Feasible, yes, but he can't prove to us that it happened to him personally...
However, I agree that a feasible, actually interesting meta-narrative of his pathological obsession with The Shroud™ might be worth reading, if only for entertainment value, and to while away a few minutes of lockdown ennui .
Indeed not. But regardless of the lack of corroborative evidence, it's a reasonable claim and could be further unpacked as both internally and externally coherent. The story of irrational sindonology obsession would be appropriate grist for the mill of Purgatory would it not? But I don't imagine @undead_rat can supply that. He's trapped in it. Which is fascinating as in other areas he's capable of more objective discourse.
As somebody (D Sayers?) said, you can easily reconcile the accounts if you take the trouble to imagine the natural behavior of a lot of excited people running around in the near-dawn twilight. And stop demanding that writers should tell you everything that happened, as opposed to the particulars that most catch their fancy / fit their particular chosen theme.
The problem with that, though, is that you can easily get to a position where "the truth" is simply an amalgamation of all the varying stories, which ignores the differences of the various accounts. To take an obvious example, this is like merging together Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the nativity and having magi and shepherds appearing together in the stable, both having been guided by a star. Also, you have Joseph and Mary travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem and then on to Egypt and finally back to Galilee. I would say that this does a severe dishonour to both Luke's and Matthew's accounts.
Going back to the Holy Week accounts - they all differ from one another. And where there is a difference or insertion (such as Matthew's insertion of the guards at the tomb), we need to ask ourselves seriously WHY this is being given to us. It MAY be that Matthew is simply filling in the picture with an element that the others didn't know about or thought unimportant; but equally it MAY be that the writer has inserted this to give a specific message, irrespective of the "historicity" of the story. And I would suggest that Matthew's gospel is prone to do this kind of thing.
That's why I have problems with Passion Narratives and Good Friday services that amalgamate readings from all four gospels into one seamless story. I much prefer Passion Narratives that stick with a single gospel, so that you can appreciate the particular story that THIS writer is giving us.
Just popping to mischievously point out that nothing undead_rat tells us can be proven to be true...
{skipping over another post}
Feasible, yes, but he can't prove to us that it happened to him personally...
Isn't that true of pretty much anything anyone says here? Unless they use their real name?
Give undead rat a chance, or more chances, ok, BF? For the above reason, and because I personally am greatly enjoying the boat adventure!
@Golden Key - OK - fair enough, and your rebuke is accepted in the spirit in which it was offered!
Mind you, some of us have been pressing undead_rat to explain just why he sets so much store by these prophecies etc., so that we have something substantial to discuss, on this and other threads. A list of ancient tomes, along with lists of sages, savants, and seers, is not really conducive to that.
The problem with that, though, is that you can easily get to a position where "the truth" is simply an amalgamation of all the varying stories, which ignores the differences of the various accounts. To take an obvious example, this is like merging together Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the nativity and having magi and shepherds appearing together in the stable, both having been guided by a star. Also, you have Joseph and Mary travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem and then on to Egypt and finally back to Galilee. I would say that this does a severe dishonour to both Luke's and Matthew's accounts.
Going back to the Holy Week accounts - they all differ from one another. And where there is a difference or insertion (such as Matthew's insertion of the guards at the tomb), we need to ask ourselves seriously WHY this is being given to us. It MAY be that Matthew is simply filling in the picture with an element that the others didn't know about or thought unimportant; but equally it MAY be that the writer has inserted this to give a specific message, irrespective of the "historicity" of the story. And I would suggest that Matthew's gospel is prone to do this kind of thing.
That's why I have problems with Passion Narratives and Good Friday services that amalgamate readings from all four gospels into one seamless story. I much prefer Passion Narratives that stick with a single gospel, so that you can appreciate the particular story that THIS writer is giving us.
You are missing the third possibility in each example you give us (plus getting some rather basic things wrong in the Christmas story, sorry). That possibility is just this: That there is a body of events-that-actually-happened, which it's totally okay to be interested in at times. It is ALSO (not "instead of") good and helpful to be interested in what Matthew selected out of that corpus and why. Ditto Mark, Luke, John, etc. You need not confine yourself to a single-Gospel viewpoint if you don't want to. You can take a synoptic view, or even a pan-evangelic view, if you please. Why not?
