Contradiction between Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter pugzrule
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pugzrule

Guest
Specifically these Matthew 8 and Luke 7.
The least of which is the cities.
One account says Caparnum and the other Ceasera
(hope those are spelled right).
It has to be the same centurion.Why the contradiction?
 
Specifically these Matthew 8 and Luke 7.
The least of which is the cities.
One account says Caparnum and the other Ceasera
(hope those are spelled right).
It has to be the same centurion.Why the contradiction?
I don’t know what’s the matter with it.

Now Jesus, having came into Capharnaum, there came to Him a centurion calling upon Him…
  • Matthew 8:5
When He completed all his sayings in the hearings of the people, He went into Capharnaum; now a certain centurion’s slave being ill, was about to die, who was highly valued by him. But having heard about Jesus, he sent to Him elders of the Judeans, asking Him that having come He might save thoroughly his slave.
  • Luke 7:1-3
Both accounts give Capernaum, or if you prefer, ‘Capharnaum’, as the place. In all charity, are you sure you’ve read the passage thoroughly? 🙂
 
Specifically these Matthew 8 and Luke 7.
The least of which is the cities.
One account says Caparnum and the other Ceasera
(hope those are spelled right).
It has to be the same centurion.Why the contradiction?
What version / edition of Bible are you using?
Also could you provide the specific verses where the contradiction shows up?

Peace
James
 
thanks Patrick.Thought i’d let you know that is my twin brother’s name.Mine is Patricia.I’ll double check and make sure i have read this correctly.Using the NAB online.
When i find these will post them here.
If it’s my error will let you know.
The issue came up on another forum so i decided to take a look into it.
forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1910781&page=3
Will double check and stop back later.
Thanks for the reply!
 
You were correct.I was in error.Misread? Not sure.
This is the contradiction that was brought up:
"Mat 8:5-13
5And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,

6And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 13And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
Quote:
Luke 7:2-10

2And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
3And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
4And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
5For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
6Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
8For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
9When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 10And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.
So Matthew has the Centurion coming to Jesus in person, while Luke has him sending others and doesn’t talk directly to Jesus.

Possible explanations:
Code:
* One of the two saw the incident first hand (or completely invented it), and the other heard it second or third hand and that version was distorted.
* Both heard it second or third hand from different sources.
* Each decided to stress a different part...either the Centurion did come in person but Luke decided to stress the esteem Jesus was held in so changed it to intemediaries or the Centurion used intemedaries, and Matthew thought it had a bigger impact if it was in person.
* The Centurion sent intermediaries, but Matthew simply didn't distinguish and considered it the same as if the Centurion came in person.
The truth doesn’t really matter…it doesn’t change the message or really change the story. But to claim that there is no contradiction because the last explanation must be the correct one (because it allows both Matthew and Luke to have been first hand witnesses without any creative or literary license) is just poor reasoning."
 
Hi

Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the first century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Matthew states that a centurion came to Jesus asking earnestly about his sick servant, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking this was true, even though he was, as Luke indicated, speaking through his official representative.

Matthew appears to give us the salient points, under inspiration - whereas Luke appears to have actually witnessed the entire event, and, under inspiration - to have recorded it as such.

Pax

John
 
Specifically these Matthew 8 and Luke 7.
The least of which is the cities.
One account says Caparnum and the other Ceasera
(hope those are spelled right).
It has to be the same centurion.Why the contradiction?
There is no contradiction, to say so is a heresay. The Holy church as explained everything perfectly.
 
No one was standing around taking notes or videotape. The gospels were written years after the events, when it became clear that the eyewitnesses were not all going to live until the Lord returned, and it was important to preserve the record. Different people remember different details of an event, and sometimes people get two events mixed together in their memories - anyone whose ever sat and listened to two or three elderly siblings retelling an event from their childhood has seen this in action. The fact that one thinks the story about the baby being left on the train happened in Malden and the other one is sure it was Medford does not mean it didn’t happen, or change the impact of the event. And if some relative later says it was in Boston (because no one outside of Massachusetts can keep Medford and Malden straight anyway) that still doesn’t negate the truth of the story.

The Church wasn’t worried about these apparently contradictory details when she compiled the canon of Scripture, because she understood that the truth contained there was not supposed to be a play-by-play. This only becomes an issue for people who have absorbed the literalist interpretation model of the sola-scriptura branch and merged it with the modern/western definition of “historic truth.”
 
No one was standing around taking notes or videotape. The gospels were written years after the events, when it became clear that the eyewitnesses were not all going to live until the Lord returned, and it was important to preserve the record. Different people remember different details of an event, and sometimes people get two events mixed together in their memories - anyone whose ever sat and listened to two or three elderly siblings retelling an event from their childhood has seen this in action. The fact that one thinks the story about the baby being left on the train happened in Malden and the other one is sure it was Medford does not mean it didn’t happen, or change the impact of the event. And if some relative later says it was in Boston (because no one outside of Massachusetts can keep Medford and Malden straight anyway) that still doesn’t negate the truth of the story.

The Church wasn’t worried about these apparently contradictory details when she compiled the canon of Scripture, because she understood that the truth contained there was not supposed to be a play-by-play. This only becomes an issue for people who have absorbed the literalist interpretation model of the sola-scriptura branch and merged it with the modern/western definition of “historic truth.”
While I understand your reasoning here, I hope you can see why such reasoning is not satisfactory for some.
If the Bible is the “Inspired Word of God” then there should not be such contradictions. It is not just a matter of this one or that one remembering details of an event differently. It is a matter of, if the Same Holy Spirit inspired the writings of both authors, why did the Holy Spirit inspire different accounts.

I’m not saying this is a particular concern for me, I’m just saying that the concern is a legitimate one for anyone trying to absorb the “Word of God”.

Peace
James
 
I do understand that it is a concern for people who have a different understanding of the term “inspired Word of God” than that of the Catholic Church. (Some of those people may be within the Catholic Church, but that’s another issue . . . )

It is my observation that this sort of misunderstanding comes from combining a western, mechanistic view of “truth” with a sola-scriptura influenced literalism, both of which place demands on the text that are inappropriate and contrary to the teaching of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top