Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Matthew 28 versus John 20.
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 89 (595575)
12-09-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by rstrats
12-09-2010 6:23 AM


rstrats writes:
jar,
re: "Why would they need to be reconciled?"
I say "why" in the OP.
i believe that what jar is getting at is that they are simply separate stories, and should be read as such. neither is exactly an account of what happened per se, like a history would be, but rather are homiletics or some similar fictionalized storytelling framework designed to teach the gospels.
for instance, go about rectifying gibson's "passion of the christ" with zeffirelli's "jesus of nazareth". they won't quite line up, either.
this kind of thing happens all over the bible, especially in the torah. like the gospels, the torah originally existed as several separate (and slightly contradictory) documents, and a redactor has interwoven them. compare the stories of genesis 1 and genesis 2, for instance. you can try to reconcile the two, but doing so will betray one or the other, or both.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by rstrats, posted 12-09-2010 6:23 AM rstrats has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 17 of 89 (595582)
12-09-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by nwr
12-09-2010 11:16 AM


nwr writes:
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, yet dismiss contradictions as due to human fallibility.
In my view the Bible is the grand narrative of God dealing with His creation as written by His image bearing creatures, not one ghost written by God. In that you will find human fallibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 12-09-2010 11:16 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nwr, posted 12-09-2010 12:15 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 18 of 89 (595584)
12-09-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
12-09-2010 11:16 AM


jar writes:
Belief in the resurrection is irrelevant to the content of the stories and tales.
Frankly, it is THE thing that is relevant. If it didn't happen then the Christian faith is based on either an error or a lie, and as Paul says we are wasting our time or worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 11:16 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-09-2010 11:58 AM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 19 of 89 (595586)
12-09-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
12-09-2010 11:53 AM


The topic
But it is irrelevant to the topic and honestly, pretty irrelevant to Jesus message IMHO as well.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 11:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:19 PM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 20 of 89 (595591)
12-09-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
12-09-2010 11:51 AM


GDR writes:
In my view the Bible is the grand narrative of God dealing with His creation as written by His image bearing creatures, not one ghost written by God. In that you will find human fallibility.
Yes, that's the sensible view, and I was pretty sure that was how you looked at it. However, it seems to me that the OP is posing the topic as a potential problem for inerrantists.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 11:51 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:10 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 21 of 89 (595599)
12-09-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
12-09-2010 12:35 AM


quote:
They were written about 40 years after the resurrection so there would still have been eyewitnesses.
Really ? Matthew is usually dated about that time, but John is dated later typically to ~60 years after the events. And don't forget that the Jewish Revolt and it's aftermath would have reduced the number of surviving eyewitnesses. And I doubt that the (unknown) author of Matthew had any reliable eyewitnesses telling him about, for instance, the dead "saints" wandering Jerusalem (27:52-3)
quote:
I think it is generally agreed that the first books were by Paul around 50 AD and the first gospel, (Mark) was about 15 years later. I agree that the minor details would vary over that span of time.
Of course with both Matthew and John being written later there's plenty of room for more major differences to come in. Consider the differences between Matthew and Luke for a start.
quote:
That I disagree with. If everything lined up perfectly it would be a strong indication that there was an agreed upon agenda and they were going to make everything fit into a preconceived narrative. The fact that there are discrepancies should lead us to believe that we have the letters that accurately reflect what the original authors believed to be truthful, and not what someone later wanted to promote.
And thus we know that the author of Luke and Matthew disagreed to the point where we cannot trust that either account is reliable or based on reliable eyewitness testimony. (Although they agreed on much of the material that they copied from Mark).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 12:35 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 1:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 22 of 89 (595622)
12-09-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
12-09-2010 12:54 PM


PaulK writes:
Really ? Matthew is usually dated about that time, but John is dated later typically to ~60 years after the events. And don't forget that the Jewish Revolt and it's aftermath would have reduced the number of surviving eyewitnesses. And I doubt that the (unknown) author of Matthew had any reliable eyewitnesses telling him about, for instance, the dead "saints" wandering Jerusalem (27:52-3)
Agreed
PaulK writes:
And thus we know that the author of Luke and Matthew disagreed to the point where we cannot trust that either account is reliable or based on reliable eyewitness testimony. (Although they agreed on much of the material that they copied from Mark).
There were no doubt other written records around by eyewitnesses, or from the accounts of eye witnesees that the writers would have drawn, (possibly Q), but I'm not inclined to think that they were copied directly from Mark, but who knows.
As I explained earlier, I contend that the fact that there are discrepencies in the non-essential details of the accounts adds credence to the essential details of which the resurrection is central. Nobody who was trying to promote a fictional version of this would have put together things that had inconsistencies in the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2010 12:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2010 2:27 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 12-09-2010 2:43 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 61 by Kapyong, posted 12-11-2010 4:09 PM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 23 of 89 (595634)
12-09-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
12-09-2010 1:51 PM