The general view may offend you aesthetically or on a class level ("That's what the children's pageants do!"). But that in itself is not sufficient reason to say "Nobody should ever do it." I do it routinely, not because I'm a Philistine who can't appreciate literary craftsmanship (witness my doctorate), but because I'm even more interested in Jesus himself than in the niceties of how Matthew or Mark or Luke or John portrays him. I would pick up a scrap of paper napkin from the floor to read it, if I could be sure the scribblings on it would tell me more about him.
The last two Good Fridays, we have put on a reading of the Passion narrative from Matthew, Luke and John but reading the whole of each account divided up in chronological order and marking for the listener which gospel is saying what. In 2019 we did this by having different readers for each extract. With lockdown, this year, it was only practicable to have one reader, who distinguished which account was which by introducing each section with 'this is what St Matthew says' etc.
The narrative assumes Maundy Thursday and the vigil in the garden of Gethsemane have been told the previous evening. So it starts with Jesus arrested and ends with him in the tomb with a guard set.
We didn't include Mark as Matthew and Luke between them largely duplicate Mark's account and then add their own bits.
IMHO it works very well. People do not need to add their own reflections. They get in the way. Stick to the narrative. Let the story tell itself.
It's possible that "the truth"—meaning for instance the precise happenings that you would have filmed from a drone hovering over the tomb—really doesn't matter.
It's possible that "the truth"—meaning for instance the precise happenings that you would have filmed from a drone hovering over the tomb—really doesn't matter.
Possibly, but that seems anti-incarnational to me. As far as I understand it, that seems to have been Barth's approach - "the important thing is what's in the Bible, it is a non-question to ask whether it corresponds to anything outside the Bible" and that seems to abstract everything away from concrete life and reality.
But the problem as I see it is, we can never have it. All we have are the gospels, and they a dark window but a bright painting (well, four bright paintings). I think what's in the painting may be more important than trying to look through the canvas to what's behind.
Surely, but if you have four paintings of the same person, I don't see why you shouldn't be interested in that person as well as simply the artistic renderings thereof.
Surely, but if you have four paintings of the same person, I don't see why you shouldn't be interested in that person as well as simply the artistic renderings thereof.
I am interested in the person. And as I think it was you said, you can do a parallax. But if we are given X, then it may be that what God wants us to concentrate on is X, and not a supposition based on X, which will always be a supposition and based on prejudices and theological inbreeding and what-not. Not saying it's not important or fun, but it may not be where our focus should lie. The person in the gospels, in other words, not the person behind the gospels, to which we have no access other than—the gospels.
I heard a Hindu novelist speak, long ago. (Don't remember who.) She mentioned her particular goddess. During the Q & A, someone asked if she really believed her goddess really exists. She paused, a little puzzled, and said she really didn't think that way.
Meh, I think there's room enough for all of us to do our digging around. I'm not trying to set off a new "quest for the historical Jesus," but I think that if we've got three very parallel accounts, it's worth considering that God probably noticed that fact too (or indeed instigated it) and maybe a parallax view is one of the many things he intended for us.
Indeed it is my point that God instigated the multiple gospels. I'd say a parallax view is not a bad thing, but it can't be the main thing. We must keep in mind that it's a construct not a reality.
="Lamb Chopped;c-382574" I'm not trying to set off a new "quest for the historical Jesus,"...
Someone once pointed out that the "quest for the historical Jesus" reflects the opinions commonly held in the society at the time they were.written. In a way they are like a Rorschach test for various time periods.
="Lamb Chopped;c-382574" I'm not trying to set off a new "quest for the historical Jesus,"...
Someone once pointed out that the "quest for the historical Jesus" reflects the opinions commonly held in the society at the time they were.written. In a way they are like a Rorschach test for various time periods.
Another way of saying this perhaps is that the gospels are a mirror.
The last two Good Fridays, we have put on a reading of the Passion narrative from Matthew, Luke and John but reading the whole of each account divided up in chronological order and marking for the listener which gospel is saying what. In 2019 we did this by having different readers for each extract. With lockdown, this year, it was only practicable to have one reader, who distinguished which account was which by introducing each section with 'this is what St Matthew says' etc.
