Two men with demons
1. Two men (Matt. 8:28) - "And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs; they were so exceedingly violent that no one could pass by that road."
2. One man (Mark 5:1-2) - "And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. 2And when He had come out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him,"
3. One man (Luke 8:26-27) - "And they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. 27And when He had come out onto the land, He was met by a certain man from the city who was possessed with demons; and who had not put on any clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tombs."
A colt and an ass
1.Donkey and colt (Matthew 21:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them, and bring them to Me. 3“And if anyone says something to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” 4Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 5“Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” 6And the disciples went and did just as Jesus had directed them, 7and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat."
2. A colt (Mark 11:2-7) - "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3"And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here." 4And they went away and found a colt tied at the door outside in the street; and they *untied it. 5And some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6And they spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7And they *brought the colt to Jesus and put their garments on it; and He sat upon it."
3.A colt (Luke 19:30) - "Go into the village opposite you, in which as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it, and bring it here."
Blind men
1.Two blind men (Matthew 20:29-30) - "And as they were going out from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. 30And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"
2.One blind man (Mark 10:46-47) - "And they *came to Jericho. And as He was going out from Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
3.One blind man (Luke 18:35,38) - "And it came about that as He was approaching Jericho, a certain blind man was sitting by the road, begging...38And he called out, saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Did mathew see more then the other discipes? Was his personality such that he noticed more? Did he think more was better?
Nyxie
not sure what u mean by the question, but if its that others did not mention in there gospels or very limited. my understanding is that all the disiples took more notice of diferent things that happened in the life of jesus. But we have only a limited view by which we understand, is not there a reference that a book could not hold all the works of jesus and all that he said. read it somewhere canot remember at this moment. but think of it like this the word of god is more than the bible that we read but we will be judged on our acts and words not what we read and hear.
Originally posted by stokerI mean why did mathew see two when the others disciples saw one?
not sure what u mean by the question, but if its that others did not mention in there gospels or very limited. my understanding is that all the disiples took more notice of diferent things that happened in the life of jesus. But we have only a limited view by which we understand, is not there a reference that a book could not hold all the works of jesus and a ...[text shortened]... an the bible that we read but we will be judged on our acts and words not what we read and hear.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieIf you ask me, Matthew seems to have had a seeing problem! It is precisely these small discrepancies that make the claim that they all collaborated or copied from one another pretty much laughable.
I mean why did mathew see two when the others disciples saw one?
Nyxie
Originally posted by DarfiusNo he says a donkey, and a colt with her. That pretty much denotes two animals.
However, the colt and ass can be explained as him over explaining. Obviously Jesus wasn't going to ride the donkey and then the colt. Matthew was describing the donkey further by saying it was a colt.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieIf that is the interpretation you would like to make, then so be it. I would have to see a copy of the transcript in its original language, and interpret from there. Regardless, Matthew writing more details lines up perfectly with the facts. Luke and Mark heard their accounts from others. Since the colt was the only one Jesus rode, they probably felt it was the only one worth mentioning.
No he says a donkey, and a colt with her. That pretty much denotes two animals.
Nyxie
Originally posted by DarfiusI'm sorry but you're saying my believing that two is different then one is an interpretation?
If that is the interpretation you would like to make, then so be it. I would have to see a copy of the transcript in its original language, and interpret from there. Regardless, Matthew writing more details lines up perfectly with the facts. Luke and Mark heard their accounts from others. Since the colt was the only one Jesus rode, they probably felt it was the only one worth mentioning.
The transcripts in question are the books of matthew, mark, and luke. I was even kind enough to include the passages in question here at that top of this thread.
Nyxie
Originally posted by NyxieNo, I agree that two is different than one. I call into question your belief that Matthew meant two seperate and distinct animals.
I'm sorry but you're saying my believing that two is different then one is an interpretation?
The transcripts in question are the books of matthew, mark, and luke. I was even kind enough to include the passages in question here at that top of this thread.
Nyxie
By original language, I mean Aramaic, Hebrew, or whatever language Matthew penned it in. Then, I could find a translater and see exactly what Matthew meant, rather than trusting whichever version you're using.
Originally posted by DarfiusThis is not some belief that I have. Mathew saw two, mark and luke saw one. Mathew makes note of two distinct animals, while the other two do not.
No, I agree that two is different than one. I call into question your belief that Matthew meant two seperate and distinct animals.
By original language, I mean Aramaic, Hebrew, or whatever language Matthew penned it in. Then, I could find a translater and see exactly what Matthew meant, rather than trusting whichever version you're using.
Your point of the original is good, what if it is the same in the original langauge?
And if it is'nt why is it different now? Why were the other books not tranlated/changed in a way that made them more agreeable with one another?
As for the matter of what language the book of mathew was written in originally...that's a whole other debate.
Nyxie
Originally posted by DarfiusHere in lies the problem of preaching at us from the King James version of the bible or whichever you are preaching from. It was translated by men that were fallible. Even if we admit, which I don't, that the original texts were divinely inspired then we must always refer to them when trying to make a point for or about the bible. As for an ass being a colt, well, that is like saying that an elephant is a hippo. While a colt and an ass are both of the genus equus they are distincly different beings. A colt is a young horse and if you tell a horseman that there is no defference between a horse and an ass you will probably get your ass kicked. So was it that Matthew didn't know the difference or was it the he tried to make Jesus look better by riding a horse rather than an obstinant ass. If the latter is the case then can it not be assumed that he did so in other passages of the bible.
If that is the interpretation you would like to make, then so be it. I would have to see a copy of the transcript in its original language, and interpret from there. Regardless, Matthew writing more details lines up perfectly with the facts. Luke and Mark heard their accounts from others. Since the colt was the only one Jesus rode, they probably felt it was the only one worth mentioning.
Originally posted by DarfiusThe Textus Receptus Greek says (transliterated): '...and you will
If that is the interpretation you would like to make, then so be it. I would have to see a copy of the transcript in its original language, and interpret from there. Regardless, Matthew writing more details lines up perfectly with the facts. Luke and Mark heard their accounts from others. Since the colt was the only one Jesus rode, they probably felt it was the only one worth mentioning.
find a donkey having been bound and acolt with her...'
There is no reason to believe that St Matthew didn't get his account
from others and there is a lot of reason to believe that he took St Mark
and Q and compiled them, editing them in Jewish fashion.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusIt would have been aramaic, but we don't have 'an original.' The
By original language, I mean Aramaic, Hebrew, or whatever language Matthew penned it in. Then, I could find a translater and see exactly what Matthew meant, rather than trusting whichever version you're using.
sources used for modern Bible translations are the various unicals,
all of which are very late (like 3rd and 4th century). They are fairly
uniform. However, we have lots of fragments which are much older
which are less edited and have some differences.
I don't know the earliest source for this particular passage, given that
I think it makes no difference whether St Matthew or St Luke is right
about whether there were one or two. My faith does not hinge on a
numerological error.
Nemesio