Part 3 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

I took the liberty of vetting this paragraph. (it is unfortunate that you did not do so) It is an utter fabrication.

1) if indeed there was a fragment from Matt dating to the year 40 ...this would be a huge revelation turning all of NT scholarship on its head.

Clearly neither you nor your source considered this as if you had you would have checked a little deeper into the facts.

2) The papyrus fragments referred to are the Magdalen Papyrus (P64) The consensus date for P64 is around 200 AD.

3) Carston Thiede did propose and earlier date but not 40AD. His paper suggests a date of from 70-100AD.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm

The article then goes on to detail how Thiede came to his conclusion and why Biblical Scholarship disagrees with him.

3) Jose Callahan is not "new" ( and it has not even been shown that P65 is from Mark)

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Ancient_Revelations/papyrology/images/dss/7Q5/7Q5_Forster.pdf

Why would you not have gone with what the Catholic Encyclopedia told you ? Obviously it is a pro-Christian biased source and obviously if there were solid evidence for an earlier dating of the Matt and Mark.... don't you think they would have mentioned it ?

 

I have post a paragraph only I hope you will and can take the time out to read the entire Gospel and Gospels history, authorship;
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels

Thus, according to this opinion, was gradually formed what may be called the "Oral Gospel", that is, a relation of Christ's words and deeds, parallel, in respect to matter and form, to our canonical Gospels. In view of this, critics have endeavored to find out the general contents of this Oral Gospel by means of the second part of the Book of the Acts, by a study of the doctrinal contents of the Epistles of St. Paul, and more particularly by a close comparison of the Synoptic narratives; and it may be freely said that their efforts in that direction have met with considerable success. As regards, however, the precise relation which should be admitted between our canonical Gospels and the Oral Gospel, there is still, among contemporary scholars, a variety of views which will be set forth and examined in the special articles on the individual Gospels. Suffice it to say, here, that the theory which regards the canonical Gospels as embodying, in substance, the oral teaching of the Apostles concerning the words and deeds of Christ is in distinct harmony with the Catholic position, which affirms both the historical value of these sacred records and the authoritative character of the Apostolic traditions, whether these are actually consigned to writing or simply enforced by the ever living voice of the Church.

This website is a clear proof that the Catholic church has kept and preserve all historical-biblical manuscript, church fathers use these discoveries to study them extensively in order to understand what id truly biblical and not.

It is important because the church is interested in the truth while critics or anti Catholics and anti Christian are only interested to destroy and bring down Christianity.

It only show you have not done a full reading rather cherry picking phrases from study materials coming from the Catholic church.

This was one reason why early church have policy against reading the Bible by the general population it was because too many lack the proper understanding to understand the Bible. If you read all four Gospels and check out what biblical scholars were able to decimate it the simple answer is Mark, Matthew, John and Luke relate or wrote what they have learn at different time all four were not there at the same time but if you piece together all the four you will notice the chronological order did match up.

Check this site maybe it will provide with a better understanding;
http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

Too much materials to fit into this thread so I hope you will read through it here is the conclusion however:

The most obvious conclusion, providing one does not come to the Bible with preconceptions (such as the non-existence of miracles, or that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross), is that the accounts are telling the truth and describe events as the eye-witnesses actually saw them. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, not just in some mystical his ideas and teaching will live on forever sense, but in some sense in which the actual person of Jesus of Nazareth still lives on and interacts with people. It is this that transformed his disciples from a bunch of defeated nobodies into a fearless body of men and women who set out to transform the world, it is this that is the testimony of millions upon millions upon millions of Christians around the world today; Jesus Christ is still transforming lives today, and will continue to do so until he comes back again!

No they have all the bases cover, you missed many that is why you are stuck.

For 450 years, Christians tried to negotiate with the Muslims it was all in vain until finally only the Crusades is the solution holy warriors of Christ vs. the jihadist warriors of Islam is the only solution.
Muslim have destroyed all Jewish towns in Mecca and Medina and the Christians who were discriminating against Jews were doing it from their own personal agenda that is why TODAY Jewish population or towns is none existence in Saudi Arabia.
The superior Ottomans were stop by Christian warriors with their final defeat at the Battle of Lepanto and Siege of Vienna the defeat of the Ottoman ended all threat and allowed Europe to prosper while all Muslim control regions regress and move away from any form of modernization.

 

That is very interesting, just like all discovered manuscript more research is still require. IMO, the Dead Sea Scrolls is still being analyse by the Catholic church, Judaism and Islamic scholars one of the main core of the Dead Sea scroll was that it was written by a "break away" Judasim group that the establish Judaism does not recognize at the same time this discovery is clear proof of early church and during the time of Jesus Christ.