The narrative assumes Maundy Thursday and the vigil in the garden of Gethsemane have been told the previous evening. So it starts with Jesus arrested and ends with him in the tomb with a guard set.
We didn't include Mark as Matthew and Luke between them largely duplicate Mark's account and then add their own bits.
IMHO it works very well. People do not need to add their own reflections. They get in the way. Stick to the narrative. Let the story tell itself.
Mark's acount, up to 16.8 is reckoned to be the earliest. I would say it's probably the most accurate.
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Are we not given the reason that the tomb was guarded: Matthew 27:62–66?
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
Not often said in a courtroom in my experience. You might say that there are problems with their both saying the same details when one of them was interstate at the time, but I'd shy clear of asserting that at least one was lying simply because the accounts coincided. Use of exactly the same words is a good basis for cross-examination in the independence of the evidence
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Are we not given the reason that the tomb was guarded: Matthew 27:62–66?
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
Not often said in a courtroom in my experience. You might say that there are problems with their both saying the same details when one of them was interstate at the time, but I'd shy clear of asserting that at least one was lying simply because the accounts coincided. Use of exactly the same words is a good basis for cross-examination in the independence of the evidence
In the UK, when two or more Police Officers witness the same incident, there are permitted to confer when making a written record.
Same in the US. Testilying works best when the lies are coordinated.
The idea is to tell the truth
Are you familiar with the story of Susanna in the Apocrypha? People telling their story without collaborating are far more likely to be telling the truth.
The problem with that, though, is that you can easily get to a position where "the truth" is simply an amalgamation of all the varying stories, which ignores the differences of the various accounts. To take an obvious example, this is like merging together Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the nativity and having magi and shepherds appearing together in the stable, both having been guided by a star. Also, you have Joseph and Mary travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem and then on to Egypt and finally back to Galilee. I would say that this does a severe dishonour to both Luke's and Matthew's accounts.
Going back to the Holy Week accounts - they all differ from one another. And where there is a difference or insertion (such as Matthew's insertion of the guards at the tomb), we need to ask ourselves seriously WHY this is being given to us. It MAY be that Matthew is simply filling in the picture with an element that the others didn't know about or thought unimportant; but equally it MAY be that the writer has inserted this to give a specific message, irrespective of the "historicity" of the story. And I would suggest that Matthew's gospel is prone to do this kind of thing.
That's why I have problems with Passion Narratives and Good Friday services that amalgamate readings from all four gospels into one seamless story. I much prefer Passion Narratives that stick with a single gospel, so that you can appreciate the particular story that THIS writer is giving us.
You are missing the third possibility in each example you give us (plus getting some rather basic things wrong in the Christmas story, sorry). That possibility is just this: That there is a body of events-that-actually-happened, which it's totally okay to be interested in at times. It is ALSO (not "instead of") good and helpful to be interested in what Matthew selected out of that corpus and why. Ditto Mark, Luke, John, etc. You need not confine yourself to a single-Gospel viewpoint if you don't want to. You can take a synoptic view, or even a pan-evangelic view, if you please. Why not?
The general view may offend you aesthetically or on a class level ("That's what the children's pageants do!"). But that in itself is not sufficient reason to say "Nobody should ever do it." I do it routinely, not because I'm a Philistine who can't appreciate literary craftsmanship (witness my doctorate), but because I'm even more interested in Jesus himself than in the niceties of how Matthew or Mark or Luke or John portrays him. I would pick up a scrap of paper napkin from the floor to read it, if I could be sure the scribblings on it would tell me more about him.
Ok, I'll bite. Where, in my pastiche of a conflated nativity story, did I get some basic things wrong?
Essentially, though, you are arguing for a "pick'n'mix" gospel where you can say "I will have this bit of Mark and that bit of Luke with a smigen of Matthew" - something that smooths out the differences and sometimes inconvenient contradictions. Otherwise known as the Diatesseron.
The problem with that, though, is that you can easily get to a position where "the truth" is simply an amalgamation of all the varying stories, which ignores the differences of the various accounts. To take an obvious example, this is like merging together Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the nativity and having magi and shepherds appearing together in the stable, both having been guided by a star. Also, you have Joseph and Mary travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem and then on to Egypt and finally back to Galilee. I would say that this does a severe dishonour to both Luke's and Matthew's accounts.
