31.  HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPELS WHEN THE ACCOUNTS ARE SO DIFFERENT?

     Well, on the one had you have the critics who say that the gospel writers made it all up, or tampered with the accounts to make them seem to fit the prophecies, and so on. On the other hand you have these same deceivers unable to compare their accounts and make them coincide--despite the fact that, if you include the early church fathers, they had hundreds of years to do it.
      However, if you deal with real witnesses to real events, you'll find that they don't often tell the same story in exactly the same way and with emphasis on exactly the same details. If four witnesses to a crime tell the same story using the same words then you can bet they are in collusion.
    Consider the three following fanciful accounts which might have been written 2000 years from now:

    JFK and Jackie went to Dallas in 1963 and JFK was shot.
    JFK and Governor Connaly went to Dallas in 1963 and JFK was shot.
    JFK and LBJ went to Dallas in 1963 but LBJ was not shot.

   Of course, we know from history that Jackie hated to campaign and had been absent from any campaigning for a long time; so a historian could  conclude  on this basis  that it is unlikely that Jackie in fact went to Dallas. We also know that there is a general rule that Presidents and Vice-Presidents should not travel on the same airplane together, so that both won't be killed if the plane should crash. Extrapolating from this, they probably wouldn't have appeared in the same parade, either.  If you believe in the modernist, 'documentary' hypothesis, you can easily see that the Dallas story was worked up from four independent accounts, as follows:

     The 'J' document (JFK biography)
     The 'L' document (LBJ biography)
     The 'J2' document (Jackie's biography)
     The 'C' document (Connally's biography)

     'All four of these documents were then pieced together by a later redactor during the interim post-presidential period of the early American republic, in order to stir a sense of patriotism among the people. In fact, the absence of any mention of the name 'Kennedy' in  extant British and Chinese records of the era makes it dubious that such a person ever existed. A reconstruction of the timeline for American presidents--pieced together from the fragments of the 'Washington Inscription'--shows, according to theories accepted by all respectable scholars, that the Kennedy '1000 days' could NOT have been squeezed in between the reigns of Truman and Johnson, unless Nixon's reign were to have been considerably shortened. Further, the 'Camelot' name applied to the Kennedy period shows that even the contemporary Americans regarded his existence as a kind of legend, not something to be taken as real fact.'

     Perhaps not--although we do not fully  know  how the laws were interpreted in the Second Temple period. Our present records (ie, the Mishnah, for example) depict mostly the practices of the Pharisee sect and even these are presented  in their 'idealized' form; but the extent to which the Sadducees, who formed most of the Temple priesthood, and other groups  concurred with the Pharisees on these and other matters  is not always certain.
    However, the penalty  under Jewish law for being a false prophet WAS  to be executed. Yeshua was also accused of blasphemy, and of wanting to destroy the Temple.  Were these capital crimes during the Second Temple period?
    Josephus records an incident ('Wars' VI 5.3) in which another man (ironically also named Yeshua) predicted the end of Jerusalem (and therefore the Temple). The authorities arrested him and handed him over to the Roman governor for punishment. (Obviously this must have been for a 'serious' punishment, probably death, which they did not have the power to inflict themselves.)  The Roman governor (Albinus) had the man flogged until his bones showed, but finally released him after deciding that he was a madman. This incident suggests that prophecying the fall of the Temple might in itself have been considered a serious crime, as well (at least by the priesthood).
     And while we're on the subject, do you think that Yeshua should have been executed? Was he guilty of such a crime that he should have been put to death? In other words, do you agree with the sentence?

    Is this why he is in agony, so that his sweat is like blood, and he pleads, 'Father, if it is Your will, let this cup pass from me'? Doesn't sound like he expects to be crowned king anytime soon.

    He says to Peter, 'Put your sword back in its place'; and, 'For all who draw the sword will perish by the sword. Do you not think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scripture be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?'
    Doesn't sound like Yeshua has given up; rather, he understands what is happening. (And, in fact, this is what he has been predicting and announcing will happen for some time.) He expects it, because he believes that the scriptures which speak of a suffering messiah must be fulfilled. Modern Judaism may not believe in the suffering of the messiah, but this does not mean that Yeshua did not.

      In this passage Yeshua is comparing the instructions he gave to his talmidim when he was with them to those he is giving to them now that he will no longer be with them.
     'When I sent you (ie, previously, when they had gone throughout the country preaching, and he had instructed them to take nothing with them) without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?'
     'Nothing,' they answered.
     'He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'

     These aren't preparations for a battle--they're instructions for a road trip.
     There are some scholars who want to remake the Yeshua of the gospels into the concept of a more traditionally PC-correct Jewish warrior-messiah, and they hunt for evidence of this. But the evidence of the gospels is that Yeshua did NOT intend to establish his kingdom by force. ('My kingdom is not of this world.')

     If you read the whole of Psalm 22 you'll see how appropriate that Psalm (which begins with these words) is for one in Yeshua's position to recite. It doesn't indicate a lack of faith to recite this, but exactly the reverse. (Take a look at how the Psalm ends.)