I will get back on this time to go to church.

 

Arguing or debating with a flat earther is fruitless. Does provide entertainment and laughter. And I've seen the occasional /facepalm. LOL.

 

#1. No city of Nazareth existed in the 1st Century.
#2. No eyewitness accounts exist.
#3. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
#4. Gospels are written in 2nd and 3rd person....Not (I) saw this or that.
#5. No Gospel writer saw any miracle this jesus performed.
#6. Luke never saw a jesus Luke 1:1-4
#7. No trustworthy evidence any of the Gospels were in existence in their present form earlier than 100 years after the time of this jesus.
#8. They are foreign gospels.
#9. Written by unknown men.
#10. Wrote in a foreign tongue.
#11. Written numerous generations after the death of those who were suppose to know the facts.

The Encloypedia Biblica states that the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

Encylopedia Biblica states:
"It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend as made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians."

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the OT. Any claims of NT stuff is written in a different language .. hence, by different people that may have wandered into the same cave years later.

All the early NT claims have been vetted by the Catholic Church and they have been found wanting. This is why your own link from the Catholic Encyclopedia refutes what you have been claiming.

1) The Catholic Church states unequivocally that the Synoptic Gospels were not written by the folks bearing the Gospels name
2) The Earliest NT writing ever found dates around 125 AD and this is a fragment (P52) containing a few sentences from John 18.
Next earliest after this is a fragment from Matt dating around 150 AD containing a few sentences from Matt 21

Mark is thought by most scholars to have been written first and used as a source document for Luke and Matt. Some theories propose another source document called Q.

John, Johannine tradition is a fusion between Pauline and some a newer tradition. Sometimes it is described as a Helenized (Greek influenced) version of Pauline mysticism.

As for the works of Paul. I do not put much stock in these. Many were not written by Paul. As for the ones that were written by Paul, they contain very little about the life of Jesus and all that is there is second hand and anecdotal.

This is not surprising as Paul never met Jesus and his teaching was at odds with the disciples who were still alive so he did not have much contact with them or the Church of Jerusalem founded by the likes of James, Peter and the rest of the disciples.

Irenaeus , born in the first half of the second century (120-140 AD) ("He was a hearer of Polycarp who in turn was traditionally a disciple of John the Evangelist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) apparently did not think much of Paul either.

Irenaeus claimed that only Matt, Mark, Luke, and John were canonical. This is the earliest attestation of the validity of the early Gospel.

Like those before him, Irenaeus did not believe that Jesus was God - The Father/Creator/God of Abraham. He stated that it was ok to call Jesus divine, or a God, but Jesus and God were not the same to Irenaeus. http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/history/irenaeus.html

 

I did read that entire page, clearly you didn't, and I can guarantee I have done more research on the Bible than you ever have considering your repeated mistakes about pretty much everything to do with the text.

1) What the heck does that paragraph that you just posted have to do with the authorship of the Gospels? Is that not what we were discussing? Why do you disagree with your own source which once again says: "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings."

2) How is that website clear proof that the Catholic Church has kept and preserved all historical-biblical manuscripts? Nothing in that paragraph even mentions preservation of manuscripts. There are no original manuscripts. NONE. The Catholic Church openly admits this.

"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

Once again, I am quoting YOUR sources.

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

Do you agree or disagree with the Catholic Church on this?

I thought you said there weren't any differences?

1) This website makes the mistake that you do and assumes that the authors were the Apostles. The Catholic Church itself admits that this is not true.
2) Here are a few excerpts from the page:

So, the author admits that there are contradictions, but they explain it away by saying "Mark and Matthew just didn't want to include the true number of angels?" That isn't a good excuse at all. Not only are the numbers of angels varied throughout the Gospels, but where the angels are is also completely different.

Matthew 28:2- "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it"

One angel, sitting outside of the tomb on top of the rolled back stone.

Mark 16:4-5 - "But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed."

The stone was already rolled back by the time they got there (completely contradictory to them seeing an angel do it in front of them which is what Matthew said happened) AND the angel was INSIDE the tomb.

Luke 24: 4 - "And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:"

Two men inside the tomb.

John 20:12 - "and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot."

Two angels seated inside the tomb.

Those are incredibly different tellings of the story.

But this is only ONE of the examples of where the Gospels are completely different. But nope, apparently you somehow think that there are no differences at all. You can't even make up your mind since your own sources say there are.

