davidH

I apologise for being away for so long.

Ok, Roland, lets look at the verses you have given.


Roland, you are implying that the 'as they were saying this' refers to the 'the Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon'. It does not - it refers to while they were explaining and telling their stories to everyone that was present - as the NIV translation saying - 'discussing' and while they were still doing this Jesus appeared.

Again, the translation you used says that the Eleven were present whenever the disciples arrived - but It does not say they were there whenever Jesus appeared - if it did then there would be a contradiction.
Since the Bible doesn't say that the Eleven were present, but says Thomas was absent - I said that the obvious conclusion was that Thomas had left, sometime after the disciples had arrived and before Jesus appeared. Prehaps he went out to get food or something for the two disciples that had arrived - I don't know, but I do know; there is no contradiction at all.

To this you replied:

Really? Illogical in the extreme!! I challenge anybody else reading this to stand with you on this one Roland.
Ok, lets see why you say it's extremely illogical.

Bingo - in your own words 'all the readers will naturally ASSUME that the eleven are still there.

Exactly - they will assume, just like you assume. There is no basis for the contradiction that you see here, apart from you assuming that Thomas must have still been present.

Well, doesn't John's account throw your assumption out the window? It does, because he states as fact, that Thomas wasn't present.

Now the only LOGICAL thing to assume is that THOMAS MUST HAVE LEFT

It is rather your point that is illogical in the extreme - because you hold your first assumption as fact - and then say John is wrong!!

Come on Roland, there is no contradiction here. I'm not here to celebrate a victory, I just don't want people believing there is a contradiction where there is none.

But for completness I will answer the rest of your questions:

I wasn't there to hear their story and discussions, and neither were you. To say how long it took them is just another assumption. All I know from a fact in John's gospel is that it was long enough for Thomas to have left.

What I think makes no difference - John says that Thomas wasn't there when Jesus appeared.

v24 'But Thomas one of the twelve, called Didymus was not with them WHEN JESUS CAME.'

He could have gone out to get food for the 2 disciples after their journey, but a more likely reason can be found in Thomas' reaction to the other apostles telling him about him missing Jesus that evening.

But he said to them, 'Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.'

This was even the other disciples that were with Jesus telling him - imagine what he thought when the 2 disciples that weren't one of the eleven coming in with the story. My view is that he was sick of all the stories people were telling - to him they were making them up and he was sick of it. My guess is that he was sick and tired of it and walked out.
But my view makes no difference - whatever happened he had left and Luke never said the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared only when the 2 disciples arrived.

Again from your own words you said this was only an assumption that the reader would make, John's account flattens this assumption. You yourself said that John only put this in to put in a point about faith, Luke chose not to put it in - whatever his reasons were, they couldn't write everything (as John says).

Again Luke never says the eleven were there when Jesus appeared and you only assume this and take your assumption as fact and then try and show a contradiction?

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't because it doesn't say that not even explicitly. If nothing else had been written, I would have like you - assumed - that Thomas would still have been there. It would be pointless arguing the point because neither would have anything to back it up.

No, the antecedent 'them' all those present in the room that Jesus appeared before. This is the obvious view - all the disciples that were present.

But again as I mentioned before I addressed your points - your contradiction is all an assumption. The fact that John records as fact that Thomas was absent should in any logical thinker, take presedence over any assumptions that he had presently made. - Surely you see that?

I'm just trying to show that this isn't a contradiction at all, but is, whenever you take an assumption over fact and use your assumption as a fact to contradict a fact.

I don't know who told you this was a contradiction but I hope that you can see that it isn't.

Will try and be back soon this time.

Clutch

This is "the mindset" in action. What a desperate attempt to avoid contradiction!

Of course, this sort of thing is exactly why I advise against trying to pin logical contradictions on scripture; you run into apologists so divorced from reason that it's like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Consider an example.

A: "Smith was in the house when the bomb exploded, killing everyone inside."

B: "Smith was unharmed."

Apologist resolution: Oh, well, don't be silly. There's no contradiction here! A doesn't say inside what everyone was killed. Smith was inside the house, but for all we know, what A really meant was that everyone inside the greenhouse was killed. Now, you may assume from the language that the bomb was inside the house, and that everyone inside the house was killed... but that's an assumption, isn't it?

Transplanted to any other domain of inquiry, this sort of perverse logic-chopping would be transparent... even to apologists.

davidH

Clutch, you make no reference to the actual passage in question, not to mention that even so I can see absolutely no parallel to the passage in question.

You know I am right, so why don't you actually help Roland by telling him so.

