Comments on: A withering(ton)ly bad apologetic http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/ a few graffiti on the wall of life Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:03:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Lingamish http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2088 Lingamish Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:02:34 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2088 :-) And good job on getting an interesting debate going. :-) And good job on getting an interesting debate going.

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2082 doug Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:57:40 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2082 David, sorry. I was feeling ill yesterday, no doubt an irony deficiency in my blood stream. David, sorry. I was feeling ill yesterday, no doubt an irony deficiency in my blood stream.

]]> By: Lingamish http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2079 Lingamish Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:16:03 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2079 Whoops. Sarcasm detectors were turned off here... ;-) The Joseph/Mary thing is a helpful mnemonic for keeping the stories straight. I resolve the incompatibility of the narratives by not looking too closely. They both stand independently as wonderful stories. Whoops. Sarcasm detectors were turned off here… ;-) The Joseph/Mary thing is a helpful mnemonic for keeping the stories straight. I resolve the incompatibility of the narratives by not looking too closely. They both stand independently as wonderful stories.

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2070 doug Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:45:56 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2070 James, thanks. Yes, in more thoughtful mode, I must agree that Witherington has a good overall point to make about Christmas. I simply got sidetracked by the "improbability" argument. I must apologise for not picking up on your post - I don't know how I missed it, especially since you were kind enough to link here. James, thanks. Yes, in more thoughtful mode, I must agree that Witherington has a good overall point to make about Christmas. I simply got sidetracked by the “improbability” argument. I must apologise for not picking up on your post - I don’t know how I missed it, especially since you were kind enough to link here.

]]> By: James McGrath http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2067 James McGrath Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:02:46 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2067 I can't claim that either of my posts on the subject was brilliant (unlike Lingamesh), but I did offer <a href="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/12/around-blogosphere_09.html" rel="nofollow">a brief critical appraisal of Witherington's sermon</a> recently, and before that a treatment of the <a href="http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/11/spoiling-christmas-vs-spoiling-q.html" rel="nofollow">incompatibility of the two infancy narratives</a> a while back. I can’t claim that either of my posts on the subject was brilliant (unlike Lingamesh), but I did offer a brief critical appraisal of Witherington’s sermon recently, and before that a treatment of the incompatibility of the two infancy narratives a while back.

]]> By: doug http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2063 doug Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:16:31 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2063 Lingamish, I'm afraid your <a href="http://lingamish.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-gospel-according-to-joseph-and-mary/" rel="nofollow">brilliant discovery</a> is a long standing traditional explanation, and one that doesn't work. The differences are simply incompatible. Back to the literary-theological explanations, I'm afraid. Lingamish, I’m afraid your brilliant discovery is a long standing traditional explanation, and one that doesn’t work. The differences are simply incompatible. Back to the literary-theological explanations, I’m afraid.

]]> By: Lingamish http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2059 Lingamish Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:33:07 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2059 My favorite BW3 theory is that Lazarus is the disciple whom Jesus loved. You guys are just jealous because his blog is so popular. Months ago, I wrote a brilliant post explaining Matthew and Luke differences: <a href="http://lingamish.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/the-gospel-according-to-joseph-and-mary/" rel="nofollow">The Gospel according to Joseph and Mary</a>. My favorite BW3 theory is that Lazarus is the disciple whom Jesus loved. You guys are just jealous because his blog is so popular. Months ago, I wrote a brilliant post explaining Matthew and Luke differences: The Gospel according to Joseph and Mary.

]]> By: Bob MacDonald http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2058 Bob MacDonald Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:51:21 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2058 As Secundus commented several years ago when he was studying the gospel: These stories have almost nothing in common. Luke writes of shepherds and Matthew of Magi. Angels and shepherds worship; and some time later, kings. Four words: Joy, Bethlehem, Christ, and Mary are shared. In one story there is a manger, in the other a house. In one case a babe, in the other a child. I don't know if I have skin on my teeth. I heard some remarkable things about war-rapes and children in Bosnia - and how the children in their early teens were becoming agents of peace. As Secundus commented several years ago when he was studying the gospel: These stories have almost nothing in common. Luke writes of shepherds and Matthew of Magi. Angels and shepherds worship; and some time later, kings. Four words: Joy, Bethlehem, Christ, and Mary are shared. In one story there is a manger, in the other a house. In one case a babe, in the other a child.

I don’t know if I have skin on my teeth. I heard some remarkable things about war-rapes and children in Bosnia - and how the children in their early teens were becoming agents of peace.

]]> By: Jim http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2052 Jim Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:30:10 +0000 http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/12/a-witheringtonly-bad-apologetic/#comment-2052 Yes but do recall that he accepts the Shroud of Turin as authentic; the James ossuary inscription as authentic; and is an inerrantist. It's hard to take such things seriously so we shouldn't be too surprised if the differences between Luke and Matthew go unnoticed. Yes but do recall that he accepts the Shroud of Turin as authentic; the James ossuary inscription as authentic; and is an inerrantist. It’s hard to take such things seriously so we shouldn’t be too surprised if the differences between Luke and Matthew go unnoticed.

]]>