Going back to the Holy Week accounts - they all differ from one another. And where there is a difference or insertion (such as Matthew's insertion of the guards at the tomb), we need to ask ourselves seriously WHY this is being given to us. It MAY be that Matthew is simply filling in the picture with an element that the others didn't know about or thought unimportant; but equally it MAY be that the writer has inserted this to give a specific message, irrespective of the "historicity" of the story. And I would suggest that Matthew's gospel is prone to do this kind of thing.
That's why I have problems with Passion Narratives and Good Friday services that amalgamate readings from all four gospels into one seamless story. I much prefer Passion Narratives that stick with a single gospel, so that you can appreciate the particular story that THIS writer is giving us.
You are missing the third possibility in each example you give us (plus getting some rather basic things wrong in the Christmas story, sorry). That possibility is just this: That there is a body of events-that-actually-happened, which it's totally okay to be interested in at times. It is ALSO (not "instead of") good and helpful to be interested in what Matthew selected out of that corpus and why. Ditto Mark, Luke, John, etc. You need not confine yourself to a single-Gospel viewpoint if you don't want to. You can take a synoptic view, or even a pan-evangelic view, if you please. Why not?
The general view may offend you aesthetically or on a class level ("That's what the children's pageants do!"). But that in itself is not sufficient reason to say "Nobody should ever do it." I do it routinely, not because I'm a Philistine who can't appreciate literary craftsmanship (witness my doctorate), but because I'm even more interested in Jesus himself than in the niceties of how Matthew or Mark or Luke or John portrays him. I would pick up a scrap of paper napkin from the floor to read it, if I could be sure the scribblings on it would tell me more about him.
Ok, I'll bite. Where, in my pastiche of a conflated nativity story, did I get some basic things wrong?
Essentially, though, you are arguing for a "pick'n'mix" gospel where you can say "I will have this bit of Mark and that bit of Luke with a smigen of Matthew" - something that smooths out the differences and sometimes inconvenient contradictions. Otherwise known as the Diatesseron.
Well, cut out the pejoratives, and I suppose I am--in the sense that that ought to be one of the five options on the table. Why not?
Okay, as for your nativity story: You said
this is like merging together Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the nativity and having magi and shepherds appearing together in the stable, both having been guided by a star. Also, you have Joseph and Mary travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem and then on to Egypt and finally back to Galilee.
First, nobody but nobody who is making a serious attempt to merge accounts, as you put it, is going to have the Magi in the stable. Half-assed Christmas legendry aside, anyone who actually reads the text knows that the Magi found Mary and Jesus in a house, and there's a strong, strong implication that he was no longer a newborn--probably more like between 1 and 2 in age. The star plays no role in the shepherd story, and in the Magi story its "guiding" is considerably more limited than you imply--the star seems to have appeared once (to get the Magi up and on the road, possibly using the terms of astrology rather than the Sunday School notion of a light traveling across the sky) and then again as they left Jerusalem, which is only 5 to 6 miles away. Assuming they were mounted, we're looking at maybe an hour, allowing for kerfuffle on both ends? So let's call it one error and a bit of misleading, shall we?
Your outline of the travels of the holy family is essentially correct, though you leave out one jaunt to Jerusalem at age 40 days. I'm not sure why you consider this ... itinerary... so ridiculous. It strikes me as entirely possible, especially when you consider it took place over the course of several years. (Have you ever traveled with a very young child? Shudder)
Same in the US. Testilying works best when the lies are coordinated.
The idea is to tell the truth
If they're telling the truth, why do they have to get together to get their stories straight?
Because they are likely to remember it slighhtly differently.
Yeah, I think I'd like to hear how differently they remember it. Rather than how they all now agree that the dead guy made a threatening gesture that made them fear for their lives before they all emptied their clips into him before finding that the thing in his hand was just a cell phone.
Anyway. It has been approved by Judges for many many years
Well, police don't confer first here and that would be a ground for comment etc. But it's not only police who give evidence in a criminal case, and evidence is given in the vast range of non-criminal cases. In some, collaboration would be improper; in a case involving expert evidence, discussions between witnesses can be encouraged.
