Different Storytellers

[LittleLes]

So that I'm not accused of "hijacking a thread," lets examine this issue separately.

In comparing scriptural accounts, one observes a number of contradictions. Some apologists try to argue that "if viewed in context" all these differing accounts really say the same thing. But do they?

(1) Luke 24 - The Ascension with all the disciples present took place on Easter from Bethany.
or
Acts 1 - The Ascension with all the disciples present took place 40 days after Easter from Mt. Olivet.

(2) Matt 27:5 - Judas hanged himself.
or
Acts 1:18 - Judas fell headfirst, burst open, and his bowels spilled out.

(3) Mark 8-12 - No sign will be given this generations.
or
Matt 12:39 - Only the Sign of Jonah will be given this generation.
or
John 2:11 - The beginning of the miracles (of Jesus).

Different stories from different storytellers. And they are all suppose to be inspired. The hard part is determining which actually happened.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 10:44 AM']So that I'm not accused of "hijacking a thread," lets examine this issue separately.

In comparing scriptural accounts, one observes a number of contradictions. Some apologists try to argue that "if viewed in context" all these differing accounts really say the same thing. But do they?

(1) Luke 24 - The Ascension with all the disciples present took place on Easter from Bethany.
or
Acts 1 - The Ascension with all the disciples present took place 40 days after Easter from Mt. Olivet.

(2) Matt 27:5 - Judas hanged himself.
or
Acts 1:18 - Judas fell headfirst, burst open, and his bowels spilled out.

(3) Mark 8-12 - No sign will be given this generations.
or
Matt 12:39 - Only the Sign of Jonah will be given this generation.
or
John 2:11 - The beginning of the miracles (of Jesus).

Different stories from different storytellers. And they are all suppose to be inspired. The hard part is determining which actually happened.
[right][snapback]654159[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Behtany is at the base of the southwestern slope of the Mount of Olives. Basically the same place. The time has been discussed already, and it seems you are unwilling to accept our explanation, so we'll leave that out.

Ancient "hangings" were different than the hangings of the 1800's. The noose was different and death was by asphyxiation, the neck did not break. Many times, the gut would rot and the contents would fall to the ground. The materials Judas may have used to hang himself could very well have broken after his death, allowing him to plumment to the ground. In short, Matthew says how he killed himself, and Acts tells what happened after he died. Oddly enough, the Douay-Rheims Bible mentions Judas hanging himself:
[quote]And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and [b]being hanged[/b], burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.
Acts 1:18 (DRV)[/quote]

No idea what your third question is about.

Edited July 22, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 22 2005, 05:06 PM']Behtany is at the base of the southwestern slope of the Mount of Olives.  Basically the same place.  The time has been discussed already, and it seems you are unwilling to accept our explanation, so we'll leave that out.

Ancient "hangings" were different than the hangings of the 1800's.  The noose was different and death was by asphyxiation, the neck did not break.  Many times, the gut would rot and the contents would fall to the ground.  The materials Judas may have used to hang himself could very well have broken after his death, allowing him to plumment to the ground.  In short, Matthew says how he killed himself, and Acts tells what happened after he died.  Oddly enough, the Douay-Rheims Bible mentions Judas hanging himself:
No idea what your third question is about.
[right][snapback]654913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

(1) No. Certainly not the same place. Bethany is a small city. Mt Olivet is a mountain. Most can tell the difference. So your explanation is in error. But I agree that they are both close to Jerusalem.

(2) No. In the scenario you describe, Judas would have died from asphyxiation. He would not have died from "busting open" because he would already have been dead for some time if the gut were rotting. Moreover, unless he hung himself upside down, he would not have fallen head first.

But I've heard apologists try to use this explanation before. It doesn't wash.

And the Douay -Rheims has added to Acts 1:18 an interpolation about the hanging. Its called "harmonizing the conflicts" and was unfortunately popular with some copysist (I might do a thread on it later). The New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Bible have restored the original text.

And the NAB notes:[18] Luke records a popular tradition about the death of Judas that differs from the one in Matthew 27:5, according to which Judas hanged himself. Here, although the text is not certain, Judas is depicted as purchasing a piece of property with the betrayal money and being killed on it in a fall.

(3) The third three scriptural address whether or not Jesus worked miracles (signs). He either: would not, claimed to give only the sign of Jonah, or worked a series of miracles. Take your pick>

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 06:54 PM']RESPONSE:

(1) No. Certainly not the same place.  Bethany is a small city. Mt Olivet is a mountain. Most can tell the difference.    So your explanation is in error.  But I agree that they are both close to Jerusalem.
[right][snapback]654969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Gospel writers using Bethany and Mount of Olives interchangebly:
[color=blue]During the day, Jesus was teaching in the temple area, but at night he would leave and stay at the place called the Mount of Olives.
Luke 21:37

And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany, and there he spent the night.
Matthew 21:17

He entered Jerusalem and went into the temple area. He looked around at everything and, since it was already late, went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
Mark 11:11[/color]
[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 06:54 PM'](2) No. In the scenario you describe, Judas would have died from asphyxiation. He would not have died from "busting open" because he would already have been dead for some time if the gut were rotting. Moreover, unless he hung himself upside down, he would not have fallen head first.

