Contradictions in Bible History (heaven, doctrine, perspective, philosophy)

[ancient warrior]

Matthew, although he copied accounts from Mark's Gospel, doubles the number of people cured. In addition to having Jesus ride two animals instead of one when entering Jerusalem, we have:

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.

Or,

Matthew 8:28:29 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. They cried out, "What have you to do with us,Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the appointed time?"

And,

Mark 10:46-47 And they came to Jericho; and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude, Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son of Timae'us, was sitting by the roadside. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Or

Matthew 20:29-30And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!".

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Matthew, although he copied accounts from Mark's Gospel, doubles the number of people cured. In addition to having Jesus ride two animals instead of one when entering Jerusalem, we have:

And your undenialbe, scientific proof Matthew copied the accounts from Mark's gospel is . . . ? I didn't think so.

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.

Or,

Matthew 8:28:29 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. They cried out, "What have you to do with us,Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the appointed time?"

It could be that Christ went by those tombs more than once and on several occassions delivered different possessed people.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible states:
There met him two - Mark and Luke speak of only one that met him. “There met him out of
the tombs a man,” Mar_5:2. “There met him out of the tombs a certain man,” Luk_8:27. This
difference of statement has given rise to considerable difficulty. It is to be observed,
however, that neither Mark nor Luke say that there was no more than one. For particular
reasons, they might have been led to fix their attention on the one that was more notorious,
and furious, and difficult to be managed. Had they denied plainly that there was more than
one, and had Matthew affirmed that there were two, there would have been an irreconcilable
contradiction. As it is, they relate the affair as other people would. It shows that they were
honest witnesses. Had they been impostors; had Matthew and Luke agreed to write books to
deceive the world, they would have agreed exactly in a case so easy as this. They would have
told the story with the same circumstances. Witnesses in courts of law often differ in
unimportant matters; and, provided the main narrative coincides, their testimony is thought to
be more valuable.

Luke has given us a hint why he recorded only the cure of one of them. He says there met him
“out of the city, a man, etc.; or, as it should be rendered, “a man of the city” a citizen. Yet the
man did not dwell in the city, for he adds in the same verse, “neither abode he in any house,
but in the tombs.” The truth of the case was, that he was born and educated in the city. He
had probably been a man of wealth and eminence; he was well known, and the people felt a
deep interest in the case. Luke was therefore particularly struck with his case; and as his cure
fully established the power of Jesus, he recorded it. The other person that Matthew mentions
was probably a stranger, or one less notorious as a maniac, and he felt less interest in the
cure. Let two persons go into a lunatic asylum and meet two insane persons, one of whom
should be exceedingly fierce and ungovernable, and well known as having been a man of
worth and standing; let them converse with them, and let the more violent one attract the
principal attention, and they would very likely give the same account that Matthew and Luke
do, and no one would doubt the statement was correct.

And,

Mark 10:46-47 And they came to Jericho; and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude, Bartimae'us, a blind beggar, the son of Timae'us, was sitting by the roadside. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Or

Matthew 20:29-30And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!".

It could be Jesus went to Jericho more than once and the first time healed Bartimaeus and the second time Bartimaeus was not among the blind because he was already healed. It's not like He only healed or delivered a couple demoniacs. He may have healed hundreds of thousands of people.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Mat_20:30
Two blind men - Mark and Luke mention but one.
They do not say, however, that there was no more than one. They
mention one because he was probably well known; perhaps the son of a
distinguished citizen reduced to poverty. His name was Bartimeus. Bar is a
Syriac word, meaning “son;” and the name means, therefore, “the son of
Timeus.” Probably “Timeus” was a man of distinction; and as the case of
his son attracted most attention, Mark and Luke recorded it particularly. If
they had said that there was only one healed, there would have been a
contradiction. As it is, there is no more contradiction or difficulty than
there is in the fact that the evangelists, like all other historians, often
omit many facts which they do not choose to record. (end of quote)

The assasination of John F. Kennedy: Some say there was a gunman on the grassy knoll, some say a gunman from the book depository. Some say there was just one shooter, some say two.

It often happens that a witness talks about what they felt was important. I might go to town and run into John and Mary. Later I might run into Mary's friend and tell her I ran into Mary. Mary's friend later tells her Eusebius ran into her and Mary says "yea, I was with John." Well, did Eusebius lie?