So, @undead_rat, do you ask yourself why you obsess over this false relic? You're a semirural lower-mid middle class Midwestener, intelligent, articulate, what level of education did you reach before you became a boat bum? High school? What's your story? What did your father do?
Yeah, I graduated high school. My dad made me go to M.I.T., but I was more interested in their hockey team and was booted after three semesters. Then it was four years in the Navy.
After another desultory attempt at college (and another hockey team), I moved on to that ridiculous boat-building project (lucky that the darn thing worked at all.)
There is a new book out by a Jewish writer, Mark Niyr: THE TURIN SHROUD: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF LIFE AFTER DEATH?
The author says this in his introduction:
"One important aspect about the Shroud is that it can speak to people who would not normally have any regard for the Bible."
And Mark Antonacci remarks in the forward:
"I would like to welcome the reader to the new and dynamic intersection of science and religion."
On page 14 we find this quote: "The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history"--Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce.
In my opinion, the skepticism about the Shroud comes from the theologies of those who don't like it.
For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses have a much different idea of what Jesus looked like, and they devote several pages in their attempt to falsify the relic.
Baha'i' Faith has the theology that Jesus did not actually perform real miracles and that he did not appear in a physical body after his death.
Then we have the widespread theology of naturalism. Spinoza promogulated a philosophy which held that he Bible was not inspired by God, that the new God is the laws of the universe, and that God can be known by the study of natural laws. This so-called "rationalism" is very popular in modern times, but the evidence that scientists have found on the Shroud casts doubt on these philosophies. Some adherents go to great lengths in their attempts to discredit the Shroud, while others simply refuse to even consider the possibility that the Shroud might be authentic.
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Are we not given the reason that the tomb was guarded: Matthew 27:62–66?
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
Not often said in a courtroom in my experience. You might say that there are problems with their both saying the same details when one of them was interstate at the time, but I'd shy clear of asserting that at least one was lying simply because the accounts coincided. Use of exactly the same words is a good basis for cross-examination in the independence of the evidence
In the UK, when two or more Police Officers witness the same incident, there are permitted to confer when making a written record.
Even 40 years ago when I was practising in English magistrates courts, officers having conferred when writing up their reports was liable to lead to the reports being given less weight.
I believe the practice has now been banned in the U.K. for serious incidents.
(A quote from the introduction of the recently cited new book:)
"One evening [a colleague] phoned my father and informed him that he was going to die soon. He had been taking blood transfusions and his body was starting to reject them. He confided that he did not know what to think about God. Where could he find credible answers about God? I offered my father an initial rough draft of this writing about the Shroud of Turin so that he could pass it on to his close friend whose life was soon to end. A week or two later that friend phoned my father and very gratefully thanked him for the paper. He explained that it gave him the answers he was looking for. Within a couple of weeks he passed away.
"It may be that you know of someone who is facing death and needs assurance or answers about God. Perhaps this topic regarding the Turin Shroud could provide credible scientific answers and comfort during those final days. . . .One important aspect about the Shroud is that it can speak to people who would not normally have any regard for the Bible. The Turin Shroud is an intriguing scientific journey investigating one of the greatest mysteries of the world."
I have said several times that the miraculous image found on the Shroud is the promised Sign of Jonah*, the only proof that this unbelieving world will receive. It was purchased for us by Rabbi Yeshu at the cost of great suffering, and it bears all the marks of that ordeal. It is truly a very expensive gift, and, as such, ought not to be rejected. It confirms His existence, His terrible death, and the vanishing of His corpse into another dimension.
Quickie on Susanna: two men try to blackmail her into having sex with them ("or we'll say we saw you committing adultery" was the threat). She refuses. They accuse her. Daniel has them separated and each is asked independently where in the garden she was committing adultery. Of course each gave a different answer which showed they were lying.
If two people get together and work out a story, even if they did in fact witness an actual event, then they are no longer telling what they saw, but what they together agreed to say they saw. And memory is plastic: if you think you remember something enough times that's what you remember, and that is what you believe really happened. Which is why eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
(A quote from the introduction of the recently cited new book:)
"One evening [a colleague] phoned my father and informed him that he was going to die soon. He had been taking blood transfusions and his body was starting to reject them. He confided that he did not know what to think about God. Where could he find credible answers about God? I offered my father an initial rough draft of this writing about the Shroud of Turin so that he could pass it on to his close friend whose life was soon to end. A week or two later that friend phoned my father and very gratefully thanked him for the paper. He explained that it gave him the answers he was looking for. Within a couple of weeks he passed away.
