Different Storytellers

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Checked the dates: 2000-2002 was the date of the Lectionary used at Mass. The NAB you are reading is from 1991. You are wrong. I hope you aren't living in a fantasy world. Continue with your discussion, I don't wish to participate in this trolling any longer. God bless you.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:40 PM']RESPONSE:
Does the "authority of the magisterium" say otherwise? If you are making that claim, please present your evidence.

I'll hold off reading your lengthy  link until you do! :
[right][snapback]658309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[b]TheDude[/b] (and several others) have already covered that.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:27 PM'][b]TheDude[/b] (and several others) have already covered that.
[right][snapback]658549[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I can understand why you can't answer the question!

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 04:34 PM']RESPONSE:

I can understand why you can't answer the question!
[right][snapback]658556[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No need to repeat what has already been stated several times before, young one.

[LittleLes]

Another interesting example of different stories from different storytellers is a comparison of the gospel writers' two claims: the number of women present and the number of angels present following the Resurrection.

Matt 28:1-3 Two women and one angel
Mark 16:1-5 Three women and one angel
Luke 24:1-10 More than four women and two angels
John 20: 11-12 One woman and two angels.

Which of the four actually happened?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:48 PM']Another interesting example of different stories from different storytellers is a comparison of the gospel writers' two claims: the number of women present and the number of angels present following the Resurrection.

Matt 28:1-3  Two women and one angel
Mark 16:1-5 Three women and one angel
Luke 24:1-10  More than four women and two angels
John 20: 11-12 One woman and two angels.

Which of the four actually happened?
[right][snapback]659056[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I know this is a joke, but it isn't that funny.

I didn't want to resort to this (since I would've enjoyed refuting your assumption myself) but considering I'm very tired, I'll have to quote someone else that deals with this exact subject. It saves us both time.






[quote][i][b]There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre[/b]


"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance." [John 20:1]



[b]There were two women who came to the sepulchre[/b]

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Matt 28:1]


This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone:  "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2]

If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with Mary. John just doesn't mention them.




[b]There were three women who came to the sepulchre[/b] [Mark 16:1]

[b]There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre[/b] [Luke 24:10]

Again, the same reasoning applies. See my previous story about going for a ride in the car.




[b]It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre[/b]

"Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb." [Mark 16:2]

It was some time before sunrise when they came
"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb." [John 20:1]

I see no contradiction. Mary could have left a little earlier than the others. Or they could have left while it was still dark and the sun began to rise while they were on their way. I've worked my share of nightshifts to know that one can leave the job while it is still dark, and get home after the sun has risen!



[b]There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they were standing up[/b] [Luke 24:4]

There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down [Matt 28:2,5]

It is quite possible that much of the confusion about these trivial facts stems from the fact that many women went to the tomb that morning (Luke 24:10). It's possible, at the very least, that a group of women came to the tomb, and saw that the stone had been rolled away. Some women went inside, but the more timid remained outside. Those inside saw the vision of the two angels, while those outside saw the angel on the stone.

Also, in response to the manner in which this supposed contradiction is presented, I would point out that a.) Matthew does not say there was "but one angel," he simply focuses on the angel who moved the stone; b.) the Greek word in Luke rendered "stood near" also means, "to come near, to appear to." In Luke 2:9 and Acts 12:7 it is translated as "came upon." Thus, Luke may simply have said that angels suddenly appeared to them without reference to posture. Strictly speaking, one would be hard pressed to establish a contradiction in terms of numbers or posture even without my possible explanation.




[b]There were two angels seen within the sepulchre[/b] [John 20:11,12]

[b]There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre[/b] [Mark 16:5]

These are not the same incidents. John's account is particular to Mary after she followed Peter and John back to the tomb, which was later than the account cited in Mark.

Now, I myself once stumbled upon a "better" contradiction. When Mary runs back, she is scared and thinks that the body has been stolen. Then she returns to the tomb and weeps. Now isn't this odd given that she supposedly heard the angels say that "He is risen"? Why so much despair after that miraculous experience? It doesn't seem to add up. Of course it is possible that she had not fully comprehended what occurred, as one has to be careful in expecting people to respond coherently. But I think the answer is more clear if we consider John's account.

John notes that she went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him". (John 20:1-2). Then Peter and John ran to the tomb only to find the empty burial wrappings. Mary must then have followed them, but when she got there, they had gone, so she stood there crying, worried that the body of Jesus had been stolen. Then two angels appeared to her, and then the risen Jesus did. In short, the reason she was in despair is probably because she didn't go into the tomb with the other women. As they approached the tomb, they saw it open, and probably began to worry amongst themselves that grave robbers came and stole the body before they could anoint it. At this realization, Mary probably left the group and bolted back to tell the others.[/i][/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:54 PM']I know this is a joke, but it isn't that funny.

