What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Harmony of the Gospels

Cyberseeker said:
By respecting the historical integrity of the gospels.
Click to expand...
Again: Gospels are not Histories.
You are attempting to impose a 21st century, western concept into a 1st century, middle eastern, literary form where it doesn't belong. You're trying to hammer a literary square peg into a literary round hole.
The consistent result of that type of endeavor is garbage.

But, if it makes you happy, enjoy!

It doesn't make any difference whether it was one or two.
 
At the first temple cleansing did the Jews say, or did they not say, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple" ? If so, take a history lesson then do the math.
 
Cyberseeker said:
At the first temple cleansing did the Jews say, or did they not say, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple" ? If so, take a history lesson then do the math.
Click to expand...
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

John included those words of the Jews in his report of the cleansing of the temple; Matthew, Mark and Luke did not.
That is ALL you can say about it.

That Matthew, Mark and Luke did not include those words in his Gospel only proves that they did not include those words and nothing more.

Your "proof" is no proof at all.

And the Gospels aren't math; they're literature.

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
 
Jim Parker said:
John included those words of the Jews in his report of the cleansing of the temple; Matthew, Mark and Luke did not.
That is ALL you can say about it.
Click to expand...

So, the Jews did not say what John reported they said? Rather than minimizing John, I prefer to believe what he said - that Jesus cleared the temple during Passover AD 27, then cleared it again when Matthew, Mark, and Luke reported it - 3rd April AD 30.
 
Jim Parker said:
What are you talking about? Nobody said that.
Click to expand...

At the first temple cleansing did the Jews say, or did they not say, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple" ? You seem to be saying that they never said that (or never meant it) and that it is no proof of the gospels being a reliable historical record.

Jim Parker said:
John didn't give any dates.
Click to expand...
Really? Are you not aware that any Jewish feast day can be converted to our calendar?

Jim Parker said:
That's your brainfart.
Click to expand...
I can't say Ive ever seen one of those? Were you referring to Wondering's whirlwind smilie?
 
Cyberseeker said:
At the first temple cleansing did the Jews say, or did they not say, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple" ? You seem to be saying that they never said that (or never meant it) and that it is no proof of the gospels being a reliable historical record.

Really? Are you not aware that any Jewish feast day can be converted to our calendar?

I can't say Ive ever seen one of those? Were you referring to Wondering's whirlwind smilie?
Click to expand...
I get brain farts. AKA senior moments.
 
Papa Zoom said:
That's probably closer to what I mean when I say historical. So I'll try to be more clear on that. BTW, I do agree with you on the chronology stuff - that's it's not important to the overall story. Sequence isn't the point.
Click to expand...
Sequence is definitely NOT the point.
So, when someone attempts to extract an answer to the question of whether there was one or two temple cleansing based on the assumption of strictly accurate chronology in the Gospels, he is building his argument on a vacuum. The accurate chronology does not exist.

iakov the fool
 
Jim Parker said:
Sequence is definitely NOT the point.
So, when someone attempts to extract an answer to the question of whether there was one or two temple cleansing based on the assumption of strictly accurate chronology in the Gospels, he is building his argument on a vacuum. The accurate chronology does not exist.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...
I won't argue that point further except to say it's certainly a possibility that there were two. It's plausible. But I like the challenge to my position because it makes me think about it more and research more. That's the best part of discussions. Having one's views challenged and getting to defend them and then, on one's own time, reexamine them. That's what I do. It's how I learn and grow. ;)
 
Papa Zoom said:
I won't argue that point further except to say it's certainly a possibility that there were two. It's plausible.
Click to expand...
Plausible, yes.
Rabbit trail? Definitely.
It's not important to the core facts of the Gospel and is just something to speculate about without gaining any useful insight.
When I taught Bible college classes, I encouraged my students to ask what I called the basic theological question: "So what?"
If I can't put it one the road, it's not that important.
What are important are matters of eternal life and eternal death.

iakov the fool
 
Jim Parker said:
Plausible, yes.
Rabbit trail? Definitely.
It's not important to the core facts of the Gospel and is just something to speculate about without gaining any useful insight.
When I taught Bible college classes, I encouraged my students to ask what I called the basic theological question: "So what?"
If I can't put it one the road, it's not that important.
What are important are matters of eternal life and eternal death.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...
Except that rabbit trails are fine for those hunting rabbits. ;) The thing is, it is germane to the OP (always wanted to use that word). So in that sense it's not a rabbit trail. But from your angle I can see where it is.

The So What? question is probably the most important question we can ask i think. If we can't answer that, then the original question isn't that important. Or something like that. :lol
 
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Cyberseeker said:
By respecting the historical integrity of the gospels.
Click to expand...
So by "respecting the historical integrity of the gospels" you conclude that there must have been two cleansings.
Great.
Consider:
Mar 16:1-2 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

and

Jhn 20:1-2 Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

So by "respecting the historical integrity of the gospels", these two "historical" reports must tell us that the women went to the tomb TWICE and, each time finding the tomb empty; once "while it was still dark" and once "when the sun had risen."

Also comparing Mat 20:30-34 with Luk 18:35-43, by "respecting the historical integrity of the gospels", Jesus must have gone through Jericho twice on His way to the "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem; once when He healed one blind man and once when He healed two blind men.

And then there's the report of Jesus walking on water. He must have done that twice also; once when Peter got out of the boat and walked on water (Mat 14:29) and once when Peter did not get out of the boat. (Jhn 6:19)

And comparing the casting out of the legion of demons and sending them into the herd of swine as "historically" reported in Mat 8:28-34 with Mark 5:1-20 and Luk 8:26-39, by "respecting the historical integrity of the gospels", we must conclude that Jesus went there twice and encountered one demoniac one time and two demoniacs the other time.

And, again, by "respecting the historical integrity of the gospels", we must conclude that Peter denied Jesus SIX times. Three times before the rooster crowed one time (Mat 26:34) and another three times before the rooster crowed twice. (Mar 14:72)

Such is the foolishness that results from the notion of "respecting the historical integrity of the gospels" in order to "harmonize" them by imposing the totally foreign, modern, western idea of historicity on ancient, middle eastern, form of literature as if the Gospels were the transcripts of the video tapes of Jesus life.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top