the third hour when they crucified him” (ESV). “That is, 9 A. M.” – ESV footnote on Mark 15:25
· John 19:14-16 – “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, ‘Behold your king!’ They cried out, ‘Away with him, away with him, crucify him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar.’ So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus” (ESV). “That is, about noon” – ESV footnote on John 19:14
We notice that John reports that, “it was about the sixth hour”, that is, he’s not trying to identify the exact time with the utmost precision. The events reported on actually occurred, but their exact timing is not the most important factor.
The “third hour” and “the sixth hour” are approximations, or rough estimates of time. Unlike today, ancient people did not keep precise time. Events in the later morning were typically described as occurring around either “the third hour” (Matthew 20:3; Acts 2:15), or “the sixth hour” (Mark 15:33; Matthew 20:5; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44; John 4:6; John 19:14; Acts 10:9). By combining the two accounts at Mark 15:25 and John 19:14-16, it appears that Jesus was handed over to be crucified about mid-morning, and was nailed to the cross, or execution stake, by about midday, or noontime.
Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in stating that there was a remarkable “darkness” over the whole land from the “sixth” to the “ninth” hour, (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). Notice that Luke reports, that the time was approximate. “It was about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon” (Luke 23:44 NIV). This fact would seem to indicate that the actual crucifixion continued only during that time – that Jesus was suspended at about the sixth hour, though the preparations for crucifying him had already been going on for a couple of hours. The fact that Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44 mention this darkness beginning at the “sixth”, and not the “third” hour, is one of the circumstances undesignedly occurring that seems to indicate that the crucifixion then had “actually” taken place, though the various arrangements for it had been going on from the “third” hour (Mark 15:25)..
“This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account. He speaks the truth”—John 19:35 NLT
One thing is conclusively proved by this – that the gospel writers did not “conspire together” to embellish anything concerning Jesus. They are honest, independent witnesses, and the circumstances discussed here are of great value in testimony in courts of justice – “circumstantial variation with essential agreement.”
GW—5. According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene handled the feet of Jesus on Sunday morning, but according to John, Jesus forbade Mary to touch him.
BA—There is no contradiction.
As first they clasped his feet.
Matthew 28:9–“They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage” (NAB).
Then Jesus said it was time to stop that.
“Jesus said to her, ‘Stop holding on to me . . . ‘” (John 20:17).
GW—3. Mark, Matthew, and Luke said that Jesus’ women supporters stood from afar and watched the crucifixion, but John said that they stood at the foot of the cross.
BA—When we read the gospel reports of these events, it appears that John 19:25,26 reports the women being near Jesus DURING his execution, whereas the Synoptics report them standing at a distance AFTER his execution.
GW—4. According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus’ last words on the cross were “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” According to Luke they were “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” And according to John, they were “It is finished.”
BA–Jesus said all these things in his final moments just prior to his death. Each gospel reports events the others omit. No gospel reports every detail. John admitted he was selective in his reporting (John 20:31;21:25). The four gospels combine to report the main truth that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3).
BA—Since Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 LSB), and Jesus, as wisdom personified said, “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (Proverbs 8:22 NJB), naturally, Jesus was already in existence before “the beginning” when “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).
GW: Here you mentioned three Bible books which are not even Gospels. Proverbs and Genesis aren’t even in the New Testament and don’t mention Jesus. Google AI says this about Colossians: “According to Bart Ehrman, the book of Colossians claims to be written by Paul the Apostle, but he argues that it is not genuinely Pauline; meaning he believes Paul did not actually write it. Ehrman, along with many other critical scholars, suggests that the letter was written by someone else, possibly a later follower of Paul, using Paul’s name.” I going to agree with Ehrman on this. Therefore, none of what you said above is relevant.
BA—Critics, such as Ehrman and others, have only their own speculative ideas from which they postulate. Compelling grounds for questioning the letter’s authenticity are lacking.
Colossians contains autobiographical statements from Paul, and even opens with a salutation from Paul. The language and style are well within the range Paul displays elsewhere. His slightly different vocabulary in the letter is due to his use of the language of his opens, in order to refute their false teachings. Critics of his writer ship have too narrow a perspective on the versatility of an ancient writer in expressing himself differently on different occasions. Their criticisms typically have to do with the style and the theology of the letter. Paul was very well educated (Acts 22:3), and an extensive traveler (2 Corinthians 11:23-29), and could discourse with “all people”, including Greek “philosophers” (1 Corinthians 9:19 Acts 17:18 NASB). The letter’s setting & audience demanded a different theological response than some of his others which focused more on the Jewish background of Christianity.
