Different Storytellers

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:25 PM']Gee. I didn't know that police reports were inspired by God and were therefore inerrant? Are they?
[right][snapback]660399[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Notice how you only quoted my posts.

[White Knight]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 09:25 PM']Gee. I didn't know that police reports were inspired by God and were therefore inerrant? Are they?
[right][snapback]660399[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Must you agure over every little thing? When someone gives you a explaination, that is ligitment, your just blapping on and on, about nothing, when someone answers your question, you change the subject, because you dont know what to say.

Many phatmassers have given you many reasonable explainations on these topics, yet, you contunie to agure, why is this?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 27 2005, 03:03 AM']Must you agure over every little thing? When someone gives you a explaination, that is ligitment, your just blapping on and on, about nothing, when someone answers your question, you change the subject, because you dont know what to say.

Many phatmassers have given you many reasonable explainations on these topics, yet, you contunie to agure, why is this?
[right][snapback]660637[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

When somebody gives me an explanation which is contrary to Church teachings - ie. one can't have differing stories if it is maintained that scripture is directly inspired; in fact ,it is evidence that the writing is NOT inspired - I point that out.

I get many explanations which evidently the writer doesn't realize contradict Church teachings.

But my all time favorite is "It's a traditional belief -therefore, it must be so."

[LittleLes]

Forty days following the birth of a Jewish child the rite of purification is completed. This completes the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

Thus Luke 2: 39-40 “When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon ."

Luke claims nothing about Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents nor does the contemporary Jewish historian, Josephus.

On the other hand, Matthew comes up with this story so he can "fulfil" what he claims to be an Old Testament prophecy of Jesus. Actually , its a legend of Moses, "I have called my son out of Egypt." But to do that, Matthew has to create a story which puts Jesus in Egypt. Thus we have:

Matt 2:13 – 14 When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, 7 and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him." Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt."

Different stories for different storytellers!

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 07:26 AM']Forty days following the birth of a Jewish child the rite of purification is completed. This completes the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

Thus Luke 2: 39-40  “When they had fulfilled all the prescriptions of the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon ."

Luke claims nothing about Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents nor does the contemporary Jewish historian, Josephus.

On the other hand, Matthew comes up with this story so he can "fulfil" what he claims to be an Old Testament prophecy of Jesus. Actually , its a legend of Moses, "I have called my son out of Egypt."  But to do that, Matthew has to create  a story which puts Jesus in Egypt.  Thus we have:

Matt 2:13 – 14 When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, 7 and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him." Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt."

Different stories for different storytellers!
[right][snapback]660666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Luke does not say that the infant was not taken into Egypt as neither account is exhaustive (those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope). We can easily harmonize the accounts as follows:

Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth.

[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]


Forgetting this, [b]Littleles[/b]?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:24 PM']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.
[right][snapback]660020[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


And this, [b]Littleles[/b]?

[Sirklawd]

look at you, youre ignoring posts right now. MINE.

*points to rediculously large, and hard-to-miss post near top of page*

how do you expect to be taken seriously, when you CLEARLY only run from counterpoints. you bring up a single example and stick with it until someone brings up a decent counterpoint, then you just IGNORE it, and respond with questions about something different in an attempt to back up your belief. which is simply - "i h4t3 the church, it is wrong, I am r1t3"

stop trying to push buttons.

they need to make a "mature debates only" warning on these boards.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 27 2005, 10:06 AM']And this, [b]Littleles[/b]?
[right][snapback]660820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol.. EXACTLY. (i was almost gonna quote myself too)

thanks, paladin

[Sirklawd]

here is LittleLes's responses, in an effort to keep threads on their topics:

[i]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?

RESPONSE:

No. Jesus went to the place he ascended from on Mt Olivet.

************************************************


-Is there a geographical boundary where one is at a location and one is not?

RESPONSE:

Yes. There is the village limits outside of which it wouldn't be called Bethany. If not in Bethany but on the mountain, it would be called Mt Olivet and not Bethany. That should be obvious.

*******************************************************

-The base of mountain is still a part of the mountain isnt it?

RESPONSE:

Yes. But if there were a village there, the location would be referred to by the name of the village. For example, if I were going to Albany, I would say Albany. If I was going to the Adirondacks mountians only but not Albany, I would say Adirondacks and not Albany.