"It may be that you know of someone who is facing death and needs assurance or answers about God. Perhaps this topic regarding the Turin Shroud could provide credible scientific answers and comfort during those final days. . . .One important aspect about the Shroud is that it can speak to people who would not normally have any regard for the Bible. The Turin Shroud is an intriguing scientific journey investigating one of the greatest mysteries of the world."
I have said several times that the miraculous image found on the Shroud is the promised Sign of Jonah*, the only proof that this unbelieving world will receive. It was purchased for us by Rabbi Yeshu at the cost of great suffering, and it bears all the marks of that ordeal. It is truly a very expensive gift, and, as such, ought not to be rejected. It confirms His existence, His terrible death, and the vanishing of His corpse into another dimension.
*Matthew's Gospel
Giving appropriate comfort, i.e. comfort that works for a while, is good. Including comforting oneself alone. Being inured to whatever anyone else thinks is good too. As in this instance it does no real harm. Only to those with oversensitive 'intellectually' inflated egos whose rationality cannot overcome... common humanity.
On the other hand this is a fascinating example of denial and truly invincible ignorance.
Book after book using exactly those rules has been written supporting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. I am really doing no more than parroting their conclusions.
And what "reasons" are you referring too? Can't you provide the forum with anything specific?
Would you please provide an example? Talking with you resembles a "yes it is, no it isn't" child's argument. At least i am providing quotes and citations. I think that it is only fair that you do the same.
Martin,
there are books and papers that dispute the Shroud's authenticity, and I have even mentioned two recent ones for you. Also plenty of contrary discussions online for you to refer to.
All I ask is that you tell the forum your personal reasons for your opinion about the Shroud.
(Don't be afraid, I won't hurt you.)
Sorry, i missed it. please repeat. All i notice are generalized accusations of "non-reason" and "non-rational." Can you be more specific? can you provide even one quote in support?
And exactly what is it that you don't like about the Shroud?
The only aspect of this post which isn't shrouded is the shroud, which is an undoubted fake. The only question that remains, as Martin54 points out, is whether it's a fake fake.
Comments
Indeed not. But regardless of the lack of corroborative evidence, it's a reasonable claim and could be further unpacked as both internally and externally coherent. The story of irrational sindonology obsession would be appropriate grist for the mill of Purgatory would it not? But I don't imagine @undead_rat can supply that. He's trapped in it. Which is fascinating as in other areas he's capable of more objective discourse.
Going back to the Holy Week accounts - they all differ from one another. And where there is a difference or insertion (such as Matthew's insertion of the guards at the tomb), we need to ask ourselves seriously WHY this is being given to us. It MAY be that Matthew is simply filling in the picture with an element that the others didn't know about or thought unimportant; but equally it MAY be that the writer has inserted this to give a specific message, irrespective of the "historicity" of the story. And I would suggest that Matthew's gospel is prone to do this kind of thing.
That's why I have problems with Passion Narratives and Good Friday services that amalgamate readings from all four gospels into one seamless story. I much prefer Passion Narratives that stick with a single gospel, so that you can appreciate the particular story that THIS writer is giving us.
@Golden Key - OK - fair enough, and your rebuke is accepted in the spirit in which it was offered!
Mind you, some of us have been pressing undead_rat to explain just why he sets so much store by these prophecies etc., so that we have something substantial to discuss, on this and other threads. A list of ancient tomes, along with lists of sages, savants, and seers, is not really conducive to that.
You are missing the third possibility in each example you give us (plus getting some rather basic things wrong in the Christmas story, sorry). That possibility is just this: That there is a body of events-that-actually-happened, which it's totally okay to be interested in at times. It is ALSO (not "instead of") good and helpful to be interested in what Matthew selected out of that corpus and why. Ditto Mark, Luke, John, etc. You need not confine yourself to a single-Gospel viewpoint if you don't want to. You can take a synoptic view, or even a pan-evangelic view, if you please. Why not?
The general view may offend you aesthetically or on a class level ("That's what the children's pageants do!"). But that in itself is not sufficient reason to say "Nobody should ever do it." I do it routinely, not because I'm a Philistine who can't appreciate literary craftsmanship (witness my doctorate), but because I'm even more interested in Jesus himself than in the niceties of how Matthew or Mark or Luke or John portrays him. I would pick up a scrap of paper napkin from the floor to read it, if I could be sure the scribblings on it would tell me more about him.
The narrative assumes Maundy Thursday and the vigil in the garden of Gethsemane have been told the previous evening. So it starts with Jesus arrested and ends with him in the tomb with a guard set.
We didn't include Mark as Matthew and Luke between them largely duplicate Mark's account and then add their own bits.
IMHO it works very well. People do not need to add their own reflections. They get in the way. Stick to the narrative. Let the story tell itself.
Possibly, but that seems anti-incarnational to me. As far as I understand it, that seems to have been Barth's approach - "the important thing is what's in the Bible, it is a non-question to ask whether it corresponds to anything outside the Bible" and that seems to abstract everything away from concrete life and reality.
I am interested in the person. And as I think it was you said, you can do a parallax. But if we are given X, then it may be that what God wants us to concentrate on is X, and not a supposition based on X, which will always be a supposition and based on prejudices and theological inbreeding and what-not. Not saying it's not important or fun, but it may not be where our focus should lie. The person in the gospels, in other words, not the person behind the gospels, to which we have no access other than—the gospels.
Someone once pointed out that the "quest for the historical Jesus" reflects the opinions commonly held in the society at the time they were.written. In a way they are like a Rorschach test for various time periods.
Another way of saying this perhaps is that the gospels are a mirror.
That was said in answer to Rufus T Firefly.
Not often said in a courtroom in my experience. You might say that there are problems with their both saying the same details when one of them was interstate at the time, but I'd shy clear of asserting that at least one was lying simply because the accounts coincided. Use of exactly the same words is a good basis for cross-examination in the independence of the evidence
In the UK, when two or more Police Officers witness the same incident, there are permitted to confer when making a written record.
Are you familiar with the story of Susanna in the Apocrypha? People telling their story without collaborating are far more likely to be telling the truth.
If they're telling the truth, why do they have to get together to get their stories straight?
The ideas about officers confering is to get better accuracy.
Because they are likely to remember it slighhtly differently. Anyway. It has been approved by Judges for many many years
Ok, I'll bite. Where, in my pastiche of a conflated nativity story, did I get some basic things wrong?
Essentially, though, you are arguing for a "pick'n'mix" gospel where you can say "I will have this bit of Mark and that bit of Luke with a smigen of Matthew" - something that smooths out the differences and sometimes inconvenient contradictions. Otherwise known as the Diatesseron.
Well, cut out the pejoratives, and I suppose I am--in the sense that that ought to be one of the five options on the table. Why not?
Okay, as for your nativity story: You said
First, nobody but nobody who is making a serious attempt to merge accounts, as you put it, is going to have the Magi in the stable. Half-assed Christmas legendry aside, anyone who actually reads the text knows that the Magi found Mary and Jesus in a house, and there's a strong, strong implication that he was no longer a newborn--probably more like between 1 and 2 in age. The star plays no role in the shepherd story, and in the Magi story its "guiding" is considerably more limited than you imply--the star seems to have appeared once (to get the Magi up and on the road, possibly using the terms of astrology rather than the Sunday School notion of a light traveling across the sky) and then again as they left Jerusalem, which is only 5 to 6 miles away. Assuming they were mounted, we're looking at maybe an hour, allowing for kerfuffle on both ends? So let's call it one error and a bit of misleading, shall we?
Your outline of the travels of the holy family is essentially correct, though you leave out one jaunt to Jerusalem at age 40 days. I'm not sure why you consider this ... itinerary... so ridiculous. It strikes me as entirely possible, especially when you consider it took place over the course of several years. (Have you ever traveled with a very young child? Shudder)
Yeah, I graduated high school. My dad made me go to M.I.T., but I was more interested in their hockey team and was booted after three semesters. Then it was four years in the Navy.