     Zechariah 9:9 prophecies that the messiah will enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey (and not on a charging horse, like a conqueror, but with humility. One wonders how Bar Kochba entered the city. . . 'Behold, your King comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'  This passage has long been accepted by Judaism as messianic, and there are many references to it in both Jewish literature and art through the centuries.
(Depending on the edition, one can look up 'messiah' in the Encyclopedia Judaica and see a number of depictions of the messiah entering Jerusalem on a donkey.)
     Matthew says that Yeshua's talmidim brought him a donkey and her colt. 'They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Yeshua sat on them (ie, the cloaks)'
     The colt was an animal which had never been ridden before (see Mark  11:2; Luke 19:30) . This was an important sign, as the sacrificial red heifer used for cleansing had to be one which had never known a yoke, and likewise the cart which brought back the ark (I. Samuel 6:7) had to be one which had never been used before.
     Some critics like to say that Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew of Zechariah and thought that  there are two donkeys  mentioned there because of the parallel repitition; but Matthew was not a first-semeter student of Hebrew. He grew up in that culture, and therefore was much more familiar with  Hebrew  than most 'scholars' are today. And since he specifically cites Zechariah,  distinctly having it in mind,   he would have been  aware of   its contents. He does not say that Yeshua rode on two donkeys, only that two were brought to him--the mother, perhaps  because to separate it from her colt would have unsteadied the colt wheras by keeping them together the colt could be calmed. It is suggested that he includes this detail because he was an eyewitness (unlike Mark and Luke).

     Look, Abraham sacrificed what was most precious to him, what he loved more than himself--his only son. What about G-d? Did Abraham out perform G-d? Even though G-d may give gifts greater than this, even though He can send Torah, and He can send choirs of angels, yet consider the gifts relative to Himself. Creatures are nothing compared with Himself. G-d is happy in Himself, and He is His own most precious possession. So it seems that unless G-d sends Himself to die for our sins in the flesh, Abraham has out-done G-d in some restricted and relative sense.  Abraham has out of love given up his only son. . . And in our belief, G-d has exceeded that, not only on an absolute scale--which would be no problem at all (G-d could send a legion of angels much greater than Abraham's son Isaac), but also on the relative scale--He has sacrificed One He loves as much as Himself, One that is cosubstantial with Himself--and not sacrificed for G-d's sake, as Abraham did, but for the sake of us sinners.  .  . How wonderful G-d is!

     Some people like to read this passage as: '. . . You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews,  who killed the Lord Yeshua and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease G-d and are hostile to all men.'
       However, in the Greek the word for 'Jews' is the same as the word for 'Judeans'. Also, the placement of commas is arbitrary (as after the word 'Jews', above.) A more logical rendering of this passage, in its entire context, would be more like follows:
     '. . . become imitators of G-d's congregations in Judea. . . You (ie, the Thessalonians) suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches (ie, in Judea) suffered from the Judeans  (thus making a parallel between what the Thessalonians are suffering from their countrymen and the followers of Yeshua in Judea were suffering from THIER countrymen, the JUDEANS)  who killed the Lord Yeshua  and the prophets and also drove us out.' (ie, from those specific Judeans who did these things, not necessarily all in Judea--which would include, presumably, the very ones he is pointing out to the Thessalonians as examples to emulate).
    'They displease G-d and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of G-d has come upon them fully.'
    Clearly, for Saul (Paul), if someone was trying to prevent the gospel from being preached to someone else then that person had to be hostile to them. But equally clearly, again he has to be referring only to those who are doing these things. He  cannot mean ALL Jews here--because he himself, and Peter, and James, and John, and all the rest of the apostles, and so on, were also Jews, and so were the vast majority of those who believed in Yeshua at that time.
    'They always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of G-d has come upon them fully.' So, in other words, let G-d take charge of their punishment. Leave them to G-d, it is not necessary to defend against them oneself.
     The use of the term 'Jews' or 'Judeans' may have differed in the ancient world than in our own day. The Essenes were fond of referring to themselves as 'Israel', and others Jews as 'Jews' (or perhaps 'Judeans'). The Samaritans  liked to think of  themselves as   the true descendants of the faith of Abraham, while the rest were 'Jews', or 'Judeans'. There is some weight behind the idea that the term 'Hebrews' was sometimes used then to designate those who were not 'hellenized' Jews. (Thus, Saul/Paul says, 'I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews'). Ergo, the writers of the NT might have used the term 'Jews' to mean any number of things APART from simply the concept of the 'Jewish' people, which is the way we understand it today (divorced as we are by 2000 years from their culture.)

     To say that the above passage (and others) are intended to be anti-Semitic is 1) illogical; and 2) is to permit the anti-Semites to perform your exegesis for you. This would permit the anti-semites to be the 'scholars' who interpret the real meaning of scripture. However, I refuse to allow them or persons of their ilk to be the filter through which I must read scripture, and therfore I also reject their interpretation of this (and other) verses.