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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,941,333 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
We know there are contradictions in the bible, ones that there are inane attempts at trying to explain them away, often hauling out the "not in context" line.
So, let's try this one on, and see what comes up.
Matthew 8:28 "... there met him two possessed devils..." meaning TWO were possessed.
Mark 5:2 "...met him out of the tombs a man..." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Luke 8:27 "...there met him out of the city a certain man...." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Well, those who say the bible is inerrant, which is it? One or two men?
ones that there are inane attempts at trying to explain them away, often hauling out the "not in context" line.
So, let's try this one on, and see what comes up.
Matthew 8:28 "... there met him two possessed devils..." meaning TWO were possessed.
Mark 5:2 "...met him out of the tombs a man..." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Luke 8:27 "...there met him out of the city a certain man...." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Quote:
Well, those who say the bible is inerrant, which is it? One or two men?
If there was 2, then there had to be 1. Why Mark and Luke concentrate on only one may be because he was the most prominent. Matthew does not mention either man being able to break the chains, but Mark and Luke do and maybe that is why they only speak of him.
Now I know you will still find this explanation inane, but at least I did not say you took it out of context and IMO, it is a reasonable explanation.
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-15-2016 at 01:50 PM..
Reason: Yet another in a long list of missing quote tags
Here is a very good New Testament Biblical Commentary from 1942.
You should keep it handy for better understanding, if you seek as such.
Rather than describe two pages of commentary on the Expulsion of the
Devils in Gerasa, I will merely convey that Matthew's account mentions
two who came out of the tombs, but it is plain from the other accounts
that only one of them really mattered enough to be remembered, he
was the famous one, who went on to preach the Lord's name in the Ten Cities.
You also may want to consider that the tombs were on the border,
high on the hills, perhaps not every apostle went up there with Jesus.
I'll turn a table on you also, that since modern textual critics maintain
against Tradition and the early Church that Mark was written before
Matthew, which is not true, then this is evidence against their theory;
because Matthew would have described one demonaic, just as Mark did,
if Matthew's source was Mark. Alas, not the case at all.
Dammit Snowball I agree. Matthew couldn't have copied Mark, Nor could Luke have copied Matthew, And Mark for sure wasn't based on either of the others.
As to the One or two men, it is easy to explain away. It needs more hefty contradictions to see what is actually going on, and then you can check back and see that Matthew has an odd habit of making one person (or angel) into two, I really don't know why. Yes, I just checked bar -Timaeus, Matthew makes it TWO blind Men. I don't know why, but I know he does this and I know it is an alteration of the story.
Well, concerning the blind men at Jericho, the same applies to show that
Mark was not the source for Luke, just like it wasn't the source for Matthew.
If Luke used Mark as a source, as the "scholars" are wont to say, then
Luke would have named Bartimeus just like Mark did ! Alas, he did not.
Moreover, there were actually two different Jerichos. Old Jericho, on the site
of the Canaanite city that was destroyed by Josue (Jos. 6) and rebuilt by Hiel
(Kgs. 16:34), and New Jericho, also known as Phasael, built by Herod the Great,
which was about two miles to the south of the old city. Then there was a third,
later, and the modern village of Jericho, er-Riha, is about two miles to the east, 825 feet
below sea level.
Again, the emphasis on Bartimeus in Mark which was not so in Matthew or Luke
is evidence against the theory that Mark was a "source" for either, just like I
showed in the prior post about the demonaic(s). It's really just an example
how Matthew seems to find it necessary to include every detail as much as
he remembered, even the less important ones; but Matthew was not familiar
with who Bartimeus was, while later Bartimeus was known in the community
of disciples, which is why Peter and others must have mentioned him to Mark,
but not in Luke by name, those who testified to Luke may not have known him
personally, only those from Peter's group in Rome did.
They are all the same. Luke is written when he was looking straight ahead and wrote what he seen. MARK was written when he looked to his left and wrote what he saw. MATTHEW was written when he turned around and described what he saw and JOHN was written when he was drunk and did really know what he was seeing...
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,941,333 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
They are all the same. Luke is written when he was looking straight ahead and wrote what he seen. MARK was written when he looked to his left and wrote what he saw. MATTHEW was written when he turned around and described what he saw and JOHN was written when he was drunk and did really know what he was seeing...
Ahh... someone who can give clarity to the situation. I think you got it, by Jooves!
We know there are contradictions in the bible, ones that there are inane attempts at trying to explain them away, often hauling out the "not in context" line.
So, let's try this one on, and see what comes up.
Matthew 8:28 "... there met him two possessed devils..." meaning TWO were possessed.
Mark 5:2 "...met him out of the tombs a man..." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Luke 8:27 "...there met him out of the city a certain man...." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Well, those who say the bible is inerrant, which is it? One or two men?
We know there are contradictions in the bible, ones that there are inane attempts at trying to explain them away, often hauling out the "not in context" line.
So, let's try this one on, and see what comes up.
Matthew 8:28 "... there met him two possessed devils..." meaning TWO were possessed.
Mark 5:2 "...met him out of the tombs a man..." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Luke 8:27 "...there met him out of the city a certain man...." meaning only ONE was possessed.
Well, those who say the bible is inerrant, which is it? One or two men?
Actually, I think reading the Bible is a lot like real life, you don't believe everything you read or hear. You have to question and decide what to believe and what not to believe, what you will do and what you will not do, you have to make those decisions. Eyewitnesses are not dependable, two eyewitnesses can have two different versions, and no disciple was even carrying around any pen and paper writing down notes. And memory is not always dependable. And I suspect that Matthew, Mark, and Luke is the name of the story, not the writer, and likely presenting rumor as fact. Just like real life.
Luke writes about Paul when he was struck by a bright light on the road and was blind for 3 days and after that, Paul went straightway to Jerusalem. And later he writes about it again, three times he mentions it, and every time it grows larger and larger.
Then I read what Paul said, and he said it was a year or so before he went to Jerusalem after going blind for 3 days. Luke wasn't even there. Luke was recording hearsay as fact. And when I read something like, "Many said" or "Many saw," I suspect rumors are being reported.
It's just like real life, you gonna have to really search things out if you want to find any truth...or something you can believe in or even work with. And that is good exercise for your mind. You have to learn to eat the sweet and avoid the bitter. Most people that believe everything in the bible is literal and true probably have never even read the whole book.
What do I think is true? "The prudence of the wise is that they will watch their ways, and turn aside from wickedness. But the folly of fools is deception." --and such as this, I really eat this kind of slop up, hmm, taste good to me. They even deceive themselves. I could serve this God. I find a lot of things I can believe in the Book. The god that tells me to go harm or deceive someone, I can't serve that strange god. But me, I'd rather just say what it is that I have to say and move on. You really never know how you words well affect another person. But the only mind you can really expect to change is your own.
-
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.