Yeah, I don't really come to the same conclusion that "Answering Islam" thinks is correct.

What kind of response is that? Your source says there are differences and yet you are arguing that there aren't? Then why do you even bother using sources at all?

Prove it. Provide a source for that claim.

Mecca and Medina are cities, not regions. I'm not sure how you think that there was a town inside of a city.

But you just said that the CRUSADES were what stopped Muslim aggression. Now it is a completely different battle?

 

I love these threads!
We are asked to be guided toward truth and knowledge by people who have no tools to take us there, save for blind faith.
The red highlights in just this one paragraph show the inability to handle the language the poster chooses to use to try to educate the heathen. My favorite is when he tells us that biblical scholars "decimate" the Gospels. Of course he is right about the scholars he chooses to read. They DO decimate the Gospels. LOL!

These are by far the most entertaining threads available in the Religion/Philosophy section.

The early church forbid the laity from reading scripture as a way of controlling the message and thus the people. But if the poster is correct and they were simply protecting them from misinterpretation, listening to these unhinged posts may give credibility to this view. Clearly reading the scriptures on their own has not helped these poor people to read with any authority, insight or integrity.

But they are a ton of fun.

 

Quote Posted by Stagnant:

Given that there is virtually no contemporary evidence (and believe me, someone raising the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dead? KIND OF A BIG DEAL), and that this story is couched in a book known to contain many contradictions and flat-out errors, with a god figure that claims to be all-knowing and perfectly benevolent, yet would (*)(*)(*)(*) humanity to - look, the point I'm trying to get at is that the god figure presented within the bible is ludicrous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence came from first-hand witnesses and it's just your emotionally biased opinions making claims that there are contradictions and flat-out errors in the bible. There are absolutely no contradictions or errors when it comes to the bible. It is just that atheists such as yourself are experts in misinterpreting the bible...lol

The day you find yourself in front of the Lord for judgment, I can assure you, you won't find it to be a ludicrous situation...oh no!

Right now to you in your comfort zone it's all ludicrous but the day will come when things won't be such a laughing matter anymore.

 

I don't understand why someone would claim their emotionally biased opinion is any better than anyone else's emotionally biased opinion?

 

Actually the many errors are well documented. They are concealed to you because you limit your research to those that have an agenda in their scholarship. They are apologists all, and you are a product of their indoctrination. They found their mark and played it.
Their is nothing persuasive about your post. You are simply stating that you can't see the errors and that those that can are doomed. No evidence for that, no reasoning, no persuasion, just heavy handed proclomations.
I think it was Augustine that said evangelize always, and when necessary use words. He was speaking to how our lifestyles and treatment of others would be the great commission realized.
Try that. What you're doing isn't working.

 

The problem is that apologists have literally had two millennia to "harmonize" the Gospels. Scribes who took manuscripts and re-wrote them would not have let Earth shattering mistakes remain so now all we have are small contradictions that Christians, with their extremely special ability in mental gymnastics, can easily explain away. While it may not be sufficient for us, they pretty much have an answer for every teensy contradiction.


As for the scribes, the changes made in Mark from early manuscripts (where the author misquotes Scripture) to later ones is a great example of this.

 

Why are you still pretending that you have any clue about Scripture? You ignore it to fulfill your own desires, hence why you ignore when Genesis 1 says God created the stars, moon, and sun on the Fourth Day so that you can loudly and foolishly claim that they were made on the First Day.

 

Even more telling is that the much beloved story of the woman at the well does not appear in the oldest complete manuscripts, or partial remnants, and only appears much later. It was added by a scribe and adopted as canon. Agendas were forwarded in the transcription of scripture, as well as simple errors by tired scribes who were not professionals, but merely the only people that could write in the community where the copy was made.
None of this ever matters to the true believer. Nothing does. The "answers" you reference to obvious scriptural discrepencies are often so outlandish and tortured that it requires an enormous faith to embrace them.

 

Why do christians claim unbelievers will torment in fire and brimstone for eternity when the RC chuch itself doesn't believe it?

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

 

The God character in the Old Testament is an aggregation of the various Assyrian and Babylonian emperors who ruled the Middle East area. They were in effect gods worshiped by the local yokels. That's why they have human characteristics. They were humans. The prophets were their pr agents. The Old Testament ends with their fall.

 

Why is it that all of the other biblical characters have alien names but the main characters have "English" names? Wouldn't it be more credible if the main characters had names like Diotrephes, Jezaniah, Gedaliah, Coniah, Eliphaz, Bilgah?

