Pascal's wager works well in showing people that they should look into some kind of religion more in depth with a more open mind than they might normally be willing to. That's all it really meant to do anyways
Also the whole thing Stocking posted really doesn't work at all because the Angels clearly had free will. If they didn't, Lucifer never would have fallen.
Is that really the only reason it doesn't work? Like everything else is spot on, but the idea of brainwashed celestials yearning for freedom is impossible?
That's because they were written by witnesses at least several decades after the events happened. Nobody has perfect memory, so OBVIOUSLY the gospels won't be the same. Heck, we can't even get eye witnesses to say the same thing in court
No, they're straight up wrong about things and they tell almost entirely different stories that make a bunch of silly errors.
For example, Matthew focuses everything he writes about the prophecy in the Old Testament to the point where it's kind of comical.
One of the most glaring errors is the city of Nazareth, which actually never existed according to any account. The reason Jesus was born in Nazareth was because he read the prophecy that said the son of God would be a Nazorean. There is no prophecy in the Old Testament that says this, but there's one that says the son of God will be a Netzerene, which is someone who doesn't cut their hair, doesn't touch dead things, and only eats kosher animals. Basically what Samson was. Matthew literally misread the prophecy and made up a fictional city that would fit the prophecy.
In Matthew the world is ruled by King Herod, and in Luke it's ruled by Augustus Caesar. That's a pretty significant difference.
In Matthew, Herod is said to have issued an edict to have all babies killed. There are no historical records anywhere that talk about a mass genocide of babies, and there's no reason to believe that any king, no matter how stupid or crazy, would try to do something like that to his population. It's completely inconceivable that the population wouldn't immediately revolt and dethrone him to save their children. Luke also makes no mention of this genocide, which again is pretty important.
Mary would not have traveled with Joseph to Bethlehem. She was pregnant and there was absolutely no reason for her to go anywhere because women weren't registered for and nor did they have to pay any taxes.
Joseph would not have had to go to Bethlehem either because taxes were done by districts. There is no record of a great tax and there'd be no way to know what city everyone was descended from because they didn't hold records like that. Given the proposed location of the fictional Nazareth, he wouldn't be headed anywhere near Bethlehem.
Matthew says Jesus was born in an inn, Luke says there was no room at the inn so Mary had to give birth in a trough, which has to make some kind of record for the most unsanitary birth ever. Again kind of an important detail, and I'm stuck wondering whether or not the animals ate the afterbirth since it was kind of like right there.
In Matthew, a group of Magi travel to meet Jesus and give him a lot of really extravagant and expensive gifts. These wise men make no appearance in Luke, which is kind of a big deal.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
