tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3769872213915415947.post97181646412024844..comments2023-11-08T01:20:47.848-08:00Comments on somewhere else: Challenge on Gospels.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3769872213915415947.post-10421700588464737912011-11-10T08:45:12.397-08:002011-11-10T08:45:12.397-08:00Then it's strange that he did not mention the ...<i>Then it's strange that he did not mention the important detail of which dead person or persons he, personally, viewed, and offered no first-person account of this.</i><br /><br />The Gospel is not a witness account in the exact same sense that witness accounts have before court, as in a pure affidavit, but are in part witness accounts, part result of the hearing. As an Apostle St Matthew was also <b>a judge</b> of what witness accounts, beside his memory, were to form his Gospel.<br /><br /><i>The very fact that he doesn't include the chain of transmission -- that is, who it was that he was getting his information from -- makes him suspect as both an alleged witness and as a recorder of alleged testimony of others.</i><br /><br />Same answer there.<br /><br /><i>Given how sloppy he was, why should we believe anything he wrote had any basis in personal witness?</i><br /><br />A court would express itself in a way seen as sloppy if judged by standards applied to witnesses being heard.<br /><br />By the way, as a Levite, he had, before getting into Tax Collecting, had a training in making hearings and making decisions from diverse witness accounts, including or excluding his own. At least decisions on marital disputes were quite within his previous authority.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3769872213915415947.post-39581744207997002092011-11-10T08:38:14.458-08:002011-11-10T08:38:14.458-08:00Despite the fact that none of the other gospel wri...<i>Despite the fact that none of the other gospel writers mention this important and salient alleged event, despite having every motivation to do so?<br /><br />Did they just somehow miss out on seeing any dead people walking around themselves, or talking to anyone who saw a dead person walking around -- or were they just embarrassed because they figured that Matthew was hallucinating?</i><br /><br />According to your take, every Gospeller had every motivation to note everything that happened. Check out why eywitness accounts differ, will you.<br /><br />If your suggestion had been true, how come the Gospel was not scrapped?<br /><br />But a modified version of it might have been true.<br /><br />a) Sts Mark and Luke were not there. Did the dead walk only around Jerusalem or all around the world? Sufficient reason for Sts Mark and Luke missing it even if true. Their sources were for St Mark mainly St Peter, who was then probably hiding and for St Luke St Mary, who had other things to think about than dead people walking, and so had St John who was right under the Cross. Unlike St Matthew.<br /><br />b) If this is true, Pagans and Jews around the place certainly noted it. But those who did and therefore believed were out of Paganism and Judaism. Those who remained un-Christian, after hearing the Christian explanation, may well have agreed to flat denial.<br /><br />c) That is not the only time, if so, that Gospellers take sensibilities of non-Christians into at least indirect account. St John in the Apocalypse hears Our Lord speak about proponents of Judaism as "who call themselves Jews, but are not so, but are liars". And first proponents of Judaism (i e first Jewish rejectors of Christianity) are never directly identified with Jewish people in the first three Gospels. But in the fourth Gospel, Our Lord is not thus identifying them either, before he speaks with Pilate: but the Gospeller shortens the "woe ye, Pharisees and Sadducees" into "and he said to the Jews, woe ye". That is, at least in part, because it is the one Gospel written after Jewish rabbinate met in Jamnia, and decided the Christians were no Jews (80-90, A.D.).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3769872213915415947.post-92059282849096683012011-11-10T08:22:30.053-08:002011-11-10T08:22:30.053-08:00The obvious answer, from any Christian, on St Matt...The obvious answer, from any Christian, on St Matthew's sobriety and sanity as a witness is: one who was around when dead people or people who had died were walking around.<br /><br />Since we have no evidence he was at the Crucifixion himself, he might well have seen his dad and ma and all neighbours from the village or neighbourhood walking about. And pieced together the accounts from the Crucifixion from evidence given by St Mary or St John or from the Holy Myrrhophores. Or from St Joseph of Arimathea too.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3769872213915415947.post-62591969940574472072011-11-07T06:06:43.836-08:002011-11-07T06:06:43.836-08:00Now, Chapter Numbers for Crucifixion and Burial ar...Now, Chapter Numbers for Crucifixion and Burial are, for each Gospel:<br /><br />St Matthew <a href="http://drbo.org/chapter/47027.htm" rel="nofollow">27</a> (of 28)<br />St Mark <a href="http://drbo.org/chapter/48015.htm" rel="nofollow">15</a> (of 16)<br />St Luke <a href="http://drbo.org/chapter/49023.htm" rel="nofollow">23</a> (of 24)<br />St John <a href="http://drbo.org/chapter/50019.htm" rel="nofollow">19</a> (of 21).<br /><br />St John ends with a near prophecy (disclamed as not quite prophecy) of his own impending reception into Heaven - before breaking off narrative. Sts Luke and Mark give summary accounts of Ascension and St Matthew a fuller one. St Luke also adds a fuller one in beginning of Acts.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com