 

Not sure if this is a serious inquiry or not, but the reason is that the English have been Christians since around 600 CE and have been using a lot of Biblical names in the interim, especially Biblical names that have been anglicized (e.g. the most English name of them all, John, derives as such: Hebrew Yohanan, to the Greek Ioannes, to the Latin {same as the Greek}, to English John).

If the purported authors had names that were actually English (either Anglo-Saxon or Celtic British) we'd see a lot more names like Beowulf, Aethelfrith, Aelfwine, Hussa, Ecgfrith, Elerhi, Tremayn, Pask, and so forth.

 

So they went with the names that were the easiest to spell. The letter "k" isn't originally English so it's doubtful if they would have used the name "Pask".

 

Please provide evidences other than coming from the Bible or other biblical sources in regards to your claim #1 - 11.
And where did the Encyclopedia Biblical get its sources from? Were they all base on conspiracy theories?
1. So far the Bible has been very clear there and historians agrees there existed Nazareth.
2. There were thousands of eye witness to Jesus Christ including Caiaphas the high priest and Pontius Pilate.
3. The Gospels were all base on eye witness accounts
4. No proof that the Gospels were written by 3rd person
5. Peter was one of the Apostles who witness Jesus's miracles.
6. Thousands have no seen or saw Jesus and yet they believe John 20:29 "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Luke 1:1-4 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
7. The Old Testament existed as a trustworthy part of the Holy Bible.
8. Foreign to those who do not believe, such as the Pharisees that is why they were bend on destroying Jesus Christ.
9. Written by known men; Gospel of John, Mark, Matthew, Peter, Luke, Paul, James and the Old Testament by Moses.
10. There is no foreign tongue with God.
11. Preserve by numerous generations that is why the chronology of events continuously link on from generation to generation.

 

For those that have actually studied the Bible without an agenda, your post is simply sad.

 

If you done so much research on the Bible then you should have discover the truth, the absent or error and contradiction instead your study was in a negative way not positive way your purpose is researching the Bible and all its corresponding documents and manuscript is to distort as much as you can. One thing you have failed to realise that all the documents be it Catholic, Judaism, Agnostic, Arianism, Nestorians or Islam they all agreed in the existence of God or of a God.

What you have been doing is using the Bible to proof the Bible is wrong or corrupt or no such things as Jesus or God existed in spite of the fact that you have failed to produce none biblical documents to proof your position.

The fact of the matter is the Gospel of John, Mark, Matthew and Luke have been research and scrutinize by the church fathers that they are inspire words of God. As far as the Dead Scroll it proves the existence of biblical history.

Where do you think you and all the anti Christian been getting their informations from? From the archives of the Vatican and other religious orders.

I agree with the Catholic church and here it is;
Divergences of the Gospels.—The existence of numerous and, at times, considerable differences between the four canonical Gospels is a fact which has long been noticed and which all scholars readily admit. Unbelievers of all ages have greatly exaggerated the importance of this fact, and have represented many of the actual variations between the Evangelical narratives as positive contradictions, in order to disprove the historical value and the inspired character of the sacred records of Christ's life. Over against this contention, sometimes maintained with a great display of erudition, the Church of God, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim., iii, 15), has always proclaimed her belief in the historical accuracy and consequent real harmony of the canonical Gospels; and her doctors (notably Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine) and commentators have invariably professed that belief. As can readily be seen, variations are naturally to be expected in four distinct, and in many ways independent, accounts of Christ's words and deeds, so that their presence, instead of going against, rather makes for the substantial value of the Evangelical narratives

From among the various answers which have been given to the alleged contradictions of the Evangelists we simply mention the following. Many a time the variations are due to the fact that not one but two really distinct events are described, or two distinct sayings recorded, in the parallel passages of the Gospels. At other times, as is indeed very often the case, the supposed contradictions, when closely examined, turn out to be simply differences naturally entailed, and therefore distinctly accounted for, by the literary methods of the sacred writers, and more particularly, by the respective purpose of the Evangelists in setting forth Christ's words and deeds. Lastly, and in a more general way, the Gospels should manifestly be treated with the same fairness and equity as are invariably used with regard to other historical records. "To borrow an illustration from classical literature, the ‘Memoirs of the Apostles are treated [by unbelievers] by a method which no critic would apply to the ‘Memoirs of Xenophon. The [Rationalistic] scholar admits the truthfulness of the different pictures of Socrates which were drawn by the philosopher, the moralist, and the man of the world, and combines them into one figure instinct with a noble life, half hidden and half revealed, as men viewed it from different points; but he seems often to forget his art when he studies the records of the Saviors work.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels

There weren't any major contradiction they all reveal that Jesus Christ resurrected.

