aChristian

Oh, it makes sense. You just are too ignorant about angels to understand. Actually, I am afraid you just don't want to understand.

angelo

Tell us, do you also believe in a fairy god mother?
What about genies, they have actually been seen in films. Remember ''I Dream Of Genie?''
Your claim that if we want to know about angels, all we need to do is read the babble. I could attend a mental ward in any hospital and ask a patient what his/hers visions consist of and take it as truth.
To them it is real, but logic tells us they are hallucinating, it's not real.
The same with the babble. It was written by little more than savages who had no idea at all of the working of nature.
They believed there was a god under every stone, all of nature's power was attributed to gods. And these gods had angels to do their bidding.
That a person in the 21st century still insists on the existence of such beings
shows up the ignorance of the scientific method.
If it can't be proved in the lab, or if there is a lack of evidence for the theory, sooner or later the theory is dumped as there is a lack of evidence.

sschlichter

[QUOTE=Amaleq13;5512967]the sentence says nothing about the cause of death. I did not ask what you feel is the most plausible interpretation. I asked if it says anything about the cause of death.

(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.

Is shining glowing? Why would you not use shining?

At this point, we are at the threshold of wasting time. Nothing new has been presented on either side. My position is that the 3 authors described the same Angels with degrees of detail, one as a man wearing white, one as a dazzling man wearing white, one as a dazzling Angel wearing white in the form of a man. If you think it is a technical contradiction then go with that.

Unless you have something new, let's just wrap it up. I am not up for going back and forth on the same point for 3 months. :banghead:

James Brown

Here, I'll bold it for you: "and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out."

I know you want Judas to be dead first before he fell and disemboweled himself, but there's nothing in Acts to indicate that he was already dead. It is entirely possible for a person to fall and disembowel himself to death. It is too much of a stretch to assume that everyone already knew that Judas was already dead, and to intentionally leave out the fact that Judas was swinging from a rope is as nonsensical as saying that Lincoln died quietly in his bed surrounded by family, friends, and medical staff. You do agree that Lincoln died quietly in his bed, don't you?


I've already explained that there is nothing supernatural about wearing white (not described as glowing in Mark, just white) or entering an empty tomb or repeating instructions. If you are looking for supernatural displays, Matthew has the bases covered, what with someone descending from the sky, causing rock-splitting earthquakes, causing the guards to faint dead away, single-handedly rolling the stone away. That's the kind of Hollywood special effects we expect when dealing with an angel, and--surely this isn't a coincidence--Matthew uses the word 'angel.'

Meanwhile, Luke uses the word 'men' and the only thing supernatural they exhibit is their glowing robes. Even worse, John uses the word 'angel' and the only thing his two 'angels' do is ask Mary a question! Is the ability to form a sentence a sign of supernatural powers now?

It occurs to me that a scientific test could be performed rather easily here. Find someone who isn't familiar with the resurrection story and therefore can't haul in their knowledge of other accounts to fill in the blanks. Obviously most Christians and educated non-Christians wouldn't apply, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find non-Christians who aren't familiar with the Bible. Have them read the passage in Mark with the names changed. Don't read them all the passages and expect them to knit them together into a whole. Just pretend they are one of the original readers of Mark before the other gospels were penned and who did not grow up in first-century Palestine (to eliminate the 'cultural knowledge' bias.)

Then ask them, "Describe the young man in the tomb. Is he A) an ordinary person like you and me? Or is he B) a supernatural being?"

I think the results of such a test would be very illuminating. I wonder if the Templeton foundation would sponsor such a test?

James Brown

You forgot to say that Amaleq doesn't have enough faith to understand these things.

James Brown

Richard Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire is an excellent analysis of the first-century mindset regarding the existence of the supernatural:

Amaleq13

No, my knowledge of angels is entirely irrelevant to reading how Luke describes the two men and entirely irrelevant to recognizing that Steve's comments suggests he either didn't read the passage carefully enough or relied on a faulty memory of that passage.

But feel free to keep making the same nonsensical comment. :banghead:

Amaleq13

The sentence starts by describing the living man's actions and ends with a description of a clearly terminal injury. It is simply foolish to deny that the sentence describes the death of the man.

Yes, just as I said and contrary to your remark. Mark does not describe the young man as shining or glowing or anything even remotely similar.

You don't own a dictionary? Applied to garments, they both describe a luminous appearance.

I don't know what you are asking here. I'm using "shining" because Luke does. Luke uses "shining" (like lightning according to Strong's) to describe the garments of the two men. Matthew compares the appearance of the angel's face to lightning. IIUC, the differing words are actually variations of the same word. Both Luke and Matthew describe the individual(s) the women encountered at the tomb as somehow shining. Mark simply does not.

One seated young man in white within the tomb versus two men in shining clothes or one shining, flying angel outside the tomb.

And we haven't even considered John who contradicts them all! His angels in white (no reference to glowing) are, like Mark's young man but contrary to Matthew and Luke, inside the tomb but they don't tell Mary that Jesus had risen. John tells us that Jesus informed her of this, himself.

Who told the women that Jesus had risen?

Mark: One young man in white seated inside the tomb

Matthew: A flying, shining (happy?) angel outside the tomb

Luke: Two suddenly appearing and shining men outside the tomb

John: Jesus

You are free to somehow convince yourself that these authors are all accurately describing the same event but don't hold your breath trying to convince anyone lacking your faith.

Yes, and we've seen that the texts do not support this belief. :wave:

thentian

Let us remember what Matthew wrote: "...And his appearance was like lightning..." It is not I who do not accept that the angels looked like men, it is Matthew who says so plainly! I am pointing out that if Matthew's account is true, then Mark is lying. I don't care about maths or logic or inerrancy, I care about people lying, and here it is painfully obvious that someone is lying!

Let us for the sake of the argument suppose that you have seen an angel whose appearance was like lightning. How would you justify telling people that you saw a young man? Can you think of any way it would not be a lie?

You say there are many places in the OT and NT where angel/man is used interchangeably and point to an example in Genesis. It would help your case a lot if you could point to a case where Mark/Luke uses the word for "man" when they clearly are talking about an angel. It would help your case somewhat if you could point to an example of the same anywhere in NT. That example from the OT, which was written in hebrew, is not convincing.

thentian

[/QUOTE]

So let's make an easier example, then: What purports to be a historical account of 9/11 says that one airplane crashed into the twin towers. Would you say that this account is lacking in accuracy and not telling the whole truth? (And sure! It's your knowledge about these events that allows you to make that call.)

Mark writes that a young man was in the tomb when "in reality" there were two angels there. I'm sure even his contemporaries would say that Mark was lacking in accuracy and falling short of telling the truth. Provided of course, that they knew differently.

To say that a young man was sitting there if in reality there were two angels there is to lie. Mark was a blatant liar, according to you and ssclichter.

Okay, I found it.

Thanks!


About that earthquake and the risen dead there is only one account. We have no reason to think that Matthew was an eyewitness other than the say-so of a very few scholars. Can you back up your claim that "The people back at the time took them as such" ?


Again, of that earthquake and the zombies there is just one account. Events of that magnitude could and should have been mentioned by several of them. Matthew is not even supported by his fellow evangelists, let alone by neutral or indifferent observers like Josephus, Pliny, Philo, or Tacitus. Hostile or unreliable accounts could have mentioned it for their own purposes or to support their own whacky theories. There is nothing.