After another desultory attempt at college (and another hockey team), I moved on to that ridiculous boat-building project (lucky that the darn thing worked at all.)
There is a new book out by a Jewish writer, Mark Niyr:
THE TURIN SHROUD: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF LIFE AFTER DEATH?
The author says this in his introduction:
"One important aspect about the Shroud is that it can speak to people who would not normally have any regard for the Bible."
And Mark Antonacci remarks in the forward:
"I would like to welcome the reader to the new and dynamic intersection of science and religion."
On page 14 we find this quote:
"The Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied artifact in human history"--Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce.
In my opinion, the skepticism about the Shroud comes from the theologies of those who don't like it.
For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses have a much different idea of what Jesus looked like, and they devote several pages in their attempt to falsify the relic.
Baha'i' Faith has the theology that Jesus did not actually perform real miracles and that he did not appear in a physical body after his death.
Then we have the widespread theology of naturalism. Spinoza promogulated a philosophy which held that he Bible was not inspired by God, that the new God is the laws of the universe, and that God can be known by the study of natural laws. This so-called "rationalism" is very popular in modern times, but the evidence that scientists have found on the Shroud casts doubt on these philosophies. Some adherents go to great lengths in their attempts to discredit the Shroud, while others simply refuse to even consider the possibility that the Shroud might be authentic.
undead rat, people have asked you that over and over and over.
Please tell us. Thx.
Even 40 years ago when I was practising in English magistrates courts, officers having conferred when writing up their reports was liable to lead to the reports being given less weight.
I believe the practice has now been banned in the U.K. for serious incidents.
"One evening [a colleague] phoned my father and informed him that he was going to die soon. He had been taking blood transfusions and his body was starting to reject them. He confided that he did not know what to think about God. Where could he find credible answers about God? I offered my father an initial rough draft of this writing about the Shroud of Turin so that he could pass it on to his close friend whose life was soon to end. A week or two later that friend phoned my father and very gratefully thanked him for the paper. He explained that it gave him the answers he was looking for. Within a couple of weeks he passed away.
"It may be that you know of someone who is facing death and needs assurance or answers about God. Perhaps this topic regarding the Turin Shroud could provide credible scientific answers and comfort during those final days. . . .One important aspect about the Shroud is that it can speak to people who would not normally have any regard for the Bible. The Turin Shroud is an intriguing scientific journey investigating one of the greatest mysteries of the world."
I have said several times that the miraculous image found on the Shroud is the promised Sign of Jonah*, the only proof that this unbelieving world will receive. It was purchased for us by Rabbi Yeshu at the cost of great suffering, and it bears all the marks of that ordeal. It is truly a very expensive gift, and, as such, ought not to be rejected. It confirms His existence, His terrible death, and the vanishing of His corpse into another dimension.
*Matthew's Gospel
If two people get together and work out a story, even if they did in fact witness an actual event, then they are no longer telling what they saw, but what they together agreed to say they saw. And memory is plastic: if you think you remember something enough times that's what you remember, and that is what you believe really happened. Which is why eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Giving appropriate comfort, i.e. comfort that works for a while, is good. Including comforting oneself alone. Being inured to whatever anyone else thinks is good too. As in this instance it does no real harm. Only to those with oversensitive 'intellectually' inflated egos whose rationality cannot overcome... common humanity.
On the other hand this is a fascinating example of denial and truly invincible ignorance.
But you don't provide any evidence or rational as to why you so firmly and repeatedly insist that this is so.
It can't be done for you for those reasons. You did not acquire your beliefs using the rules of evidence or rationality.
And what "reasons" are you referring too? Can't you provide the forum with anything specific?
there are books and papers that dispute the Shroud's authenticity, and I have even mentioned two recent ones for you. Also plenty of contrary discussions online for you to refer to.
All I ask is that you tell the forum your personal reasons for your opinion about the Shroud.
(Don't be afraid, I won't hurt you.)
Sorry, i missed it. please repeat. All i notice are generalized accusations of "non-reason" and "non-rational." Can you be more specific? can you provide even one quote in support?
And exactly what is it that you don't like about the Shroud?
Yes, and every comment is about the same, You don't like the Shroud, but refuse to tell us why other than making vague allegations of "irrationality."
No I couldn't be more specific.