*********************************************************


-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?

RESPONSE:

He could say "I'm at Fenway," but that statement would be inaccurate if he were really in the Red Sox dugout.

Plesae keep in mind that scripture is suppose to be inspired and cannot coexist with error.

***********************************************
ALSO:

If it was reported that I ascended today when it really was 40 days from now, that would be an inaccurate statement (and doubtfully "inspired") [/i]



what i must point out is that, despite my joke in the other thread about the definition of the word "near" - alot of LittleLes's arguements are over definition, moreso - what he thinks is correct grammar/sentence structure and what others think is right.

for instance: "For example, if I were going to Albany, I would say Albany. If I was going to the Adirondacks mountians only but not Albany, I would say Adirondacks and not Albany. " my reply to this is: thats great, if only everyone else who ever existed was up to your standard of perfection in relating where you are. I assume that in the same situation saying " on earth" would be somehow wrong to you?

you also make assumptions about what people would refer to things based on where they are. "If not in Bethany but on the mountain, it would be called Mt Olivet and not Bethany." unfortunately for you, it was called Bethany, the parking lot was called fenway, and the towns on lake gaston are not ON lake gaston but are often referred to as Lake Gaston.

finally, and here we see the root of all your arguements. the fact that scripture is inspired. correct me if im wrong but you seem to want to prove that it isnt inspired, which proves that the events of the Gospels never happened. Unfortunately, historical events (that you can trace through many documents other than the bible) created the church, not the bible. The bible is a retelling of those historical events (along with many other things).

heres a good quote about the bibile/interpretation/inspiration from this site: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp[/url]


[i]Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published in 1884: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility." [/i]

with any luck there wont be any need to ask you (through multiple threads) to take notice of this. and keep in mind. this is again just what the catholic church believes and why it believes. Im only trying to show you the churches view so you can understand it - not nessearily believe it. It's not up to me to change what you believe, only the grace of God can do that. (I can only try to help : ) this is the churches belief. its not going to change. ever.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Sirklawd

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:16 PM']

heres a good quote about the bibile/interpretation/inspiration from this site: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp[/url]
[i]Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published in 1884: "Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility." [/i]

with any luck there wont be any need to ask you (through multiple threads) to take notice of this. and keep in mind. this is again just what the catholic church believes and why it believes. Im only trying to show you the churches view so you can understand it - not nessearily believe it. It's not up to me to change what you believe, only the grace of God can do that. (I can only try to help : )  this is the churches belief. its not going to change. ever.
[right][snapback]661174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

With all due respect to the late Cardinal Newman, we're talking about fact and fiction in scripture, as evidenced by vast contradictions. The Bible's claimed "inspiration" does not guarantee the absence of fiction.

[Sirklawd]

so just so im sure that i understand you. your whole point is that you believe that the bible is fictitious?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 27 2005, 03:29 PM']so just so im sure that i understand you. your whole point is that you believe that the bible is fictitious?
[right][snapback]661508[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I believe that it is evident that much of what is reported in the Bible never happened. To be sure, there is some historical information, but the bulk of the bible was written long after the fact and is legendary, not historical. In the case of the Old Testament, it tells the national epic of Israel, much like the epics of other peoples frequently found in their religious writings.

In the case of the New Testament, it too was written quite a bit later than the stories it relates. It reflects how various communites had come to think of Jesus. Stories told about him are not necessarily historical (ie they didn't necesssarily happen), but they represented how the people thought about Jesus. And, of course, these stories became embellished over time.

[Paladin D]

Not all of the Bible is a *literal historical* account of what happened, some of it is allegorial and symbolic to what actually occurred (Genesis can be interpreted this way). None of the Bible is actually *fiction*. We are not Protestants, we do not believe all of the Bible is a [b]literal[/b] historical account of what [b]exactly[/b] happened. But this does not at all mean that the Scriptures are fiction. Some Books/parts are like this, and some are not. As for the Gospels, they are to be taken as [b]literal[/b] historical fact.


This is similar to the [b]Book of Judith[/b] and the [b]Book of Tobit[/b]. [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp[/url] This explains it better than I can word it .

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 27 2005, 05:44 PM']  As for the Gospels, they are to be taken as [b]literal[/b] historical fact.
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Really? The you believe what is written in Luke that when Jesus was born, Herod ruled in Judea and Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria?