Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, the MO is holding their hands over their ears, rocking back n' forth and chanting "nuh-uh!" very loudly.
We are the ones that recognize that the text has variances, and we are the ones that recognize that culturally, and in that genre, those are not contradictions. You guys are the ones rocking back and forth chanting "nuh-uh!", hoping that it is a contradiction. Because without the smokescreen of supposed contradictions, you might be asked to take a hard look at your own life and beliefs.
You are missing the point. Matthew says quite clearly that the centurion himself accosted Jesus as soon as he came in from the sermon on the mount. Jesus was inclined to go with him but the centurion says 'I'm not worthy' and allows Jesus to do a 'Healing at a distance'. There is no possible room to postulate the centurion sending representatives.
So there is a contradiction between Matthew's account and Luke's where Luke, seeing the story, saw some problems in a centurion approaching Jesus (nothing that actually couldn't be got over with some apologetic ingenuity) and has him send along some elders, who are grateful to him for building their Synagogue (1) and as usual, since he never saw Matthew, he didn't realize that he was contradicting him. And neither of them realized that the John's Gospel story of a 'healing at a distance' is so totally different from either of them that, unless one buys the Eusebian (ours, not Constantine's) explanation that they are two different (though similar) events (2) not to mention Mark not having the story at all, one is forced to the conclusion that a 'healing at a distance' is the only common factor, and thus John and Matthew and Luke (but not Mark since the story was not doing the rounds in his day) all elaborated on the basic common story, resulting in the contradictions. As is pretty much par for the Gospel course, from nativity to resurrection.
Thus the point about sending elders of representatives is irrelevant. You remind me so much of my old work -pal who would do the same thing. When I raised problems of this kind, he would sorta sidestep the entire issue and try to fiddle some irrelevant detail of the story to sound plausible, and also with the element of either not knowing that the Centurion in Matthew can't be passed off as 'going himself' by sending a representative, or hoping that we won't bother to look.
(1) the stunning proof of Gospel truth is the existence of an actual Synagogue in Capernaum! It isn't actually of the 1st century, but the one the centurion built is probably underneath it...
(2) I don't think even Eusebius would try to get away with the two centurion -healings in Matthew and Luke as being different events.
Ah but what does the original Greek say?
Before arguing one way or another, my opinion is that one MUST look at the original Greek text, and the meaning and context. Depending upon an English translation leads to these kinds of disputes.
We are the ones that recognize that the text has variances, and we are the ones that recognize that culturally, and in that genre, those are not contradictions. You guys are the ones rocking back and forth chanting "nuh-uh!", hoping that it is a contradiction. Because without the smokescreen of supposed contradictions, you might be asked to take a hard look at your own life and beliefs.
Good try Viz. You are certainly stalwart in your defense of your old storybook.
We are the ones that recognize that the text has variances, and we are the ones that recognize that culturally, and in that genre, those are not contradictions. You guys are the ones rocking back and forth chanting "nuh-uh!", hoping that it is a contradiction. Because without the smokescreen of supposed contradictions, you might be asked to take a hard look at your own life and beliefs.
Are you under the impression that people who don't believe the bible is the inerrant word of God never take a hard look at their own life and beliefs? What gives you that impression?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,939,436 times
Reputation: 4561
Vizio and Jeffbaseetc, the passages are very clear, and there are no interpretations to be needed either culturally, or literally.
There is no question that the two Gospels differ in their presentation of the event. They can't be reconciled, no matter how one twist or turns.
Sometimes it's better to just accept the fact that the Bible does not always correspond to itself. Credibility is established and maintained by recognizing reality.
Vizio and Jeffbaseetc, the passages are very clear, and there are no interpretations to be needed either culturally, or literally.
There is no question that the two Gospels differ in their presentation of the event. They can't be reconciled, no matter how one twist or turns.
Sometimes it's better to just accept the fact that the Bible does not always correspond to itself. Credibility is established and maintained by recognizing reality.
Again...I question why you think you should apply 21st Century literary standards to 1st Century literature. Can you explain?
Again...I question why you think you should apply 21st Century literary standards to 1st Century literature. Can you explain?
Why do you apply 1st century morals and worldview to 21st century people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You remind me so much of my old work -pal who would do the same thing. When I raised problems of this kind, he would sorta sidestep the entire issue and try to fiddle some irrelevant detail of the story to sound plausible, and also with the element of either not knowing that the Centurion in Matthew can't be passed off as 'going himself' by sending a representative, or hoping that we won't bother to look.
