Different Storytellers

[LittleLes]

Another instance ot conflicting stories has to do with the curing of the demoniac who lived among the tombs.

Since it is possible that copiests got the sites mixed up, we will not involve ourselves in whether Gadara, Gergesa, of Gerasa was the location, although these apparently are different cities.

But of note is Matthew's tendency to exagerate or misreport the events suggesting, as in the matter of him reporting Jesus riding two animals when entering Jerusalem, that he clearly wasn't a eyewitness and simply could not keep his facts straight.

Mark 5:1-2 " They came to the other side of the sea, to the territory of the Gerasenes. When he got out of the boat, at once A MAN from the tombs who had an unclean spirit met him. "

Luke 8:26-27 "Then they sailed to the territory of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. When he came ashore A MAN from the town who was possessed by demons met him. For a long time he had not worn clothes; he did not live in a house, but lived among the tombs. "

Verses:

Matthew 8:28 "When he came to the other side, to the territory of the Gadarenes, TWO demoniacs who were coming from the tombs met him. They were so savage that no one could travel by that road. "

So Matthew claims that there were two demoniac as opposed to Mark and Luke's claim of only one.

Whom do you think is the "inspired" writer(s) here?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 01:43 PM']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."

[b]"Clearly" your presumption that more than one person is referred to is unproven.[/b][/quote]


"Clearly" your presumption that their is a contradiction is unproven.




[quote]Now how about explaining away the other conflicts such as the number of women in each account and the number of angels.
[right][snapback]659707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I already cited a quote on my last post, but if you want to re-read the angel segment, here it is [b]again[/b]:



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

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

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 [John 20:11,12]

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

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]
=======================================================

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 26 2005, 02:08 PM']"Clearly" your presumption that their is a contradiction is unproven.
I already cited a quote on my last post, but if you want to re-read the angel segment, here it is [b]again[/b]:
========================================================
[i][b]There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and they were standing up [Luke 24:4]

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

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, [/quote]

RESPONSE:

As I pointed out,"quite possible" is not a valid explanation for a contradiction. It is possible that there was a brass band playing in the background, but that's not what happened either.

So your claim is that when there is a contradiction in a gospel that is suppose to be inspired, inerrant, etc., is that it was only "trivial."

Thus, you disagree with the teaching that:

"So far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

But I agree with you in principle. The Bible is not inerrant and any inspiration clearly doesn't not preclude error and contradiction.

Different stroytellers and different stories!

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 01:49 PM']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."[/quote]

I guess me and the several hundred residents in Lake Gaston are living on top of water.




[quote]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?[/quote]

One also has to take into account the [b]translation differences in each bible[/b]. For example, the NIV says: [i]When he had led them out to the [b]vicinity of Bethany[/b], he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.[/i]

Which translation is correct? It doesn't really matter anyway, considering Bethany is on the eastern slope of Mt. Olive, therefore using the words "Bethany" and "Mt. Olive" interchangeably wouldn't be that big of a deal in this case. If Bethany was 50 miles away and across a river, then that would make a huge difference.



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

I'm afraid that these are different stories.
[right][snapback]659713[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts (you have no evidence to prove otherwise), why would he confuse himself and the audience? Nor does Luke give an exact amount of time when the Ascension happened, he only says "then". I could write a short story about me and my friend Bob and our 7 day vacation. We went rollerblading, we went swimming, then we ate some ice cream! Yet, there is no indication anywhere on how many times we went rollerblading, swimming, or ate ice cream; we can only assume the number. Nor is there any indication as to when we did all these events, was it on one day, three days, or all seven?