Yes there are cities that are in the region what is now Saudi Arabia that once upon a time Jewish and Christian villages thrives.

Yes, Crusades were responsible in stopping Muslim aggression since its first inception in 1099 AD; read on;

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

 

Because you failed to refute the Bible is wrong, and I am glad to you my post is sad in your eyes as long as it is the truth.

Abe Lincoln “My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.”

 

Besides you claiming that there are agnostic documents that claim that God exists, which is completely asinine since the definition of agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknowable, you are using a fallacy called Argumentum ad populum.

We are talking about authorship, not whether or not the words were inspired by God. Can you not concentrate on one subject? And as has been pointed out to you, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any books from the New Testament. None. Zip. Is that too hard for you to understand?

What does that have to do with whether the Church kept original manuscripts? Right, nothing. You seriously have a deficiency in ability to concentrate on a subject or you are purposefully trying to change the subject since your own sources say you are wrong.

What do these paragraphs have to do with authorship or whether or not the Catholic Church has original manuscripts?

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels

You claimed there were NO differences in the Gospels. Now you backstep and claim that there are no MAJOR contradictions. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? You keep changing your beliefs in almost every post. Are there contradictions and differences in the Bible?

You said that there were towns in Mecca and Medina, now you are talking about Saudi Arabia as a whole. You seriously need to do some thinking before you try to debate because you are changing your arguments every time we show you that you are wrong.

No, the did not. You just admitted to me that the Ottomans weren't defeated until hundreds of years after the Crusades and after they had invaded Central Europe.

Once again, your arguments are spurious and contradictory.

 

Now you are contradicting yourself.

Yes, and I answer you in layman's' way to make it easy to understand The Gospels of the resurrection were inspired words author by John, Mark, Matthew and Luke they all confirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But you kept denying that fact and you can not produce any supporting documents other than the Bible the Bible that support the Gospel.

My sources have been very crystal clear, the Bible is absent of errors and contradiction I share the link with you hoping that you'll understand instead you cherry pick segments of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Simple; the Bible is absent of errors and contradiction;
Divergences of the Gospels.—The existence of numerous and, at times, considerable differences between the four canonical Gospels is a fact which has long been noticed and which all scholars readily admit. Unbelievers of all ages have greatly exaggerated the importance of this fact, and have represented many of the actual variations between the Evangelical narratives as positive contradictions, in order to disprove the historical value and the inspired character of the sacred records of Christ's life. Over against this contention, sometimes maintained with a great display of erudition, the Church of God, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim., iii, 15), has always proclaimed her belief in the historical accuracy and consequent real harmony of the canonical Gospels; and her doctors (notably Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine) and commentators have invariably professed that belief. As can readily be seen, variations are naturally to be expected in four distinct, and in many ways independent, accounts of Christ's words and deeds, so that their presence, instead of going against, rather makes for the substantial value of the Evangelical narratives

From among the various answers which have been given to the alleged contradictions of the Evangelists we simply mention the following. Many a time the variations are due to the fact that not one but two really distinct events are described, or two distinct sayings recorded, in the parallel passages of the Gospels. At other times, as is indeed very often the case, the supposed contradictions, when closely examined, turn out to be simply differences naturally entailed, and therefore distinctly accounted for, by the literary methods of the sacred writers, and more particularly, by the respective purpose of the Evangelists in setting forth Christ's words and deeds. Lastly, and in a more general way, the Gospels should manifestly be treated with the same fairness and equity as are invariably used with regard to other historical records. "To borrow an illustration from classical literature, the ‘Memoirs of the Apostles are treated [by unbelievers] by a method which no critic would apply to the ‘Memoirs of Xenophon. The [Rationalistic] scholar admits the truthfulness of the different pictures of Socrates which were drawn by the philosopher, the moralist, and the man of the world, and combines them into one figure instinct with a noble life, half hidden and half revealed, as men viewed it from different points; but he seems often to forget his art when he studies the records of the Saviors work.

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Gospel_and_Gospels

No differences means no contradiction, it means Mark, Matthew, John and Luke were all relating the same and identical event the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why, didn't you know that Mecca and Median are in what is now Saudi Arabia??? I have not change my debate it is your brain that is mess up.

Wow! are you really that ignorant??
Read again;
The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

Once again, your arguments are spurious and contradictory.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

The Crusade did not end with the 4th Crusade it continues on until the total defeat of Muslim invaders in 15th century. Your understanding of the Crusade is isolated to the 12th century only.