Lol, I'm sure you find that there is nothing desperate about it - especially if you had read this where we started off discussing it.
Rather - what a desperate attempt to confuse the issue, with something that doesn't have any bearing on the passage in question. :banghead:

Lol, lets just read this:

Good one - so what then, you give all the illogical ones?! Or maybe you give none at all.

Maybe you call me divorced from reason - but you have done nothing to show that - you haven't even shown where my reasoning has gone wrong. Maybe that's because my reasoning has not gone wrong - and that was just a desperate attempt to keep the validity of the 'contradiction'.

Your example - yes. But the Bible passage in question is nothing like that at all!! Have you even read it?

Clutch

I am certainly not prepared to dispute your claim that you don't grasp the parallel; indeed, I find this very plausible.

I was explicit in saying that trying to pin contradictions on someone prepared to do any mental gymnastics, no matter how embarrassing, is pointless. I have defended that idea since before your presence here. So, yes, I stipulate that you cannot be forced to admit defeat on the point by any application of reason. My point was simply that, by your standards, no narrative contains contradictions -- not even the one I offered. Set the bar for coherence low enough, and scripture will clear it. So what?

davidH

Back up your words Clutch.

Go back to my last post on the subject and go through it and point out to me were I 'exchange reason for madness'.

Seriously point it out to me.

Go on Clutch I challenge you to point out in my last post where I did my mental gymnastics, and show me why they were mental gymnastics. Read from page 3 everything that Roland and I have been discussing concerning this passage.

All you could do is take me using the word 'assumption' - even though that is exactly what was being done - and then without giving any examples at all - accuse me of doing mental gymnastics.

I rather find it the reverse - it is you that is embarrassing yourself.

Roland

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared TO THE ELEVEN themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

It sounds a lot like Luke's version of the story to me.

Moreover, Matthew 28:16-17 has Jesus appearing to the eleven apostles on a mountain in Galillee and some still not believing. Care to speculate when that occurred?

The key thing is that Bible literalists, ironically, have no repsect for the individual texts as written. It's the same reason they can claim with a straight face that Matthew's account of Mary Magdalene's actions on Easter morning doesn't contradict John's account of her actions. In the first she is told by the angel that Jesus has risen. In the second, she is told no such thing, but believes Jesus' body has been stolen.

Their solution? To cull from Mark and Luke and claim that there were other women present, so Mary could have drifted off before the angel told them what had happened even though Matthew only cites two people in his version (an awful lot of characters seem to drift noiselessly out of the scenes in their harmonized accounts). Thus, as written, Matthew clearly intends the reader to see Mary M. being talked to by the angel. It doesn't matter to the "literalist" if the reasoning they come up with makes mincemeat out of Matthew's account. The key thing is to insure that NO CONTRADICTION BE FOUND.

I guess as long as it doesn't specifically state "The angel told Mary Magdelene..." that the Bible literalist is somehow let off the hook. But I sure wouldn't want to have to defend reasoning like that - or have to believe in the "inerrancy" of something on such flimsy grounds.

Kosh

I'll have to side with Clutch. "Mental Gymnastics" is a pretty good description of what you've always done here, witness your ridiculous attempt to prove the Exodus as history last year!

(I apologize ahead of time for stirring up that reminder, which now probably lead to another futile attempt to prove the Exodus).

Koyaanisqatsi

Let's compare and contrast, shall we? Note the timelines.

First, John's version (all of the following quotes will be from the NIV to avoid any confusion; bold is my own emphasis):Now from Luke:Got it so far? All of this happened at least the night before (even if they could all walk seven miles overnight).

The bread is broken the night before (the night of Mary and Peter having gone to the tomb). Then they "found the eleven and those with them and the two told what had happened on the way. Then what happens?

Now, according to John, this second meeting happens a week later. Remember? It's almost identical: 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Identical concepts (see me, touch me, feel me, believe me...), even to the repetitioin of locked doors, except John's version has this happening a week after the day Mary and Peter go to the tomb and a week after the almost identical scene (minus Didymus) is expressed in the house.

But how does Luke end his narrative?

No mention of Dydimus or a week passing at all. The events happen the night of and the next day and then he leads them to Bethany Adjacent and then, presumably, ascends bodily into "heaven" (a ludicrous proposition at best, since they would have witnessed a human body ascend into outer space in this manner).

The referrences are always to "them" and "they" with particular and repetive insistence that the apostels are all there at the end.

Luke has all of these events happening within a two or three day time (assuming a day to travel to "near Bethany") period; John has these events (and more) happening over at least a week.