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior
Matthew, although he copied accounts from Mark's Gospel, doubles the number of people cured. In addition to having Jesus ride two animals instead of one when entering Jerusalem, we have:

And your undenialbe, scientific proof Matthew copied the accounts from Mark's gospel is . . . ? I didn't think so.

RESPONSE:

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. (New Americaqn Bible, INtroduction to Matthew).

But more to the point, simply read both Mark's and Matthew's accounts and cross-reference them.

[ancient warrior]

Eusebius posted:

>>It could be that Christ went by those tombs more than once and on several occassions delivered different possessed people.<<

RESPONSE:

Absolutely anything "could be."

I just go by what the two scriptures say.

[ancient warrior]

Mark 8:27-30
Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" They said in reply, "John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets." And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah." Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Matt 16”13-20
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."]He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah.......Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.”

Is Eusebius really claiming that Matthew didn't copy from Mark. Compare.

[ancient warrior]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I didn't copy and paste any tracts. .

RESPONSE:

Really? Then did you author this yourself?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Mat_20:30
Two blind men - Mark and Luke mention but one.
They do not say, however, that there was no more than one. They
mention one because he was probably well known; perhaps the son of a
distinguished citizen reduced to poverty. His name was Bartimeus. Bar is a
Syriac word, meaning “son;” and the name means, therefore, “the son of
Timeus.” Probably “Timeus” was a man of distinction; and as the case of
his son attracted most attention, Mark and Luke recorded it particularly. If
they had said that there was only one healed, there would have been a
contradiction. As it is, there is no more contradiction or difficulty than
there is in the fact that the evangelists, like all other historians, often
omit many facts which they do not choose to record. (end of quote)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Originally Posted by ancient warrior
Matthew, although he copied accounts from Mark's Gospel, doubles the number of people cured. In addition to having Jesus ride two animals instead of one when entering Jerusalem, we have:

And your undenialbe, scientific proof Matthew copied the accounts from Mark's gospel is . . . ? I didn't think so.

RESPONSE:

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. (New Americaqn Bible, INtroduction to Matthew).

But more to the point, simply read both Mark's and Matthew's accounts and cross-reference them.

So, because the NAB says it, it is undeniable scientific proof?

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Really? Then did you author this yourself?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Mat_20:30
Two blind men - Mark and Luke mention but one.
They do not say, however, that there was no more than one. They
mention one because he was probably well known; perhaps the son of a
distinguished citizen reduced to poverty. His name was Bartimeus. Bar is a
Syriac word, meaning “son;” and the name means, therefore, “the son of
Timeus.” Probably “Timeus” was a man of distinction; and as the case of
his son attracted most attention, Mark and Luke recorded it particularly. If
they had said that there was only one healed, there would have been a
contradiction. As it is, there is no more contradiction or difficulty than
there is in the fact that the evangelists, like all other historians, often
omit many facts which they do not choose to record. (end of quote)

No, I gave credit to Albert Barnes.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

Mark 8:27-30
Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" They said in reply, "John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets." And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah." Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Matt 16”13-20
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."]He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah.......Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.”

Is Eusebius really claiming that Matthew didn't copy from Mark. Compare.

I'm saying you have to scientifically prove your untennable assertion that Matthew copied Mark's gospel.

The two verses above do not prove this.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by ancient warrior

RESPONSE:

Really? Then did you author this yourself?

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
Mat_20:30
Two blind men - Mark and Luke mention but one.
They do not say, however, that there was no more than one. They
mention one because he was probably well known; perhaps the son of a
distinguished citizen reduced to poverty. His name was Bartimeus. Bar is a
Syriac word, meaning “son;” and the name means, therefore, “the son of
Timeus.” Probably “Timeus” was a man of distinction; and as the case of
his son attracted most attention, Mark and Luke recorded it particularly. If
they had said that there was only one healed, there would have been a
contradiction. As it is, there is no more contradiction or difficulty than
there is in the fact that the evangelists, like all other historians, often
omit many facts which they do not choose to record. (end of quote)

I am amazed at your perseverence.

I dealt with this Eusebius chap over on religion Philosophy (Matthews errors) and you would not believe the wriggling, evasions and cherry - picking Bible writ to try to get out of it. I can say that he got beat but he probably won't admit it.

We see the same thing here. Maybe this, perhaps that. Maybe two men were healed but the others thought that if you mentioned just one that would be close enough.

Well, all power to you.