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.
Well the question is whether a person could see all the kingdoms of world at the same time from an exceeding high mountain, It's a no brainer, either they could be seen or they couldn't be seen.
However, to simply the question, can you see from any point all the land mass on which the all the kingdoms of the world were present 2,000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15
I wonder, if it was just jebus and the devil, who was there to document it and why should anyone believe it true?
As the last Amalekite, at least you know the how the story goes the descendant of Jonathan finds you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Stand by for the Christian apologetics of.... Ah...but! When it says 'world' it means the 'world' as known to the people THEN. So 'the world' meant their back gardens...'cause that was all the 'world' that they knew.....like the 'world flood' was only local...because it flooded the 'world' as they knew it...see?'
LOL, let me guess, you believe that the arch in the multicolored band occurs because of light refraction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
What you see as obvious, I see as a 50/50 at best.
50% you don't know and 50% you don't know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Have I made my case?
Yes you have, and it is a sad one...
Spoiler
Are you really sure you don't know whether or not you can see all the kingdoms of the earth from one point?
Spoiler
If you can't see any of the kingdom from this side, then you would have to see them all from the other
side
Unfortunately not. The massive discrepancies just mean the rewrite were major ones. As in the contradictions, the stories about Lazarus in Luke and John are so wildly different precisely because one is 'correcting' the theology behind the others account. Whether resurrection of the dead is evidence for Christianity or not. Luke says no, John says yes.
As for the sermon, if it is from a common source, why does Luke break it up, or Matthew lump it all together? It makes more sense to me that Luke breaks it up because Matthews sermon breaks up the story. And Luke, a masterful story teller can not have that.
I think you are expecting the gospels to agree because you believe they are based on a common source. I see the gospels contradicting each other because each writer is pushing different political and theological agendas.
Very good, but it won't do. First the nativities. If Luke had been copying Matthew, don't you think his nativity would at least have fitted in with Matthew? Similarly, the resurrections differ so much that even if you said he dropped the disciples going to Galilee (and rewriting the angel's message) because Acts is going to give Paul the Mission, not the disciples, that doesn't explain Luke omitting the women running into Jesus and even saying they didn't see him. Such contradictions are better explained as inventing separately than having it there and just tossing it out for theological reasons and never mind the contradiction.
So, before we get onto Q (I suppose you aren't related to my old mate Alt Thinker? he used just the same arguments) have I made a case that Luke could not feasibly have copied his gospel from Matthew (no more than I think it credible that he copied the tale of Lazarus in the afterlife from John's raising of Lazarus - though I have wondered whether there could be a connection) but based it on a common Synoptic text to which He, Matthew and John added invented contradictory resurrection accounts, because there weren't any originally, Mark of course not having one, as John and Mark have no Nativity.
Unfortunately not. The massive discrepancies just mean the rewrite were major ones. As in the contradictions, the stories about Lazarus in Luke and John are so wildly different precisely because one is 'correcting' the theology behind the others account. Whether resurrection of the dead is evidence for Christianity or not. Luke says no, John says yes.
As for the sermon, if it is from a common source, why does Luke break it up, or Matthew lump it all together? It makes more sense to me that Luke breaks it up because Matthews sermon breaks up the story. And Luke, a masterful story teller can not have that.
I think you are expecting the gospels to agree because you believe they are based on a common source. I see the gospels contradicting each other because each writer is pushing different political and theological agendas.
That is the point. If they were NOT different accounts, they would lose credibility as mere copies or plagiarism. Their differences speak to their authenticity as separate accounts of the same essential events.
Correct, but this argument that the differences attest to the accounts being -effectively, eyewitness accounts fails to stand up.
In fact the synoptic gospels fail to stand up both ways - where they Do agree they agree in wording and order of wording, not just what was said or done, but how they describe it, that reading from the same script is what they undoubtedly doing, not recounting their individual recollections.
On the other hand, where they differ, the differences are so terminally contradictory, that they scupper all claims of being eyewitness testimony.I cite the nativity as the 'test case' and the resurrections are just as bad.
There's plenty of other examples that this is fiddling the text. Matthew would have known it wasn't two donkeys if he'd been there. It would be just one, as all the others say. Luke knows, the angel didn't say 'Jesus told you in Galilee'. He said Jesus says you should go to Galilee. This is alteration, not mishearing.
This is why I say that the 'eyewitness' analogy will have three people reciting their spoonfed story, and then under cross examination, contradict each other so much that the Judge (unless he's been bribed) will declare their testimony invalid and have them sued for perjury.
Have i made my case on this so I can go onto why Luke and Mathew using common material bespeaks a common extra synoptic text?
Correct, but this argument that the differences attest to the accounts being -effectively, eyewitness accounts fails to stand up.
<snip>
Have I made my case on this so I can go onto why Luke and Mathew using common material bespeaks a common extra synoptic text?
You have made your case about eyewitness accounts but NOT about their being accounts of real events subject to the "telephone effect" ("Chinese Whispers" for you UK folk) only in writing.