BA—Since Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 LSB),…
GW: False. Nobody knows or has proven that the universe had a beginning, was created, or had a creator. Furthermore, the first life on Earth began about 3.5 billion years ago, long before Jesus. These are the facts. The author of Colossians was not in a position to know these facts.
BA: and Jesus, as wisdom personified said, “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (Proverbs 8:22 NJB), naturally, Jesus was already in existence before “the beginning” when “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).
GW: False on all counts. Jesus had some wisdom, but lacked much. Yahweh (God) does not exist; we now know and have proven this. The only thing present at the moment of the Big Bang was the primordial particle. Nobody should trust Genesis when it comes to science. Also, Proverbs does not cite Jesus.
GW: Here you mentioned three Bible books which are not even Gospels. Proverbs and Genesis aren’t even in the New Testament and don’t mention Jesus. Google AI says this about Colossians: “According to Bart Ehrman, the book of Colossians claims to be written by Paul the Apostle, but he argues that it is not genuinely Pauline; meaning he believes Paul did not actually write it. Ehrman, along with many other critical scholars, suggests that the letter was written by someone else, possibly a later follower of Paul, using Paul’s name.” I [am] going to agree with Ehrman on this. Therefore, none of what you said above is relevant.
BA—Critics, such as Ehrman and others, have only their own speculative ideas from which they postulate. Compelling grounds for questioning the letter’s authenticity are lacking.
GW: No, these scholars back up their conclusions with evidence.
BA: Colossians contains autobiographical statements from Paul, and even opens with a salutation from Paul.
GW: Yes, it is probably a fake letter, as stipulated by Ehrman. I will not accept it as genuine. Once again, you are operating on wishful thinking, not reason.
BA: The language and style are well within the range Paul displays elsewhere. His slightly different vocabulary in the letter is due to his use of the language of his opens, in order to refute their false teachings.
GW: Still probably a fake. I’ll go with Erhman and others on this.
BA: Critics of his writer ship have too narrow a perspective on the versatility of an ancient writer in expressing himself differently on different occasions. Their criticisms typically have to do with the style and the theology of the letter.
GW: No, it is YOU who has a too narrow perspective on this. You are too gullible in accepting the claims of ancient authors.
BA: Paul was very well educated (Acts 22:3), and an extensive traveler (2 Corinthians 11:23-29), and could discourse with “all people”, including Greek “philosophers” (1 Corinthians 9:19 Acts 17:18 NASB).
GW: I agree with these claims, but still Colossians is most likely a fake, as Ehrman says.
BA: The letter’s setting & audience demanded a different theological response than some of his others which focused more on the Jewish background of Christianity.
GW: The fakers are intelligent too. They could mimic Paul and did.
GW: That is a particular theological agenda and you failed to mention the idea that Jesus existed before the creation of the universe, according to John, but not according to the other three Gospel authors. Never trust John.
BA—-We did mention it. Here it is:
“Since Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15 LSB), and Jesus, as wisdom personified said, “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (Proverbs 8:22 NJB), naturally, Jesus was already in existence before “the beginning” when “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).”
The synoptics omission of Jesus’ prehuman existence is not a contradiction. All four gospel writers were selective in their reporting, just like you are when you write a paper, a book, or a treatise. There is always more that can be said about any subject.
Your objection simply doesn’t hold water.
BA: The synoptics omission of Jesus’ prehuman existence is not a contradiction.
GW: Straw man. I never said it was. You are confused over the two different lists I gave you. One was a list of contradictions, and the other was a list of likely lies told by John.
BA: All four gospel writers were selective in their reporting, just like you are when you write a paper, a book, or a treatise.
GW: True, but irrelevant to the issue here. There should be no contradictions if all the authors are accurately describing what happened or if the authors were inspired by God. Also, a major detail mentioned by one Gospel author is likely a fabrication if it is not presented by at least two of the three other Gospel authors writing about the same events. The spear thrust mentioned by John is a very good example of this. I explained why this is likely a lie in my first book – God Wants You to be an Atheist!
BA: There is always more that can be said about any subject.
GW: Irrelevant.
BA: Your objection simply doesn’t hold water.
GW: False. I have refuted all your objections to my assertions. My main assertion is that God does not exist. You won’t even talk about that subject anymore. You found no errors in my arguments, and I refuted what few objections you had.