Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction

by peacefulpete 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Kenneson

  Peacefulpete,

  I agree with you that the Gospel of Luke makes no mention of Jesus' appearing to his Apostles in Galilee nor of the 40 day period before the Ascension. However, does Luke's silence mean that neither occurred? Acts 1:3 does not permit discounting the 40 day period before the Ascension even if the Gospel of Luke doesn't mention it.

  Mark 16:8 has Jesus appearing to his Apostles in Galilee (but not specifying where). Matthew 28:16 has Jesus appearing on a mountain in Galilee (Tabor?) but makes no mention of the Sea of Tiberias. John has Jesus appearing to them on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias or Galilee ( John 21:1), but makes no mention of a mountain. Some may point to the different locations as contradictory. On the other hand, Jesus could have appeared to them at more than one location in Galilee, reported by one and not by the other. At any rate, we have 3 of the Gospels agreeing that Jesus appeared in Galilee and one (Luke) that doesn't mention it at all. Why Luke didn't include it in his gospel, I do not know.
• 

  Kenneson

  Peacefulpete,

  By the way, I should have also commented on what you wrote: "If you see some creative way to interpret the phrase 'abide in Jerusalem' fine, but WHERE was he when he said it? Jerusalem according to Luke and Galilee acording to Matthew."

  I agree with you that is what Luke said ( Luke 24:33), but Matthew says nothing about remaining in Jerusalem at all . As a matter of fact, he has Jesus tell the apostles to go to Galilee (Matt. 28:7, 10 and 16) and it is there the book concludes. John concludes at the Sea of Tiberias and Mark concludes in Jerusalem, but has an angel tell Mary Magdalene and the other women to go tell the apostles to go to Galilee.

  The Gospel of Luke ends in Jerusalem and the Book of Acts resumes in Jerusalem. It is also interesting that only Luke mentions the Ascension. (Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:21 and 2:33). Why do not the other Gospels? Again, I do not know. Also, it is only Luke that mentions the 40 day period in Acts 1:3; 10:40-41 and 13:30-31, although he does not refer to it in his Gospel at all, nor do the other Gospels.
• 

  peacefulpete

  The simple fact that the Lukan version has an unbroken narrative as occurring the night of resurrection that includes his great commission to preach and his ascension contradicts the Matt. version. As I am sure you are aware that it is merely tradition that attaches names to these books. And modern scholarship has challenged these traditions quite persuasively when not conclusively. So again involving the book of Acts as proof that the writer of Luke knew something is not germane. The point stands that bible comentators have seen a need to place Jesus in Galilee when uttering Luke 24:49 (sometimes 47b-49). Why because they do not see how the phrase "abide in Jeusalem" could have been said before the Mattean Galilee trip without a contradiction. Also the surrounding sentences include the commision to preach to world which matches the conversation of Matt 28, there spoken in Galilee. The immediately following verse then shifts to Jerusalem/Bethany again. The text simply does not allow for this scene change. If we assume you are right and dimiss the views of Bible expositors, and understand that verse 49 was spoken the night of his resurrection in Jerusalem we must then say he was repeating himself in Galilee and the word "abide" means not "remain" but "return to" or "don't go any furthur than 100 road miles or so". This opens more problems, his apostles were yet doubting in Matt at jesus appearance to them in Galilee, which you say came after the account in Luke where we have them demanding proofs of identity (showed hands and feet, ate fish) the night of the resurrection and their faith is made sure. This is not the work of historians. This is legend making. I have offered a possible explanation as to why the two versions differed, that is to incorporate pagan god/man elements that the respective authors felt valuable to elevate their savior to the ranks of the other legendary heros adored by their contemporaries. But whatever you make of that it must be abundabntly obvious that the stories do not "harmonize" nor are they "complimentary". To make them appear so requires some unsupported redefining and artificial scene changing.
• 

  Chap

  As I am sure you are aware that it is merely tradition that attaches names to these books. And modern scholarship has challenged these traditions quite persuasively when not conclusively.

  I am unaware of any scholarship that challenges the authorship of either Luke or Acts. Since the author of both Luke and Acts is Luke, we can say that Luke 24:44-53 took place 40 days after Jesus' resurrection. Sometimes in the gospels, the elapsed time is more than a year between paragraphs. I see room for days to elapse between verses 43 and 44.
• 

  peacefulpete

  chap...Both the gospels and Acts are hotly contested works. And it is only religious necessity that blinds you to the obvious.
• 

  peacefulpete

  It is fun to listen to attempts to make this fit. The only two respondits themselves disagree about when and where what passage was spoken. Chaps last attempt is fatally flawed as well. Verse 44 begins with a conjunction phrase "And he now" clearly connecting the verse temporally with the dinner conversation. It is not at all honest to the text to separate this section off from the verses preceding it. Furthur this resequencing ignores what Matt. says happened in Galilee, namely the great comission to preach and teach the world "all" that they had learned from him. For in Luke 24:44-46 he is needing to explain the scriptures to them as their minds were closed to the meaning of Jesus death and ransom. It hardly seems reasonable to suggest he sent them out to preach "all" he had taught them when he had not yet taught them the basics of the ransom and resurrection, does it? No it not possible to "insert" 40 days into the text at verse 44. This is not history. This is pious fiction.
• 

  Chap

  peacefulpete,

  I apologize for the last post I made on this thread. I see your point after looking over the text that there was no time lapse between verses 43 and 44.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I also apologize for not being as "peaceful" as I had resolved to be.
• 

  Kenneson

  Peacefulpete,

  If one accepts Luke as the author of the Gospel as well as Acts, (and yes, there are commentators who challenge Luke as author of both, but there are also many who believe that Luke is the writer ) why couldn't Acts 1:3-11 be a deliberate retelling of Luke 24:50 with more explicit details? Why can't Luke 24 be schematic rather than chronological? Whereas, it seems that the Ascension takes place on the same day as the Resurrection in Luke 24:36, 50 that is not the case in Acts 1:3.
• 

  peacefulpete

  kenneson..I know you are sincere and so I will be polite.
  
  A simple fact persists, the stories are different and to any non-apologete, contradictory. If the authors of either version were endeavoring to present an accurate historical account then the inconsistancies and inexplicable ommisions suggest an unfamiliarity with the facts or failing memory. If on the other hand their motives were of a more literary nature then these and dozens of other similar "problems" are quite understandable and in no way deminish the power of the tale.
  
  I find the latter to be far more consistent with the nature of the stories and the religious milieu in the first two centuries C.E. which as you may know was bursting with pious tales of heroism and divine intervention surrounding nearly every major historical figure and legendary charactor. These were not "frauds" implying deceipt, rather they were simply vivid illustrations and inspiring stories. Bible literalism is torturous to the mind and the Bible.