That is the point. If they were NOT different accounts, they would lose credibility as mere copies or plagiarism. Their differences speak to their authenticity as separate accounts of the same essential events.
And their identical texts speak to one being a copy of the other. And that is the problem, the evidence Transponder has posted for a common text is also evidence for Matthew or Luke copying from the other.
As for plagiarism and credibility, that did not stop Matthew plagiarizing Mark.
Very good, but it won't do. First the nativities. If Luke had been copying Matthew, don't you think his nativity would at least have fitted in with Matthew?
No. Matthew has a royal, kingly Jesus, a political 'hot potato', so Luke (or someone else) could have added a more politically correct version to the earlier version of Luke that lacked a nativity.
And if Luke added the nativity to counteract Marcion as well, that gives him more reason to change the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
So, before we get onto Q (I suppose you aren't related to my old mate Alt Thinker? he used just the same arguments) have I made a case that Luke could not feasibly have copied his gospel from Matthew (no more than I think it credible that he copied the tale of Lazarus in the afterlife from John's raising of Lazarus - though I have wondered whether there could be a connection) but based it on a common Synoptic text to which He, Matthew and John added invented contradictory resurrection accounts, because there weren't any originally, Mark of course not having one, as John and Mark have no Nativity.
Although you think my English is good, please remember it is not my native language. Putting so many ideas into one sentence is difficult for me to parse. So please forgive me if I abuse your arguments.
While I accept Matthew and Luke could have used a common source, the fact that they share common text is also an argument that one copied from the other. And someone invented the incredible stories, whether it is the gospel writers themselves, or your Quelle source.
And Matthew is certainly rewriting parts of Mark, so why should Luke rewrite part of Matthew (or the other way round)? At best you have a 50% chance of being correct.
As for Lazarus, the point of Luke's story is that a visit from the dead will not convince people that the alleged resurrection of Jesus is proof Christianity is correct. John's expanded Lazarus story has people believing when they see Lazarus raised from the dead, the exact opposite of Luke. To me, this is no coincidence, and a drastic rewrite of Luke too. So I see no problem with Luke or Matthew rewriting the others account, either on a small scale or drastically.
You have made your case about eyewitness accounts but NOT about their being accounts of real events subject to the "telephone effect" ("Chinese Whispers" for you UK folk) only in writing.
The two animals Jesus uses to enter Jerusalem is taken from the Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Matthew is inventing this 'prophecy', not misunderstanding the story.
And their identical texts speak to one being a copy of the other. And that is the problem, the evidence Transponder has posted for a common text is also evidence for Matthew or Luke copying from the other.
As for plagiarism and credibility, that did not stop Matthew plagiarizing Mark.
But the mutually destructive Nativity and Resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke preclude Luke being based on Matthew. Even if he had changed it (for doctrinal or theological reasons) he'd make sure it ar least matched, wouldn't he?
And I don't believe that Matthew or Luke can be based on Mark (no revered Bethsaida, no syrio -phoenecian woman in Luke, no Pilate's surprise in either - that is one of Mark's own additions. They do Not follow mark but all three follow a common original.)
I still argue that the evience for a common text, But the evidence that they cannot be a copy of one by the other Plus Mark not having this material where he is dealing with the same even (e.g temptation in the wilderness) leaves the conclusion:
A common text used by both Matthew and Luke that wasn't known to Mark but which both used in their gospels but often in different places and contexts. My argument is that My thory is confirmed by the way the text reads, and the Explanation run into serious problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have made your case about eyewitness accounts but NOT about their being accounts of real events subject to the "telephone effect" ("Chinese Whispers" for you UK folk) only in writing.
I think I have, in reference to the substantial duplication of text in the synoptics, reported speech, description of doings and even the 'thoughts' of the writer. The idea of oral transmision with errors creeping in is refuted by the matching sections of text, just as the mutually destructive contradictions scuppers the claim that one gospel copied another.
I know that the tradition of separate eyewitness accounts or Mark (or some claim Matthew) being the original and the others copied it, but neither of those views stand up to scrutiny.
I suppose demand for the common sections of text would come next, but this is getting too derailed from the original topic which was how you could explain Jesus being shown (or possibly Shewn) all the kingdoms of the world at once.
Strictly, he couldn't, but there are Tweaks. Jesus being God could see them all in one go, A mountain high enough that you could see all the known kingdoms at the time, or a belief in a flat earth that would make all the kingdoms visible. All of them are full of gaping holes as explanations, but non believers won't believe this fool story anyway, and believers will believe it anyway, whether they believe it or not.
As I say, that it is Luke-Matthew material not found in mark tells me that it is a tall story sharked up elsewhere and parachuted into the gospels in a document that both Luke and Matthew had, but Mark didn't because he was earlier. But the extensive similarity of Mark and Matthew's account of the event bespeaks a common text - not just tale, but a written text.
And that's where I stand on this.
Over to you bods.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-30-2018 at 04:03 AM..
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.
