sschlichter

No, not at all. my apologies if I have missed some of your posts.

No, the resurrection is the purpose of each of the books. It is independent of whether Angels were present. I was not saying the Angel was evidence for the resurrection. I was saying that the resurrection was accompanied by a character that was announcing it to the women.

true

The young man was sitting in the tomb announcing the resurrection of Jesus. Both sitting in the tomb of a buried man and rising from the dead (up to this point) is unusual behavior for a regular young man, so I look closer. He had instructions that would have come from the resurrected Jesus (or the Father). He was not recognized or named by the women. What man would be announcing the resurrection of Jesus that the women would not have known prior. This is someone with a purpose, so I look even closer. Matthew and Luke's account had Angels and Luke clarified that they appeared as young men. So, I am concluding that this young man is also an Angel. No part of my beleif system insists he is an Angel. If you prove to me that he was not, then I will refer to him as the mysterious young man accompanied by Angels wearing a white robe (not to be confused with the dazzling white robes of the Angels) that was sent by God to announce the raising of Jesus along side of the other messengers who were undoubtedly Angels.

I did not recognize the movie from the image. great movie!

I agree, it is not about the resurrection but the author beleives it to be about the resurrection and he is describing the young man in that context.


No, why would I have any confidence in the new gospel?

If one of the books had stated that a roll was taken and those present and absent were recorded then we would have something to talk about. For a historical narrative to say this person was here and said 'ABC' does not preclude the presence of others. Angels are spirits, for all I know they were all there.

It is possible, but I would not say that Mark meant to say there were 2, I would say he did not bother saying there were 2. Many details were just not necessary. You think the Angels were important because you do not beleive in the resurrection. To me and presumably Mark, the Angels were not critical to the story. They were servants, heralds, messengers and their numbers irrelevant.

this is not a good argument because it would have been done so poorly. The one man later turned into an Angel would be an example. but Luke turns them into what he continues to refer to as young men and then clarfiies them as Angels. Besides, the timeframe is very short for this and the authors paid a very high price for a fable.

thentian

Because to me there is a difference between seeing an angel and having a vision of an angel. I would have expected them to simply say that there was an angel there. It's not quite like the difference between seeing something and "seeing" something, because the latter goes on only in your mind; but more like the difference between talking to someone face to face and talking to some sort of 3d hologram of a person.It is possible, but I would not say that Mark meant to say there were 2, I would say he did not bother saying there were 2. Many details were just not necessary. You think the Angels were important because you do not beleive in the resurrection. To me and presumably Mark, the Angels were not critical to the story. They were servants, heralds, messengers and their numbers irrelevant.


How lazy can you get? It is no more tiresome to say "two" than "one"! Furthermore, it would at the very least be an inaccuracy, which I count as a form of lying. If you tell me that you have one dollar in your pocket when in reality you have two dollars there, then IMO you're lying! If Mark knew there were two angels there, then he is guilty of inaccuracy/misrepresentation/falsehood!

sschlichter

One young man...


(Mark 14:51) A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried to arrest him, (Mark 14:52) but he ran off naked, leaving his linen cloth behind.

The other young man...

(Mark 16:5) Then as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
(Mark 16:6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him.
(Mark 16:7) But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you."


One anonymous young man wearing only a linen cloth (a night robe), having it ripped off because he is running in fear.

One other anonymous young man causing alarm to the women heralding the resurrection of the dead from the empty tomb of Jesus providing instructions from him or his Father.

I see stark contrast besides the words 'young man'. Some speculate that the prior non-heralding young man was Mark himself. This seems speculative but I think it is because that is the only reason he would keep someone that would have been known to the disciples as anonymous. The heralding Angel was anonymous because he was not known.

~Steve

Ben C Smith

That may be. And yet in Luke 1.22 Zechariah has seen a vision in the temple, whereas in the preceding verses it all comes across as quite real, with a conversation and everything.