But I've heard apologists try to use this explanation before. It doesn't wash.

And the Douay -Rheims has added to  Acts 1:18 an interpolation about the hanging. Its called "harmonizing the conflicts" and was unfortunately popular with some copysist (I might do a thread on it later). The New American Bible and the New Revised Standard Bible have restored the original text. 

And the NAB notes:[18] Luke records a popular tradition about the death of Judas that differs from the one in Matthew 27:5, according to which Judas hanged himself. Here, although the text is not certain, Judas is depicted as purchasing a piece of property with the betrayal money and being killed on it in a fall.
[right][snapback]654969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b]I said he died of asphyxiation[/b] - look again. Headlong does not exclusively mean headfirst either. Another definition, "recklessly," fits quite well into the situation I described. Again, please stop with the NAB commentary. It is not definitive (and is in some cases in opposition with Church teaching), so don't try to get me to defend it, because I won't.
[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 22 2005, 06:54 PM'](3) The third three scriptural address whether or not Jesus worked miracles (signs). He either: would not, claimed to give only the sign of Jonah, or worked a series of miracles. Take your pick>
[right][snapback]654969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
These are not being read in context. John is talking about miracles and the wedding at Cana being the first. Mark and Matthew describe scenes where the Pharisees ask for a sign (from heaven in Mark) - shortly after witnessing Jesus perform an exorcism - to definitively prove he is who he says he is. Christ says none will be given to this generation because only when he comes in glory for the second time will his stature be recognized universally, and all nations confess him as Lord (Rev. 15:4).

The whole theory doesn't make sense:
1. Mark and Matthew say Jesus won't perform miracles
2. However Mark and Matthew's Gospels contain accounts of miracles performed by Jesus

God bless.

Edited July 23, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 22 2005, 07:35 PM']The Gospel writers using Bethany and Mount of Olives interchangebly:
[color=blue]During the day, Jesus was teaching in the temple area, but at night he would leave and stay at the place called the Mount of Olives.
Luke 21:37

And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany, and there he spent the night.
Matthew 21:17

He entered Jerusalem and went into the temple area. He looked around at everything and, since it was already late, went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
Mark 11:11[/color]

[b]I said he died of asphyxiation[/b] - look again.  Headlong does not exclusively mean headfirst either.  Another definition, "recklessly," fits quite well into the situation I described.  Again, please stop with the NAB commentary.  It is not definitive (and is in some cases in opposition with Church teaching), so don't try to get me to defend it, because I won't.

These are not being read in context.  John is talking about miracles and the wedding at Cana being the first.  Mark and Matthew describe scenes where the Pharisees ask for a sign (from heaven in Mark) - shortly after witnessing Jesus perform an exorcism - to definitively prove he is who he says he is.  Christ says none will be given to this generation because only when he comes in glory for the second time will his stature be recognized universally, and all nations confess him as Lord (Rev. 15:4).

The whole theory doesn't make sense:
1. Mark and Matthew say Jesus won't perform miracles
2. However Mark and Matthew's Gospels contain accounts of miracles performed by Jesus

God bless.
[right][snapback]655107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:


(1) No. Bethany and Mt. Olivet are different places. One is a city at sea level. The other is a mountain, hence Mt. Olivet. Sometimes Jesus is said to have gone to the city; sometimes Jesus is said to have gone to the mountain. The difference is evident.

(2) The NAB and the NRSV use the oldest texts in the original languages and remove interpolations. I'm sorry you don't want to use the best texts available. Much as the difference between a mountain and a city, the difference of dying from hanging and dying from bursting open is quite evident. One can't pretend that they really are the same thing. But if an apologist has to maintain that scripture is inerrant, he's stuck with doing so.

(3) It is a common tactic of apologists to claim that two entirely opposite things are really the same "when viewed in context." John describes Jesus as performing muntiple signs: John2:11 (the first); John 4:54 (the second); John 6.2 (many signs). But Mark 8:12 says no signs will be given this generation. Matthew 12:39 says that one sign (the Sign of Jonah) will be given this generation. On the other hand John reports many signs.

None vs. one vs .many. Reading these "in context" cannot avoid the obvious differences.

(4)" The whole theory doesn't make sense:
1. Mark and Matthew say Jesus won't perform miracles
2. However Mark and Matthew's Gospels contain accounts of miracles performed by Jesus."

Now you are beginning to get it!