I didn't want to resort to this (since I would've enjoyed refuting your assumption myself) but considering I'm very tired, I'll have to quote someone else that deals with this exact subject.  It saves us both time.
[right][snapback]659146[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I always enjoy apologist's "it is possible" arguments made to avoid admitting obvious contradictions in scripture. "It is possible, therefore, it must have been."

Taken overall, these obviously lack credibility.

Just because Matthew's gospel doesn't mention a marching band at the tomb, that doesn't mean that one wasn't there!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:02 AM']Just because Matthew's gospel doesn't mention a marching band at the tomb, that doesn't mean that one wasn't there!
[right][snapback]659320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yes, but there are nuances in the greek and suble references to passages in the OT that are suggestive of trumpets, drums and marching.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:05 AM']yes, but there are nuances in the greek and suble references to passages in the OT that are suggestive of trumpets, drums and marching.
[right][snapback]659321[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Really? Then Paladin may be convinced that there was a marching band at the Resurrestion. Matthew just didn't mention it! :

And since none of the gospel writers reported that there wasn't, I guess we just have to believe that there was if some apologist says so!

A new "tradition"!

[Paladin D]

[quote]There were two women who came to the sepulchre

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the other tomb." [Matt 28:1]


This is a case where a contradiction is read into the account. John does not report that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Failing to mention someone does not necessarily mean that no one else was present. In fact, had the critics read further, they would have seen that Mary was not alone:  "So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they put him!" [Jn 20:2]

[b]If Mary was alone, then who is WE? Clearly more than one person went with Mary. John just doesn't mention them.[/b][/quote]


Who is... we? Littleles?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 24 2005, 01:04 PM']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.
[right][snapback]656993[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hello, im just one of the probably many who simply watch threads like this, but I would like to see littleles's response to this. I'm curious about LittleLes's distiction that the mountain is different from a town at the base. Is he to believe that when it says Jesus went to Mt. Olive that he went all over the entire mountain? Is there a geographical boundary where one is at a location and one is not. The base of mountain is still a part of the mountain isnt it? A person who has just parked their car at a Red Sox game, and is walking to the door gets a phone call and tells the person "I'm at Fenway". Is this statement wrong simply because hes not in his seat?

just reminding Littleles he forgot to comment on this :

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:49 AM']Who is... we?  Littleles?
[right][snapback]659544[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If Mary Magdelin said "we" she might have been talking about only herself or herself and the two angels who were there.

The Pope says "we" a lot. Do you suppose there are two of them??

In short, a single person not uncommonly refers to himself or herself as "we" or even "us."

"Clearly" your presumption that more than one person is referred to is unproven.

Now how about explaining away the other conflicts such as the number of women in each account and the number of angels.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 26 2005, 12:12 PM']hello, im just one of the probably many who simply watch threads like this, but I would like to see littleles's response to this.  I'm curious about LittleLes's distiction that the mountain is different from a town at the base. Is he to believe that when it says Jesus went to Mt. Olive that he went all over the entire mountain? Is there a geographical boundary where one is at a location and one is not. The base of mountain is still a part of the mountain isnt it? A person who has just parked their car at a Red Sox game, and is walking to the door gets a phone call and tells the person "I'm at Fenway". Is this statement wrong simply because hes not in his seat?

just reminding Littleles he forgot to comment on this  :
[right][snapback]659660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If really isn't that complex. A village is a collection of man made structures. A mountain is a feature of the land and is not man made. Yes, a "mountain" is different than a "town."

Jesus did all sorts of things on mountains especially on Mt. Olivet.

If he ascended from a village, do you suppose he was standing on the roof of a house?

Also how do you account for the same day/40 day delay?

I'm afraid that these are different stories.

[Sirklawd]

i understand everyones frustration now with dealing with you. it makes a peson feel small when you ignore the points they bring up. i actually hoped my questions would be answered, not bounced back with further questions about other things. having read alot of your posts, it seems you do this alot. its a shame you dont want to discuss other peoples points. your response saying a mountain is different than a town is what initially caused me and palladin D to post what we did to you. To respond with the same arguement, without acknowledging anything that we wrote, either denotes that you do not understand what we are saying, or just dont care at all. I fear its the later. thanks.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 26 2005, 01:39 PM']i understand everyones frustration now with dealing with you. it makes a peson feel small when you ignore the points they bring up. i actually hoped my questions would be answered, not bounced back with further questions about other things.  having read alot of your posts, it seems you do this alot. its a shame you dont want to discuss other peoples points. your response saying a mountain is different than a town is what initially caused me and palladin D to post what we did to you. To respond with the same arguement, without acknowledging anything that we wrote, either denotes that you do not understand what we are saying, or just dont care at all. I fear its the later. thanks.
[right][snapback]659806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I thought that I replied to your post and showed you why you were in error.