Comments on: Evidences and Reconciliations 7/21/2008

By: Valoel

Valoel — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:05:05 +0000

I’m a little late coming to this conversation, but I kept thinking about this thought last night.

RE: #2, Hawkgrrrl’s comparison to the First Vision accounts.

This is a great example of something similar — very similar. People argue that Joseph must have been lying and making it up because he leaves out details in some of his accounts. We’ll here we find a whole group of people who also experienced the resurrected Jesus. They can’t even agree on who was there when it happened. Surely such an event would be impossible to forget … right? Or maybe they were just making it up so they could form a Church to trick people. They were, after all, poor fishermen who could really use the money.

I don’t actually believe that, but that is what people say about Joseph. A great many of those who accuse Joseph would not want the same reasoning used on the resurrection of Jesus.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:45:43 +0000

Glad you picked up the double reference, John. I couldn’t resist, but I wasn’t sure anyone would get the twist. *grin*

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:52:46 +0000

John – LOL! Probably both of you do .

By: John Nilsson

John Nilsson — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:06:46 +0000

Lumberjack,

You at least must concede that all four of these accounts could not accurately describe the events they purport to, right? That one or more of them may be more accurate than others?

“John resonates more with heterodox members, since it’s a lot easier to interpret his writings however one wants to interpret them. ”

Ray,

Are you talking about me or the evangelist?

By: Lumber Jack

Lumber Jack — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:53:21 +0000

Honestly it is four accounts of the same story with no real conlfict. Ever talk to four witnesses to the same car accident. You will get four different stories that are all true on their own and are still all true together. Everybody sees and retells the details diffently but you can’t discount any of them.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:49:55 +0000

John resonates more with heterodox members, since it’s a lot easier to interpret his writings however one wants to interpret them.

I like the question in Luke’s account: “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (and I just LOVE Luke 24 – one of my favorite chapters in all of our canon)

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:38:17 +0000

John N. – as usual, I like John the best. His writing is more literary and ambiguous and has more layers of meaning. Plus, in this particular case, it’s got that nice twist ending.

By: John Nilsson

John Nilsson — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:11:12 +0000

So, which of the four versions in the Gospels do y’all prefer?

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:06:10 +0000

Ray – I was thinking much the same thing. This side by side rendition reminds me a lot of the various first vision accounts. It is very similar indeed.

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:08:45 +0000

Hard to argue Biblical inerrancy.

On a more serious note, this is history – recorded based on memory and subject to the limitations of memory. It would be nice if everything were neat and tidy and easy, but that just ain’t history.

Even in our own day of instant communication and non-stop reporting, when people look back at the volume of competing and sometimes contradictory accounts that are being produced they will wonder exactly which accounts were correct. We can’t even agree on what is happening and why in our own day and age – and some of the most complicated examples involve those who have changed their minds over time.

We sometimes forget that as we criticize those of the past for the inconsistencies of their accounts.