sschlichter

I am getting the impression we are pretty much done with this one but I will state my position one last time.

Matt 28:9 occurs after 28:8. 28:8 is where the disciples are told. Please note that this is before verse 9, not after.

you have ignored my last post providing back up for this assertion. You need to address my last post by answering each of the points, instead of kidnapping each verse regardless of whether it helps you or not.

You need to find some reason why matt 28:9 occurred before 28:8. Then you would have the potential for a contradiction. there is no backup for your 'kai idou could never be a new sub-story (which is not entirely understandable)'. Why is Jesus appearing after they tell the disciples a new story and Jesus appearing before an old story? Since kai idou is about as common choice of words that we are going to find, then explain to me why this use is so extra-ordinary that it even re-arranges verse 9 to occur chronologically before 8.

You are claiming to have shown something that, trust me you do not want to claim. It is not true. It is not used to highlight something. kai is a conjunction and idou means look. The existence of a highlighted 'sub story' is only in your mind. you built it out of necessity to keep your argument alive.


Let's try again.

Luke 7:36) Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the Pharisee's house and took his place at the table.

Then when a woman of that town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfumed oil.

Would you agree that Jesus went to the Pharisees house before the woman brought an alabaster jar to the house?

thentian

I have no idea how you got the impression that I don't agree with this (bolded parts). In both cases the events obviously happened in the same sequence as they are ordered in the verses. So events in verse 1 happens before events in verse 2 and these again happen before those in verse 3 etc

So the reason I ignored things in your previous post was that I agree with them. Sure, 28:8 happens before 28:9!

KAI is the conjunction "and", but can also have other meanings like "but", and is used as the english conjunction "and" to tie events that belong together.

IDOU is "look", as in "and look!" Most often translated with "behold". You would use it to show something interesting, for example if you see something surprising, you might grab your friends arm, point at it and shout "hey, look!" To show a point of interest = to highlight something, or was that such a bad choice of words? Or are you denying that something interesting happens whenever you see KAI IDOU?

The story from Luke is "The story of how Jesus went to a pharisee's house where a sinful woman came and anointed him". The interesting part is the woman and her jar and what she does, so when we get to that "lo and behold!", it is pointed out to us.

Schematic:

1) Introduction (when, who where)
2) Interesting part of story (at the point where it starts we see: KAI IDOU)

To clarify my position, this is the sequence I think the events in Matthew happened:

28:8 - 28:9 - 28:10 - 28:11

In other words exactly as it is described:

They leave the angels, start running towards the disciples place, meet jesus, continue towards the disciples place. This entails that they meet Jesus before talking to the disciples.

That doesn't fit so well with the sequence in John so you have inserted events from there between 28:8 and 28:9 (pardon me if I'm wrong).

But KAI IDOU (and look!) links 28:8 and 28:9 together, so there is no room for anything there. The previous sentence is what I have been trying to say all along, but obviously not clearly and succinctly enough.

sschlichter

a conjunction still exists if they told the disciples. Just as Jesus went to the house (and actually arrived), they went to tell the disciples and then...

Which word are you translating before from?

thentian

I did write that it entails that they met J before meeting the disciples.

I suggest that we both take a break from this discussion now. I think we´ll both benefit from a rest, maybe collect our thoughts and wits again. I know I can use it , at least!

Cheers!

Doug Shaver

So, there is something in Luke's preface that assures you it is nonfiction, but it's missing in the passage I quoted. What is it?

jab

Just because two terms are not synonymous, does not mean they are contradictory or cannot exist simultaneously. Amazement and joy not synonyms, not contradictory, and can exist simultaneously. Joy and disbelief are even more contradictory that your earlier pairing of joy and doubt and cannot be aroused simulateously by the same source.

jab

So our inerrant God writes like a drug-addled human narrator now.:notworthy::notworthy:

jab

dr, you don't know what an oxymoron means; you don't know what words mean; you use the same fallacies (including argument from authority) that you accuse others of using; you misinterpret what others have written, sometimes even when what they have written agrees with you; you misrepresent what you have said earlier. . . .
As other posters have pointed out, your highly improbable, tortuous readings of parts of the Bible dealing with the resurrection only make sense if we accept the inerrancy of the scriptures--they MUST fit together, so we'll read them any which way until they do. But the argument is circular; it assumes something that the integration of all the accounts is meant to aid in proving.

As I have pointed out in earlier posts, if the pieces fit together the way you say they do, passages in various of the gospels are badly written. Your God is a bad writer--but that's impossible because he's infallible. Let's take the issue of whether it was dark or somewhat light when the women go to the tomb. Two of the gospels appear to contradict each other on that. You try to explain that away, but your explanation makes each of the Gospels badly written on this point.
My leisure hard-copy reading during this past week has been Alice Munro's book of short stories, Friend of My Youth: here Munro is in the short story "Wigtime", describing two high-school girls in rural Ontario walking a mile together to catch the school bus, during "the winter of 1948-49"(247): "walking as fast as they could through a predawn world of white fields, icy swamps, pink sky, and fading stars" (246). So your God, in your tortured version, writes two accounts of the light (or dark) as at least five (you say four, but if you add it up, it's at least five, at least one of who remains unnnamed) women go towards the discovery of the Resurrection of the Light of the World. Your attempt to reconcile those accounts, each of which is evocative its own right, makes each of them seem imprecise and less evocative than an account of a similar time of day written by a good writer, but fallible human being, Alice Munro.

I see nothing in pages 1-16 and 25-27 to indicate any new developments in you in the inervening pages, so I don't know if I'll return to this thread or not.

sschlichter

ok, good discussion, though.

dr lazer blast

jabs whole premise seems to be that God is a bad writer, but what jab fails to realize is that God did not write the bible, also even if it was 'bad writing' just because something is written badly doesn't make it implausible nor errant, furthermore jab seems to be oblivious to the rules of the baker challenge.