LittleLes

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:42 AM']RESPONSE:
(1) No. Bethany and Mt. Olivet are different places. One is a city at sea level. The other is a mountain, hence Mt. Olivet. Sometimes Jesus is said to have gone to the city; sometimes Jesus is said to have gone to the mountain. The difference is evident.

(2) The NAB and the NRSV use the oldest texts in the original languages and remove interpolations. I'm sorry you don't want to use the best texts available.  Much as the difference between a mountain and a city, the difference of dying from hanging and dying from bursting open is quite evident. One can't pretend that they really are the same thing. But if an apologist has to maintain that scripture is inerrant, he's stuck with doing so.

(3) It is a common tactic of apologists to claim that two entirely opposite things are really the same "when viewed in context." John describes Jesus as performing muntiple signs: John2:11 (the first); John 4:54 (the second); John 6.2 (many signs).  But Mark 8:12 says no signs will be given this generation. Matthew 12:39 says that one sign (the Sign of Jonah) will be given this generation. On the other hand John reports many signs.

None vs. one vs .many. Reading these "in context" cannot avoid the obvious differences.

(4)" The whole theory doesn't make sense:
1. Mark and Matthew say Jesus won't perform miracles
2. However Mark and Matthew's Gospels contain accounts of miracles performed by Jesus."

Now you are beginning to get it! 

LittleLes
[right][snapback]655519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
1) [color=blue]"When they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives..."
Mark 11:1 (NAB)[/color]
Doesn't get any more clearer than that.

2) I don't think you read what I said. First, I didn't use any texts in my previous posts, and if I did, I would have used the NAB. I merely pointed out the DRV translation earlier as an aside. Second, I said that Judas hung himself and then his body fell and burst open. I don't see how you could have so grossly misunderstood what I was saying.

3) The point you are trying to make is unfounded. No one else sees it this way. 99.9% of people who read these passages will not come to your conclusion; you are taking them [b][i][u]way[/u][/i][/b] (notice emphasis) out of context. (Yes, the 99.9% statistic was made for emphatic reasons).

4) What "didn't make sense" was the theory you were advancing; I was not agreeing with you. You just admitted you were incorrect. It is absurd to say that Matthew the Evangelist wrote about the miracles of Jesus if earlier he had said Jesus wouldn't perform miracles. If your theory is true, Matthew was less than intelligent and couldn't keep his own version of the Gospel straight.

After this post, I am done discussing this. You will have to take it up with someone else because I think I've made everything quite clear.

God bless you in your search for the truth.

[LittleLes]

1) "When they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives..."
Mark 11:1 (NAB)
Doesn't get any more clearer than that.

RESPONSE:

I'm afraid it gets a lot clearer than that. Once again, Bethany (and Bethphage) are villages, not mountains as is Mt. Olivet.

Acts has Jesus ascending from the mountain, Mt. Olivet, a place where Jesus went to pary from time to time. Luke has Jesus ascending from the village of Bethany when Lazaras lived.

Bethany is at the base of Mt. Olivet, but again, a village is not a mountain.

[LittleLes]

Littleles posted:

2) The NAB and the NRSV use the oldest texts in the original languages and remove interpolations. I'm sorry you don't want to use the best texts available. Much as the difference between a mountain and a city, the difference of dying from hanging and dying from bursting open is quite evident. One can't pretend that they really are the same thing. But if an apologist has to maintain that scripture is inerrant, he's stuck with doing so.

Dude posted:

2) I don't think you read what I said. First, I didn't use any texts in my previous posts, and if I did, I would have used the NAB. I merely pointed out the DRV translation earlier as an aside. Second, I said that Judas hung himself and then his body fell and burst open. I don't see how you could have so grossly misunderstood what I was saying.

RESPONSE:

If Judas died from hanging he was long since dead when his body burst open. Bursting open would not be the cause of his death. His bursting open was popular legend which got incorporatd into Acts.

[LittleLes]

Littleles posted:

(3) It is a common tactic of apologists to claim that two entirely opposite things are really the same "when viewed in context." John describes Jesus as performing muntiple signs: John2:11 (the first); John 4:54 (the second); John 6.2 (many signs). But Mark 8:12 says no signs will be given this generation. Matthew 12:39 says that one sign (the Sign of Jonah) will be given this generation. On the other hand John reports many signs.

Dude posted:

3) The point you are trying to make is unfounded. No one else sees it this way. 99.9% of people who read these passages will not come to your conclusion; you are taking them way (notice emphasis) out of context. (Yes, the 99.9% statistic was made for emphatic reasons).

RESPONSE:

Since you like to come up with numbers, try these:

0 signs
1 sign
many signs

I think that 99% of people can recognize the difference, unless their belief system forbids them to.

