How Many of What Did Jesus Ride Into Jerusalem? On Colts, Donkey and Asses, part 2 of 2

Marty said...

Thanks for the reply Mariano. I'm not satisfied however with what you say about the Matthew verses. Hear are the preceding verses:

4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "[a]

The writer of Matthew is answering objections from Jews by showing that Jesus fulfilled this Old Testament prophecy? And this is perfectly legitamite (sp). However it is only legitamite (sp) if you hold the view that part of the Bible is inspiration and part is interpretation. And interpretation is the use of reason on the part of the writer. And human reason, unlike divine inspiration, is fallible.

Now another point that I brought up previously. Here is Mark 16 up to verse 8:

Mark 16
The Resurrection

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

Mark is believed by scholars to be the earliest of the gospels and is used as a source by both Matthew and Luke (the synoptic gospels.) Mark was written about 60 years or so after Christ's death. Yet it ends with the women fleeing the empty tomb. It is beyond believable that if Christ had appeared not only to the disciples but to 500 witnesses that Mark would not have mentioned that fact. I have a theory about the bodily appearance of Christ that Mark doesn't have but the others do but I want to hear your reponse to what I've said so far since there are several points to address.

Mariano said...

I hope that you do not mind but I am not certain that we should move on before I understand why you see a problem where, as I thought I demonstrated, there is none.

Marty said...

Ok I will respond to your sportscaster example. Are you really comparing the composition of the New Testament to the inaccuracies that are found in differing accounts of a sporting event by sportscasters?? Then how can you contend that the Bible is accurate?
I would also like you to clarify what you mean by accurate. My brother believes that the Bible is inerrant. That every word is inspired by God directly. This is perhaps the most extreme view that can be taken of it. It is clear that in Mark's account the disciples fetch one animal and in Matthew's they fetch two animals.
When I pointed this out to my brother he just invented an addition to the story to make them jibe in his mind. My brother is doing what I believe many have done to account for inconsistencies in the Bible including the earliest believers who, because they believe, are able to recouncil things that Christ intentionally left unclear. This is from John 16:

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

So I guess I'm confused by your attiude to the Bible. Is it inerrant in your opinion? But where does this belief come from? Not the Bible since it doesn't refer to itself.

Mariano said...

If I were to read that “Y got the ball, took it down the court and slammed it” I would conclude that Y was solely responsible for the point.
However, if I read elsewhere that “X got the ball away from the opposite team, passed it to Y who took it down the court and slammed it” I would not conclude that the first account was false but only succinct.

At first I would have thought that only one player was involved but would subsequently ascertain that it was two. This would not be a contradiction as the first account did not state “Y got the ball all by herself, took it down the court all by herself and slammed it all by herself without any assistance of any other player anywhere alone the way.”

If we only had Mark and Luke to go by surely we would conclude that there was only one animal involved.

Yet, upon reading Matthew we learn that there were two. It is perfectly legitimate for Mark and Luke to mention one since they tell us upon which one Jesus sat which Matthew did not, as elucidated earlier.

Mark and Luke do not say “One and only one.” You are forcing them to say what they are not saying.
This is not the invention of an addition to the story, not done to account for inconsistencies, etc.

Marty said...

Just a quick addition Mariano. 1 Corinthians 15:44 and 50:
1 Corinthians 15:44 (New International Version)

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:50 (New International Version)

50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Actually most of chapter 15 is very good reading. I have to confess that I haven't read Paul's epsistles before now. I am finding treasures.

Mariano said...

Thanks for checking in again, although I am not sure that I get your drift.

Marty said...

My drift is that in reading through Paul's epistles I have yet to find anything which indicates he believed Christ rose physically from the dead rather than spiritually. In fact those two quotes from 1 Corinthians clearly state the opposite. Also in the quotation from Paul that you quoted (1 Corinthians 2-6) if you add verses 7 and 8 you get a new insight:

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that he equates Jesus's appearance to the apostles to Jesus's appearance to himself. But that appearance was clearly a spiritual appearance. Unless I find something to contradict what I'm saying it seems to me clear that Paul believed in a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection. And the importance of Paul's belief on this is that his epistles are the earliest Christian records we have.

Mariano said...

Thanks for the elucidation.

I hope that you do not mind that I mention that I would be wary if upon my very first reading of a text I thought that I have surpassed, or undone, two millennia of scholarship :o)

I say that in a lighthearted manner and yet, in order to honestly offer you the caution of slowing down a bit. Believe me, I very much appreciate your honest skepticism (the sort recommended in the Bible).

Also, I hope that you do not mind but I realized that I ended up writing enough, in response to you, that I might as well make it into a new post. Note that I, generically, interweaved your statement into that post so as to respond directly while not, as it where, calling you out or any such thing.

The post will be entitled “Flesh and Blood or Spirit? On the Resurrection: the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body.”

Now, this was the end of the How Many of What Did Jesus Ride Into Jerusalem? discussion but another discussion ensued on the issues raised in the Flesh and Blood or Spirit? essay and so I will post that discussion next, it will be titled “Dialogue on the Resurrected Body”