story differences

by peacefulpete 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  That first paragraph should read, ....SIMON the Leper is an unknown character....(not Lazarus) Sorry I still cannot edit from home.
• 

  ThiChi

  A unbiased reading of the scriptures prove your unfounded conclusions with reasonable explanations. Can you not concede any points to be open to another possibility?

  You only present us a "false dilemma" that, when considering all information, is very suspect.
• 

  ThiChi

  As an example:
  

  ""The simple reference to him with out explanation strongly suggests the story about this Simon the Leper was expunged from the book of Mark."" (spelling corrected)

  Who says? You? You offer no proof, only wishful thinking on your part. Would not the raising of Lazarus be "news" and known to the Faithful, without explanation needed? To use your logic, most any historical account can be discredited. Simon can be seen in the same light as Lazarus, whould they all not know of them?

  If I told you I was going to New York, home of the Statue of Liberty, would I need to explain what the Statue of Liberty is? 2,000 years from now, someone may feel I would need to explain....

  What you try to argue as Facts, or fatal flaws, are really just your conclusions, that, on the face of it, are not thought out well. Plausible answers abound.

  ""A unprejudiced reading of John declares she and the host did not put oil on jesus' head but his feet. The woman is a stranger in Mark and Matt yet one of his closest friends in John. ""

  1. Omission in one account does not mean it did not happen. Jesus stated he received oil on his body, which supports all accounts.

  2. Nowhere does Matt or Mark call the Woman a "Stranger" as you falsey imply. This is only your conclusion, why put words where they do not exist? Jesus referred to his own Mother as "Woman," does that make her a stranger in your mind?

  ""The Judas character was apparently a later invention...."

  Your viewpoint. So what? Historical information of the time makes Judas a plausible, real person.

  The fact is:

  You have presented no convincing evidence to your claims.
• 

  peacefulpete

  thankyou fer correecting my spellling.
• 

  ThiChi

  (your welcome)
• 

  ThiChi

  Another important point to be emphasized is this: one must not confuse supplementation with contradiction. In a contradiction, two facts are mutually exclusive; in supplementation, two facts merely complement one another. If one says, for example, that John doe is a husband, and then, of the same John Doe, that he is not a husband?this is contradiction. On the other hand, if one says that John Doe is a father?that is not a contradiction. It merely is supplementing statement number two. Many alleged Bible discrepancies can be answered by a recognition of this principle
• 

  LittleToe

  ThiChi:So are you saying that Lazarus was also called SImon, was a Pharasee and once a leper?
  Also that Mary, who was once a prostitute, anointed the head, feet and body, of Jesus, and wiped it off with her hair?

  That would tie up most of the loose ends, but leave a contradiction as to whether it was at the beginning or end of Jesus ministry, though.
• 

  ThiChi

  Little Toe:

  This is my only claim:

  John's account does not say that this incident took place at the home of Lazarus. John simply says that Jesus came to the town of Bethany, the town where Lazarus lived. When he says that "here" a banquet was given in Jesus honor, the "here" refers to Bethany, not to Lazarus' house. He does not say that Jesus went to the house of Lazarus. Matthew and Mark tell us that Jesus was at the home of Simon the Leper when this incident took place.