Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | post resurrection accounts | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 53220 | ||
Greetings Bub! Can you provide us with an example of where the Gospel accounts cannot be reconciled? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | post resurrection accounts | NT general Archive 1 | bubbatate | 53281 | ||
Tim, you want an example of where gospel accounts cannot be reconciled......here goes.....citing only post resurrection accounts: (by the way Steve and Hank….thanks for your input…..I had copied all four gospel accounts and had them side by side. I made a page with four columns inserting the information from each gospel in its respective column and tried to construct a coherent time line…..I couldn’t do it…..that was the maddening part.) #1 The cast of characters at the tomb vary in each gospel. #2 The dialogue at the tomb varied in each gospel. The most striking conflict is Y’shua saying, (Mt.28:10) “Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee (about 80 miles from Jerusalem); there they will see me." (in Mk 16:7 the women get the same information but a “young man” is speaking about Y’shua, it is not Y’shua speaking.) The Galilee message was not mentioned in Lk nor Jn, nor did they see Him there in Mk, Lk or Jn. #3 The accounts of Y’shua first appearing to the disciples (and when and where) are all different. a) Eleven disciples are on the scene in all but Jn….where Thomas was absent. b) There are only accounts of one appearance to the disciples in Mt, Mk and Lk, but 3 appearances in John; in Acts 1:3, “He appeared to them over a period of forty days”. #4 Accounts of the Ascension differ: a)The Ascension is not mentioned in Matthew b)Mentioned in Mark 16:19 but “the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” c)In Luke, He ascends on the same day as His resurrection. d)In John there is no record of the Ascension. If anyone can come up with a reckoning of all the events coming together in a coherent time line, with no inconsistencies, I would applaud his efforts. Is it me? Thanks all….. Bub |
||||||
3 | post resurrection accounts | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 53286 | ||
Greetings Bub! Thanks for the response! It helps to have some definite issue in mind when discussing a topic like this one. :-) It has been my experience that most people who have problems with the Gospel accounts, especially of the post-resurrection narratives, do so because they approach the four Gospels with the expectation that the four will basically each include every possible detail. However, when a historian is composing history, he must be selective in which details he chooses to present and which details he chooses to ignore. That is to say that each Gospel will differ in what they choose to include or not. This is only a problem if the details contradict one another. For instance, if John says that Jesus appeared to so and so, while Mark says that He did not. However, silence concerning a particular detail is not a problem. With that in mind, let's look at some of your points. 1) Cast of Characters: I would need more detail on this point. This is a pretty broad topic. However, I would note that this point is only a problem if one Gospel specifically includes a person, while another specifically excludes a person. It is not a problem if one Gospel simply does not mention a person one way or the other. A history is not required to mention every possible detail. It is only required to record the details factually. 2) The Dialogue of Mt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7: This is an excellent example of the point I raise above. Allow me to touch upon your points concerning this question in reverse order. a) The fact that Luke and John do not mention going to Galilee is not a problem as long as they do not explicitly deny that it took place. Silence is not a contradiction. b) Mt. 28:10 and Mark 16:7 are not parallel accounts. In Mt. 28:10, Jesus is speaking. In Mr. 16:7, an angel is speaking. The dialogue is similar, but different. The true parallel to Mk. 16:7 is not Mt. 28:10, but Mt. 28:5-8. Here, just as in Mk. 16:7, an angel gives them the message in virtually identical language. 3 and 4) Appearances and Ascension: These are both similar to issue 2). What you have mentioned are not contradictions but simply varying levels of detail. Why must each Gospel mention each detail? The value of each Gospel as an historical witness is predicated upon their independence, not their interdependence. I hope this helps some! I would strongly recommend getting in touch with the United Bible Society and purchasing a Synopsis of the Gospels. It only cost about 10 dollars in hard back. It lays the entire four Gospels out side by side for comparison. Well, I’ve got to run some errands my friend! Chat with you later! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | post resurrection accounts | NT general Archive 1 | bubbatate | 53380 | ||