So which is correct? Setting aside the fact that the Eleven has to mean everyone but Judas, which is correct? Upon which story do you base your faith on? You can't base it on both, since they contradict each other. So which one do you believe?

davidH

Kosh,

lol, thanks for siding with Clutch - especially since he has not replied when i challenged him to show me very clearly where I had done my mental gymnastics. Yeah, so you agree with him?
Ok, I challenge you Kosh to go through that post and explain to me exactly where I did my mental gymnastics and where my logic goes out the window. (I suspect you will not answer)

As to my attempt to explain the Exodus - my first attempt was wrong because I was using 'out-dated' Egyptian timelines. But at least I can admit that, which is more than some here can do, for whatever their reasons. By the way even using the uptodate timelines the Exodus actually explains a lot of what happened in their history, even though the Egyptians never recorded it.

Yeah, accuse me of doing mental Gymnastics (but lets just forget to point out exactly where I did them.... )

At least Koyaanisqatsi has replied in sincerity - thanks.
You may not be aware but, this discussion with Roland originates on page 3 - where we discussed the 2 passages. At the moment we are focusing on the events I wrote about, though I will answer your other points about the later events.

The account of John records the evening when Jesus appeared to the disciples - but clearly states that Thomas was not present.

The account of Luke adds the story of the 2 disciples returning to Jerusalem - on the same evening, they hurried back to tell the others that they had seen Jesus. However they arrived the same evening - you see this is the source of the contradiction that Roland brought up - it was the same evening therefore Luke's account is about the same event. 7miles - I could run that in under an hour - walking it would probably take about 2.30 - 3hrs at a guess. If they left at 6 in the evening - 7 when it was getting dark - they would have arrived at 9 or 10. Hence it is talking about the same event - both Luke and John.

John then recalls the event a week later, when the Eleven were together and Jesus appeared to all of them (Thomas was present at this stage).

Your point now is that Luke didn't record this event, but records it as if this was their last meeting with Jesus, since he led them up the hill afterwards and was taken up into heaven. I will deal with this later because it is something different from what I am discussing with Roland.

Let me take you to the account now in Mark

Mark doesn't record the time when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room, but choses to record the time which John mentions happened a week later - when Thomas was present.

Before someone starts arguing that the word afterwards is refering to when Jesus appeared to the group that first time when Thomas wasn't present. And that the word 'afterwards' refers to straight away - it doesn't.

The actual word used here is Mr 16:14 ¶ Afterward <husteron>
This word means: more lately, i.e. eventually:--afterward, (at the) last (of all) It has a sense of time and so can't mean the same event. So did Luke make that event up? Answer = No - because John confirms it in his account.

The point I debated with Roland was he said Luke's account contradicted John's. I am sure that as you read it you will see that Luke records the Eleven ie Thomas as being there whenever the Disciples arrive back the same evening. Then while they are discussing their story Jesus appears. Luke doesn't record Thomas as having left, but neither does he state that the Eleven were still present when Jesus arrived.
But we assume that Thomas is still present unless we read otherwise - correct?
Then when Roland reads John's account that states Thomas was absent, rather than assuming ' Thomas must have left between when the disciples arrived and Jesus came' He takes his assumption that Thomas must still be there as fact (though that is never said) and says that there's a contradiction?!

Maybe you will side with those that are saying i am doing mental gymnastics here - but as you see I am not, nowhere at all.
Koyaanisqatsi - surely you see this?
If you say I am, then tell me where and point out why.

Clutch accused - he gave no reply when I challenged
Kosh accused - he (after all I had said to clutch) refused to back up his words by pointing out where.

Koyaanisqatsi, your last question to me:

Luke's writing of the days after Jesus rose is compacted - you could as you have done, read it on its own and take it to show that Luke said the ascension happened on the same day as the resurection/or a day after it - but that would not be what Luke implied. The reason I say this is because it is evident in Luke's other book - right at the start where he mentions this.

Acts 1 v 3
Originally Luke and Acts were suppose to be read as one book - carrying on from each other. They were writen to the same person.

Hope that helps.

Roland

DavidH -

The problem with saying that Mark records the SECOND appearance (the one when John claims Thomas is present) is that it states that Jesus rebukes the eleven for their refusal to believe what others have told them. Does this make sense in the context of the second visitation, since this charge would only apply to Thomas not all eleven, the others having already seen and spoken to Jesus a week earlier?

And I would still like someone to tell me when on this timeline of post-resurrection appearances Matthew's account occurs.