Are the Gospel accounts contradictory and unreliable?

[raywingfield]

Jesus is a very compelling figure of history, So is Socrates. I very much enjoy both of their teachings. But weather either of them is real or not just doesn’t matter. And I also enjoy the teachings of Lord Krishna, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He had some very cool things to say….

[arifnbd]

If these Gospels are so different and contradicted with each others then how can i be sure what exactly Said By Issah Massih or Jesus Crist?

[regelemihai]

I like these exchanges but there's one thing I just can't understand with some conservative scholars like Witherington; why is he accepting such a late dating of the gospel of Mark? 68-70 AD? The book of acts was written before AD 64 by Luke and we know luke wrote AFTER Mark. So again, where is this all coming from. And he's not the only one holding to this view.

[EastofForever]

@regelemihai Witherington isn't "conservative." He's objective and less liberally biased.

Secondly, Luke was written in the 70s most likely.

[regelemihai]

@EastofForever

I dispute that. If Acts was most likely written before AD 64, how could Luke write his Gospel ten years later when we know he wrote the gospel before the book of Acts?

[EastofForever]

@regelemihai Who said Acts was written pre A.D. 64?

[regelemihai]

@EastofForever

Many scholars. Luke makes no reference to Paul's death in 65 or James's or Peters' (64) all of which were essential figures in the book itself. The fact that they're not mentioned tips us off to believe that it has y et to happen when Luke had finished writing Acts placing the date in the early 60s.

[EastofForever]

@regelemihai Many scholars? like who ? and why? yes, i've read unconvincing arguments for the position but I don't find the "necessity" for dating Mark , what? , in the 50s and Luke in the 60s convincing.

[regelemihai]

Like who? Evans, Wright, Blomberg to name a few. You may find the argument unconviencing but they have merit. If they're true then we can place Luke at around AD60, and if Mark came before Luke then logically his dating would fall in the 50s.

[EastofForever]

@regelemihai I didn't say the argument didn't have merit. It definitely does when one looks at the end of Acts. I'm not convinced that the way Acts ends is convincing evidence to necessarily place it in the 60s.

Now, a late 50s date for Mark--a possibility, and I'm not necessarily ruling that out.

Your original post had to do with Witherington's "conservativism." I didn't realize that this was a "conservative/liberal/moderate­" issue.

[regelemihai]

It shouldn't be, but it is. Typically liberal scholars disagree with what I expressed. Ity's not that big of an issue really...