Dear Tim, thanks for your response, however I’m still baffled. I am not concerned with omissions or varying levels of detail among the gospels….I totally understand that. You stated, “A history is not required to mention every possible detail. It is only required to record the details factually.” This is my sticking point…..the factual details don’t fit. Mt 28:10 Then Y’shua said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."……. 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. (A) Mt’s factual detail: The eleven went to Galilee (can we assume that this was immediately, on the first day?). Mk 15:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." 8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20). (B) Mark’s factual detail: The women did not give the disciples the message to go to Galilee. LK 24: 1 On the first day of the week…….13 Now that same day…….33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven……36 While they were still talking about this, Y’shua himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." (C) Luke’s factual detail: On the first day Y’shua appeared first to the eleven in Jerusalem. JN 20:10 Then the disciples went back to their homes……..19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Y’shua came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord….. 24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came…….26 A week later his disciples were in the house again. (D) John’s factual detail: On the first day Y’shua appears to ten in a houses. Okay, can A and B be reconciled? Yes, with a little creativity one could say that later they delivered the message and the disciples went to Galilee. Can A and C be reconciled? No. How can they be both in Galilee and in Jerusalem on the same day? Can A and D be reconciled? No. Again they are in Jerusalem, not Galilee, with the further contradiction that there were only ten present instead of the eleven. How can you get all these to fit? You said, “The fact that Luke and John do not mention going to Galilee is not a problem as long as they do not explicitly deny that it took place. Silence is not a contradiction.” The problem is not that they are silent on “Galilee”, but that they place the initial meeting of Y’shua and the disciples in Jerusalem. The logistics are impossible to reconcile. My point is, how can one say that each of the writers were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire with consistency? Just the fact that most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20, which has a separate post resurrection account, raises questions……did the Holy Spirit add that later? Thanks Tim……..Bub |
||||||
5 | post resurrection accounts | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 53395 | ||
Greetings Bub! Thanks for the response my friend! Allow me to use your A, B, C, and D format in response to your post! 1) A and B: There is no reconcilation necessary since B is simply silent about Galilee. 2) A and C: You are assuming that they went to Galilee on the same day in A. However, the text never says that they went on the same day. In fact, it never specifies any amount of time. Based on the evidence of the other Gospels, I would guess that it was a week or two at least. 3) A and D: I think you mean B and D, or C and D on this point, since A does not mention the meetings in Jerusalem at all. Just as an example, the difference in number may simply be explained in one of two ways. Luke describes the earlier appearance of the two mentioned in John - the one at which Thomas was not present. Luke 24:33 says that the Eleven were present when the two from the road to Emmaus give their report, but it never specifically says that the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared. Thus, Thomas may have simply left at some point. Then, per John, Jesus appears again a week later. Or, Luke may have conflated the details of the two visits without specifically stating that these things occurred over two visits. Luke's account of showing His hands and feet sounds more like the the events at the second appearance in John, in response to Thomas' doubt. I simply don't see anything that is impossible to reconcile except for your assumption that they wen to Galilee on the first day, which the text never says. Consistency? Since the accounts are not contradictory, consistency isn't really an issue. From even a human standpoint, based on the traditional order of writting of the Gospels, one can understand how the varying levels of detail came about. 1) Mark wrote first, and may have left out all of the post resurrection accounts entirely - ending with Mk. 16:8. 2) Matthew writes and decides to end on a more positive note and ends with the Great Commission in Galilee. 3) Luke writes and fills in the detail about what happened between the resurrection and the Ascension of Christ. 4) John follows with even more detail about the appearences of Christ in Jerusalem. Based on Paul's comments, there are probably many more appearences which are not mentioned at all. The long ending of Mk. 16:9-20 is a seperate issue. I have posted several times on it. If you want to see my views on this, simply search the forum. I do not believe that Mk. 16:9-20 was original, but was added later because someone did not feel that it was appropriate to end at Mk. 16:8. Well, I'm getting ready for a cook out, so I've got to go now! Have a great Fourth of July! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||