Plus this was already discussed here [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=36235&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...opic=36235&st=0[/url]




I'm afraid it's very much the same story my friend.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 03:33 PM']RESPONSE:

As I pointed out,"quite possible" is not a valid explanation for a contradiction. It is possible that there was a brass band playing in the background, but that's not what happened either.
[right][snapback]659913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The whole interesting thing is, there is no proof to say otherwise that there is a contradiction.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 02:51 PM']RESPONSE:

I thought that I replied to your post and showed you why you were in error.
[right][snapback]659828[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


"You have failed me for the last time..." - [b]Darth Vader[/b] (Empire Strikes Back)

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 26 2005, 02:52 PM']The whole interesting thing is, there is no proof to say otherwise that there is a contradiction.
[right][snapback]659959[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If there are different numbers of women and angels reported in the different Gospels, this in itself is a contradiction in the reporting.

[Sirklawd]

Here's everything that I said that you chose to ignore.

-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?

and that WHOLE post from palladin D
---------
-Even though I love geography, anyone can clearly tell you that your argument is not exactly accurate. I live near a lake called Lake Gaston, 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? South Jersey. It isn't a town, it's a region (I was born there). It's also a common practice for Jersians to refer the south part of Jersey as South Jersey and the north part as North Jersey. 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.
--------------

Do I expect you to comment on this? nope. why would someoen like who, who thinks they are so correct in what they believe that they don't need to here arguements otherwise, need to respond to anyone?

you dont even know what I believe, and you ignore me. I could be infact interested in your beliefs on the subject, but want further clarification. You dont even care. You dont want to clarify.

You are wasting your time here, Littleles. There is no chance for you to change what all these catholic believe - to make them suddenly go "oh snap, you are so right, Littleles, we have been so wrong about everything for 2000 years". The best you are going to get is a DETAILED explaination of what the catholic church believes, and WHY the church believes it. Take it or leave it, theres NO changing it. If you, God-willing decide to agree and believe along with catholicism you will recieve a WARM welcome. if you do not agree with what we believe, then get in line. You arnt the first to do so, and certainly wont be the last.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Sirklawd

[Aloysius]

A bank is robbed. The police come to investigate.

John tells the cops he saw his friend Mary Magdalen running from the bank.

Matthew tells the cops he saw Mary Magdalen and the other Mary running from the bank.

Mark tells the cops he saw three women running from the bank.

Luke tells the cops he saw four women running from the bank.

The cops consider there to be four women suspects, two of whom are identified as Mary Magdalen and the other Mary.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:18 PM']RESPONSE:

If there are different numbers of women and angels reported in the different Gospels, this in itself is a contradiction in the reporting.
[right][snapback]660012[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Only if you don't take it into "context."

It's called deductive reasoning.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:28 PM']A bank is robbed.  The police come to investigate.

John tells the cops he saw his friend Mary Magdalen running from the bank.

Matthew tells the cops he saw Mary Magdalen and the other Mary running from the bank.

Mark tells the cops he saw three women running from the bank.

Luke tells the cops he saw four women running from the bank.

The cops consider there to be four women suspects, two of whom are identified as Mary Magdalen and the other Mary.
[right][snapback]660024[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[b]Al[/b] buddy, Littleles has not written a police report before!

[Aloysius]

I suppose... just trying to appeal to simple logic here. logically speaking, a contradiction must consist of two statements one of which noticeably negates the other. identifying people in the affirmation while not negating something else does not contradict statements that affirm more people being there.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:39 PM'] I suppose... just trying to appeal to simple logic here.  logically speaking, a contradiction must consist of two statements one of which noticeably negates the other.  identifying people in the affirmation while not negating something else does not contradict statements that affirm more people being there.
[right][snapback]660038[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly. But with Littleles' current logic, crime investigation techniques are not logical.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 26 2005, 03:31 PM']Only if you don't take it into "context."

It's called deductive reasoning.
[right][snapback]660028[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

No; the context ploy is common . It means accept a ridulous explanation as a valid one. If the absurd explanation is at all possible, it just must be what occurred.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 26 2005, 03:34 PM'][b]Al[/b] buddy, Littleles has not written a police report before!
[right][snapback]660031[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gee. I didn't know that police reports were inspired by God and were therefore inerrant? Are they?