The Greek word for vision that Amaleq13 pointed out also appears in Sirach 43.2, where it describes the appearance of the sun at dawn.

In Acts 26.19 Paul calls his Damascus road experience, which included a voice and impacted others around him, a vision.

In 2 Corinthians 12.2 Paul begins to write of visions and revelations of the Lord, yet he says of the experience in 12.2 that it may have been bodily.

Ben.

thentian

Night robe? This together with your humorous comment about a toga party makes me think there are some misapprehensions about...

People in Judea at that time would be wearing clothes made of either wool or linen. Both linen and wool is naturally white.


History for kids: "It is hard to dye linen, so mostly people wore it white, the way it is naturally. It is not as warm as wool, but it is much softer and more comfortable on the skin (after you wear it a while; at first it is stiff and scratchy)."


Egyptiology Online:
"The hot and sunny climate of Ancient Egypt meant that simple lightweight linen clothes were the preferred choice of most Egyptians."


Ancient Greece (crystalinks):
"Greek clothing was very simple. Men and women wore linen in the summer and wool in the winter. The ancient Greeks could buy cloth and clothes in the agora, the marketplace, but that was expensive. Most families made their own clothes, which were simple tunics and warm cloaks, made of linen or wool, dyed a bright color, or bleached white"


Ancient Rome Project - Clothing
"Roman fashions didn't really change for nearly a thousand years. Most of the clothes which people wore were made out of wool or linen. In Imperial times, cloth made out of fine cotton was imported from India but it was very expensive. Silk from China cost three times its weight in gold. ... ...Clothes were mainly the natural colors of their fibers, but some clothes were bleached white or some dyed various shades."


Josephus' War of the Jews, Book 2, chapter 8 # describes the Essenes, who "thought it was good to wear white clothes".

-

There are no sites dedicated to the fashions of ancient Iudaea, I'm afraid, but I think it's a safe bet that people wearing white clothes was a common sight in Judea at Jesus' time. Not togas, though; only free roman citizens were allowed to wear those.

ETA: Incidentally, here's an interesting description of the 'Toga Candida':
"Bright toga"; a toga bleached by chalk to a dazzling white (Isidorus Orig. xix. 24, 6), worn by candidates for public office. Thus Persius speaks of a cretata ambitio, "chalked ambition"

thentian

In Acts 9 Paul's companions can hear "the sound" (does this mean they heard the words?), but only Paul sees the 'Beam of Light'. This is supposedly Paul's encounter with Jesus, so here we're talking about a Vison of Jesus, I guess. All the examples you mention have a very different flavor from the man (men) described by Mark/Luke, and even the lightning-like angel who descended from Heaven in Matthew. I am also reminded of how Thomas had to touch Jesus in order to believe. Did he think J was incorporeal?

sschlichter

not so. You have declared this detail as important instead of letting the author tell you what is important. He said much less than the other authors for whatever reason (I really wish I knew). It is not a lie to not mention the guards, or the sealing of the tomb. They are different authors with different perspectives. In this thread you have argued points that those who share your position have not argued. Does that constitute a lie? No, not at all. It points to an emphasis.

~steve

Amaleq13

Yes.

Stripped naked vs clothed in white

Reacting in fear vs inspiring fear

Abandoning Jesus vs announcing Jesus' victory

Even assuming that none of these "almost" literary contrasts are deliberate and the similarities unintended coincidence, we still have nothing to suggest the young man in the tomb is supernatural.

sschlichter

If you are saying that the description of the young man in Mark does not force us to the supernatural, then I agree. Mark said a young man in white robes. It is the role of the young man and his parallel's with Matthew and Luke that cause me to view him as an Angel in human form. The text does not preclude this interpretation because Luke shows us that referring to Angels as young men is not unprecedented.

~Steve

Amaleq13

It does not suggest anything supernatural. Unlike the other versions.

Yes, circular reasoning. They are the same because you believe they are the same regardless of the differences.