[LittleLes]

Dude wrote:

4) What "didn't make sense" was the theory you were advancing; I was not agreeing with you. You just admitted you were incorrect. It is absurd to say that Matthew the Evangelist wrote about the miracles of Jesus if earlier he had said Jesus wouldn't perform miracles. If your theory is true, Matthew was less than intelligent and couldn't keep his own version of the Gospel straight.

RESPONSE:

I agree with you that Matthew can't keep his gospel straight.

Matt 21:7: "They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. "

NAB notes that: [Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy

[LittleLes]

Matt 4:1-2 " Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry."

Mark 1:12-13 " At once the Spirit drove him out into the desert, and he remained in the desert for forty days, tempted by Satan. He was among wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him. "

Luke 4: 1-3 "1 Filled with the holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the desert for forty days, to be tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were over he was hungry.

However, John has a different story:

John 1:33-36,43; 2:1-2 "I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.' Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God." The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God." ..."The next day he decided to go to Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow me..."

"On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding."

So, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are in agreement that Jesus fasted in the desert for forty days following his baptism and was tempted by the devil. John, on the other hand doesn't have Jesus fasting or being tempted by the devil, but going to a wedding on the third day following his baptism.

Which accounts are correct?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:39 PM']Dude wrote:

4) What "didn't make sense" was the theory you were advancing; I was not agreeing with you. You just admitted you were incorrect. It is absurd to say that Matthew the Evangelist wrote about the miracles of Jesus if earlier he had said Jesus wouldn't perform miracles. If your theory is true, Matthew was less than intelligent and couldn't keep his own version of the Gospel straight.

RESPONSE:

I agree with you that Matthew can't keep his gospel straight. 

Matt 21:7:   "They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. "

NAB notes that: [Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy
[right][snapback]656221[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I said I would not discuss this further, and I will not. I have decided that refuting your objections is of no value, as you have no intention of learning or even listening to what I have to say.
But I must make one thing straight. [b]I never said Matthew couldn't keep his Gospel straight[/b]. Do not take me out of context and make it appear I said something other than what I actually said.

P.S. If anyone wants to see why the Gospel accounts of Jesus' forty days in the desert do not contradict, they can PM me personally and I'd be glad to explain.

Edited July 24, 2005 by thedude

[LittleLes]

P.S. If anyone wants to see why the Gospel accounts of Jesus' forty days in the desert do not contradict, they can PM me personally and I'd be glad to explain.
[right][snapback]656842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

One can but wonder why you don't want to present your explanation openly!

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Littleles']No. Bethany and Mt. Olivet are different places. One is a city at sea level. The other is a mountain, hence Mt. Olivet. Sometimes Jesus is said to have gone to the city; sometimes Jesus is said to have gone to the mountain. The difference is evident.[/quote]



... and...



[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:19 PM']1) "When they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives..."
Mark 11:1 (NAB)
Doesn't get any more clearer than that.

RESPONSE:

I'm afraid it gets a lot clearer than that. Once again, Bethany (and Bethphage) are villages, not mountains as is Mt. Olivet.

Acts has Jesus ascending from the  mountain, Mt. Olivet, a place where Jesus went to pary from time to time.  Luke has Jesus ascending from the village of Bethany when Lazaras lived.

Bethany is at the base of Mt. Olivet, but again, a village is not a mountain.
[right][snapback]656189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Even though I love geography, anyone can clearly tell you that your argument is not exactly accurate. I live near a lake called [b]Lake Gaston[/b], it isn't a town nor a district, it's a lake. The towns that are dotted around the lake have their own distinctive names (mine included), yet when we visit another area that is not near the lake, we tend to say "We live in Lake Gaston" or "We drove from Lake Gaston". We're not the only ones who do this, it's a common practice in the area. Why? Most people know about Lake Gaston than the dozens of tiny towns and districts surrounding it. The towns aren't on-top of the lake, but they're either at the shores or within a mile or two from it.

Want another example? [b]South Jersey[/b]. It isn't a town, it's a [b]region[/b] (I was born there). It's also a common practice for Jersians to refer the south part of Jersey as [b]South Jersey[/b] and the north part as [b]North Jersey[/b]. Often times Jersians (even to locals) will say they live and/or from South Jersey or from North Jersey, even though they may live in Cherry Hill or Newark. This is still accurate, instead of being precise, they pick a more broad geographical region/landmark to describe where they reside. This can also apply to those who live in communities which are at the base of a mountain.

Just because Bethany is at the base of Mt. Olive, doesn't mean there is a contradiction. Mt. Olive is a mountain with a town (Bethany) right at it's base, just like Lake Gaston with it's surrounding towns, and South/North Jersey with theirs.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 24 2005, 02:03 PM']
P.S. If anyone wants to see why the Gospel accounts of Jesus' forty days in the desert do not contradict, they can PM me personally and I'd be glad to explain.
[right][snapback]656842[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

One can but wonder why you don't want to present your explanation openly!
[right][snapback]656991[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It should be obvious.