quote:
There were no doubt other written records around by eyewitnesses, or from the accounts of eye witnesees that the writers would have drawn, (possibly Q), but I'm not inclined to think that they were copied directly from Mark, but who knows.
THat they drew from other documents is quite possible. That these documents were written by eyewitnesses or directly from eyewitness accounts is rather more doubtful. I'm not sure what the point in postulating additional copying is. It doesn't seem to be supported by evidence or help your argument.
quote:
As I explained earlier, I contend that the fact that there are discrepencies in the non-essential details of the accounts adds credence to the essential details of which the resurrection is central. Nobody who was trying to promote a fictional version of this would have put together things that had inconsistencies in the details.
Because obviously you should believe documents containing major inaccuracies... No, its evidence that there wasn't a coordinated plot to pass off a deliberately created invention as fact but who suggests that ? But it is also evidence that the account underwent a good deal of legendary development - likely after the writing of Mark, and who knows how much before ? Paul tells us very little about Jesus life, or even the resurrection - not even mentioning the empty tomb, for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 1:51 PM GDR has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9274
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 24 of 89 (595636)
12-09-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
12-09-2010 12:35 AM


Any evidence?
They were written about 40 years after the resurrection so there would still have been eyewitnesses.
Do you have any evidence for either of the assertions in this sentence?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 12:35 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 9:02 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9274
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 25 of 89 (595640)
12-09-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
12-09-2010 1:51 PM


Evidence?
There were no doubt other written records around by eyewitnesses, or from the accounts of eye witnesees that the writers would have drawn, (possibly Q), but I'm not inclined to think that they were copied directly from Mark, but who knows.
No doubt? Really? Really?
Any evidence to back this up? Is tradition and your personal beliefs your evidence?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 12-09-2010 1:51 PM GDR has not replied

  
rstrats
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 26 of 89 (595663)
12-09-2010 7:04 PM


After reading the above posts, I had to go back and read what I had written in the OP. From the responses, it seemed that I had asked why there IS a contradiction between Matthew 28 and John 20. But after rereading my OP, I see that I had asked what I had intended to ask - an explanation for why there ISN’T a contradiction.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 7:17 PM rstrats has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 89 (595664)
12-09-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by rstrats
12-09-2010 7:04 PM


perhaps the logical answer is that they can't be reconciled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by rstrats, posted 12-09-2010 7:04 PM rstrats has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by rstrats, posted 12-09-2010 7:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
rstrats
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 28 of 89 (595665)
12-09-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by arachnophilia
12-09-2010 7:17 PM


arachnophilia,
re: perhaps the logical answer is that they can't be reconciled.
Perhaps so.
However, I was hoping to hear from someone who thinks that there ARE no contradictions in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 7:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 8:18 PM rstrats has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 29 of 89 (595673)
12-09-2010 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by frako
12-09-2010 4:45 AM


Not many look at the average lifespans of that time if the eyewitness was a child 10 years old he would be 50 by the time it was written down so most likely dead tough lets say some children did survive that time and where interviewed by the authors. How much would their story differ from the actual events? Try it yourself look for a video that was made when you where young and you are in it. Then write down what do you think happened in the video in the greatest detail possible then watch the video and see how well you did.
Bronze Age and Iron Age[10] 35+
Classical Greece[11] 28
Classical Rome[11] 28
Pre-Columbian North America[12] 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate[13] 35+
Medieval Britain[14][15] 30
Early Modern Britain[10] 40+
Early 20th Century[16][17] 30-45
Current world average[18] 67.2
The biggest influence on those statistics is infant and child mortality. I am not saying that helps the situation for the advocates much at all but during those times if you could make it into adulthood you had a pretty good chance of living a decently long life barring illness and such.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frako, posted 12-09-2010 4:45 AM frako has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 89 (595677)
12-09-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by rstrats
12-09-2010 7:22 PM


rstrats writes:
Perhaps so.
However, I was hoping to hear from someone who thinks that there ARE no contradictions in the Bible.
well, you're welcome to keep trying of course, but those kind of responses are generally pretty unsatisfying. those who think that there are no contradictions in the bible know how to hand-waive a few away, and generally haven't noticed the hundreds of other ones. so they duck the issue, pretend it isn't there, stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalalala.
they operate from the assumption that god wrote the bible personally, and god is perfect, so any apparent contradiction obviously can't be. but when pressed for explanations, they generally falter. or resort to the mystical "limits of human understanding" nonsense.
i was in my friend's church once, and the guest sermon ran short, and so the pastor asked for questions. first about the sermon, and then about anything. so i asked, in front of the whole congregation, a question very similar to yours. here is an apparent contradiction, how do we reconcile these two gospels? now, i'd heard a few arguments about the specific question i had asked, but i wanted a really good answer.
what followed was the pastor saying, "i don't know," a lot of head-scratching, and the sounds of pages flipping back and forth and people murmuring that they had never noticed that before.
critically thinking about the bible is the way of the devil, you know.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by rstrats, posted 12-09-2010 7:22 PM rstrats has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by subbie, posted 12-09-2010 8:58 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024