Nice post. It perhaps gives me the chance to point out that there are discrepancies and contradictions that are easily dismissed as irrelevant and others that can be explained with a little ingenuity.
The one about Luke saying that Jesus would rise on the same day (Friday) seems to be a blow for the three day timeline, but proposing that ascending to paradise/3rd heaven/Bosom of Abraham was not actually 'rising from the dead' which only happened after Jesus had appeared to everyone get around that. The argument that paradise -is-not-heaven and is not actually rising from the dead because the body was still lying there is clever.
Even the stories like the shekel eating fish can be dismissed as something added to Matthew and 'just because we don't have to believe everything in the Bible, doesn't mean that it isn't true'.
That is why there are 'touchstone cases' as I call them. The Nativities contradict utterly simply on the basis of where Joseph and Mary came from and where they went. There is a sort of argument for a prior census in the time of Herod and while that is actually very unlikely, one can't prove that it did not happen. Though it comes close, since Joseph apparently getting his brown envelope to report to his 'Own city' was something of a routine matter - but Josephus doesn't even hint of it, when a census called by Herod ought to have been a matter of importance to him.
What one can prove is that Joseph's 'Own city' could never have been where King David had been born. Even if Joseph had been born there, Joseph's own city would be where he lived and worked -in Galilee (and the Egypt census document means this too, so nobody drum up the Egypt document as proof of Bethlehem). The only reason for the absurd and pointless trip to Bethlehem dragging Mary along for no reason (the argument that she had to sign on as well is nonsense; one household, one tax for all persons there) is to get Jesus into Bethlehem.
The Resurrection stories are equally 'touchstone' and I won't go into them again, except to point up two matters
The apparent agreement between John and Luke (but not Matthew) is that Jesus walked in and displayed his operation scar is in both gospels. So they are even though that is the only thing they agree on. Luke pretty much denies Thomas being absent or any spear -wound. (1) and John of course doesn't have Jesus eating a bit of fish....
Or does he? In fact yes, but in Galilee (21.9) where the risen Jesus is related to eating a fish dinner. Of course in a totally different setting and story. I might also mention that this also involved a miraculous haul of fish which Luke places at the calling of the disciples. So the explanation is plausible as what I call a 'floating story': a claim going round later, to the effect that Jesus appeared and proved that he was no ringer and no ghost by showing his new incorruptible wounds and eating some fish.
Evidence, I would say, of stories being concocted to counter the claims that someone who looked like Jesus pretended to be him, and also making him solid, not the
spirit Jesus that I say is what the apostles and Paul believed had risen. So Luke and John fitted these stories into their gospels and, while it was obvious where Jesus should appear, where he ate the bit of fish was not so obvious, and neither was where the miracle haul of fish should go. Luke adds it onto the calling of the disciples where it contradicts glaringly with Mark and Matthew who don't have this at all, but John had to invent a story of the disciples going back to Galilee to carry on their fishing job, which totally contradicts Luke and pretty much Matthew, too.
These are just a couple of items in stories that are full of such contradictions and improbabilities, that it really answers that missing ending of Mark question. There never was one.
Another touchstone case in the hotly disputed 'not mentioned' tool. It is pretty much guaranteed that the apologist will say that because something isn't in the other gospels, doesn't mean that it is an invention. But in fact, it does. If you can show that it is impossible that the others could have known of it and NONE of the others mention it, then the case is made. (2) The touchstone here is the transfiguration. It is inconceivable that John knew of this but said only that Jesus went into the hills because the people (the 5,000 he had fed) wanted to take him by force to make him a king. That point made, the haul of fish in Luke is obviously in contradiction with Mark and Matthew and so is his declaration in Nazareth and attempted assassination. No mention in Mark or Matthew even though all three have the 'is this not the carpenters' son?' (3) rejection at Nazareth quote-passage in both - but in different locations.
Another touchstone is the prophecy -fiddling. I love this
because we so often get this '350 prophecies fulfilled!" claim. In Matthew and Acts 1 we get the accounts of the death of Judas, linked with bits of prophecy. To save space I won't post them here but just look up the OT originals and see how horribly they had to be mangled in order to make them into 'prophecy'. This is so much a touchstone tool that I could
predict that James quoting Amos at the council of Jerusalem (Acts) would be mangled to make it a prophecy. And it was.
Thus we apply it to all the other prophecies, the virgin shall bear a son, the two donkeys, the Rachel weeping, the 'look on him who they pierced'. And the practice began with Paul misusing OT quotes to support his arguments in Romans. It has been noticed (like the contradictions) that the prophecies are mistranslated or misunderstood, but I seem to be the only one that takes it a bit further. It is not just that they are wrong even if they happen to fit Jesus, but the Judas mangling shows that the Jesus story was written to fit the supposed "prophecy".
Oh..almost forgot. The 'touchstone' of text amendment. That Luke blatantly rewrites the angel's message at the tomb so that his disciples don't have to go to Galilee lays the case for other alterations, like Matthew having a centurion coming personally to ask Jesus to cure his servant whereas Luke sees a problem in communication so he ha a bunch of jews go along to take his message. The rewrite is clear and we can see why. It is one of those cases where an inventive apologist can imply that the centurion personally approached Jesus through a bunch of Jews that he omits to mention. This is highly dubious in itself and since we have a touchstone example of text fiddling, there is no good reason (faith is a bad one) to suppose anything other than text amendment. Luke again alters the centurion saying 'This was the son of god' since he knows that this christian concept would be unknown to a centurion, so he alters it to the rather weaker 'surely this man was innocent'.
Interestingly, Mark ha some examples of amendment which a poster here (sorry can't recall which genius it was) pointed out 1.20 where Mark adds that there were hired servants. This was a puzzle to me decades ago because I went along with the general view of Authority that Mark was the first synoptic Gospel. So why would Matthew and Luke have left that out? It was later that I sorted another problem - Mark getting confused about where Bethsaida was - and realized that Mark had also to be based on an original and could not be the original itself. Though it is close (4) Eventually with the help of this brilliant poster, I realized that Mark had also added his own amendments - notably the bit about Pilate asking whether Jesus was already dead.
Of course apologists could point to this as proof of eyewitness testimony, but once that has been proved untenable, then text amending to get over problems is the explanation. In these cases Mark sees a problem (just as Luke and Matthew do in places where they amend) and makes his addition to the text.
There are hundreds of these which simply pile up examples of what any reasonable person must see is the 'touchstone' case. There is the evidence of a common synoptic text, the evidence that the most famous parables are Luke's invention, as are John's sermons must be his inventions. The agenda of Jew bashing and praising up the faith of Gentiles. Like I say, when you see it, it is so obviously so that I cannot understand why none of the other authorities seems to have twigged.
You can see why I post in Christianity. I love it here.
(1) which pretty much adds another nail to the coffin of John's spear -thrust in addition to not a word of it the synoptics and, when you think of it, that takes the 'fifth gospel' shroud down the plughole with it.
(2) rather like transitional fossils. If you can prove that one is transitional, that really proves the case for the others.
(3) variously amended, so nobody try to score some kind of point out of one of the others said 'Joseph's son'. All that proves is that they amended the text to suit themselves.
(4) aside from common material with Matthew but not appearing in Luke. This represents 'Q' type material that I call 'M'
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give that one up and look at the the evidence itself. And what is in the gospels is evidence only of what is in the gospels, not of what actually happened. 
