Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 07-12-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It is impossible to interpret it as never telling anyone ever because Mark would not have been able to write it down. they did not tell while they were afraid.

Impossible? You only try to find "plausible" alternate explanations when it serves your assumptions?

1. The appearance to the disciples in Galilee is not contingent upon the delivery of the reminder. Whether the women reminded the disciples or not, Jesus intended to appear to them in Galilee.

2. When Jesus appeared to them in Galilee and the disciples were surprised, Jesus asked if the women had reminded them.

3. After the disciples said "What women?", Jesus then told them the story about the angels at the tomb.

4. Peter told his secretary and Bob's your uncle.

thentian · 07-12-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

Hopefully, this is just about my usage of the word "story", which should perhaps have been sub-story or something like that. I really hope we haven't been talking about different things all the time!

I mean it in the sense that meeting the angels and then running to tell the disciples would be one story (sub-story of the overall story is better, perhaps?), and meeting Jesus and telling the disciples about that would be another (sub)story. So the way I look at it, when you claim that the stuff from John happens between Matt 28:8 and Matt 28:9, then you are saying that the story about the women meeting J in Matthew starts at 28:9.

yes, but it does not have to be segregated so. They ran and told the disciples (which entails the entire event of following the disciples back to the tomb, the disciples leaving - all of which Matt excluded no matter where you think it occurred), it was then that Jesus appeared to them. I understand that you might not agree, but I really do not see a way for you to deny that this is possible from Matt 28:8 and 9. externally, it is not only possible but likely because it has some of the same content as recorded by John. it is also after this that John records Mary M telling them about the meeting with Jesus. Internally, you cannot deny this possibility, externally, in light of John it becomes very liekly that they are talking about the same meeting.

~Steve

Whev! At least I haven't been going off on a tangent all by my self!

However, that what you claim is impossible because of the internal evidence (KAI IDOU) in 28:8 and 28:9 is what I have been trying to show for some time now.

(How did the burden to prove this fall on me anyhow? Shouldn't you be obliged to at least show that is plausible?)

Remember that we are not discussing what "really" happened here, but what Mark and John are saying happened. That they both say the same event happened is no kind of proof that they are putting them in the same chronological order, which is the point in question! So you cannot claim John as external evidence. You have shown no internal evidence at all for your claim.

I have shown how KAI IDOU is used by Matthew always (and by Luke at least once!

) to highlight something in a story, and that the story started before the KAI IDOU. Not once does he start with KAI IDOU.

The way I read the story is consistent with how Matthew always did it, as I have shown. (And all the bible translatorsagree with me!)

Problems with your story:

Matthew starts a new (sub)story with KAI IDOU, a first for him.
No explanation of where this happens.
Who are the "them" that Jesus meets?
Matthew doesn't feel Peter's excursion to the tomb is worthy of mention.

Net2004 · 07-12-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

because they did not beleive her (Luke 24:11). it was an angel that said to tell them before, now they had seen Jesus and were told to tell them that he had been seen (not just an angel) (John 20:18)

mark 16:9

9 [Now F307 after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary R587 Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10 She R588 went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they R589 refused to believe it.

Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.
6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you."

8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.

9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

i'll ask again
why is jesus telling them to do something they had already done?and look how calm jesus is with his disbelieving brethren.he calls them "my brethren" not "foolish ones" luke 24:25

jab · 07-12-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

you miss the point, the point is you're assuming things.

We have an encounter and two emotional reactions as they leave the encounter. The only thing I'm "assuming" is that the author was attempting to write coherently. I'm "assuming" that the author isn't describing random emotions with no connection to the obviously emotional event just described.

It is the only rational explanation. You've certainly offered no plausible alternative. You simply deny the obvious and declare the emotions are somehow connected only to the departure.

Quote:

...and contradict yourself telling me that I can't assume a reaction of my own from the angels,...

You've been doing nothing but denying the emotions are reactions and failing to provide a plausible alternative explanation for them. :huh:

Exactly, unless God is a bad writer.

thentian · 07-12-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

These versions are all saying the same thing as I am. 28:8 occurs before 28:9. Which verse did they run and tell the disciples? verse 8 which occurs before 9. When does Matthew mention the running to tell to the disciples? verse 10? No!, verse 8.

All of these versions say the same thing. The text does not specifically say before they got to the disciples or after so a good translation will leave it at that.

I think you were still editing while I read the post the first time, because I only saw this just now.

28:8 has the women running to tell the disciples, not running and telling the disciples. It just puts them on the road there.

According to you, we must assume that they arrived there and told their tale.

28:9 (KAI IDOU) they meet jesus.

Agreed. Matthew says this happens. But who are "they"? Where does it happen?

28:11 They set out to tell the disciples. We agree on this.

Quote:

What's more; Luke is here using KAI IDOU exactly like Matthew does! The story does NOT start at 7:37! It starts with Jesus going to the pharisee's house, and then (highlight!) a sinful woman, who has heard that Jesus is there, arrives with an alabaster jar!

It starts with Jesus going to the Pharisees house. but he got to the house in the same way the women got to the disciples. you are stating this when you say she heard he was there.

7:37 "And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he entered into the Pharisee`s house, and sat down to meat."

All the translations I have seen puts Jesus into the pharisee's house and at the table. That is very different from the women in Matthew, who are only put on the road to the disciples.

jab · 07-12-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It does not say the stone is still there when they arrive.

at the end of 28:1 it says they...
went to look at the tomb.

suddenly (no mention of after or before). could have occurred while they went to the tomb. this is a separate scene.

Mat 28:2 Suddenly there was a severe earthquake,
for an angel of the Lord descending from heaven came and rolled away the stone and sat on it.
Mat 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

then after the rolling away scene (and presumably Jesus exits)

then the next scene...

Mat 28:5 But (or now) the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid;

they had to accept the invitation to take a peek or they would not have ...

Mat 28:8 So they left the tomb quickly,

This is part of the problem with the texts as they stand. You are correct that the Matthew does not say that the stone was there when the women arrive, but then again it does not say that the stone wasn't there and the women come to look at the tomb. It can be interpreted either way.

IMO, if you follow the narrative as it reads, the women are there to see the stone rolled away since it is with them that the scene opens.

Quote:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

The scene begins with the women going to the tomb, there is an earthquake, and then the angel begins to speak to the women. I can understand if you were to look at the above as something akin to a movie script where there's a cut away to the tomb and then back to the women who arrive just after the event, but if you just read the text straight through, it suggest that the women are already there.

This is just my opinion, however, so take it for what its worth

Christmyth

Another example of God as a bad writer, if the passage means what the believer here suggests it means.

jab · 07-12-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

My narrative states that fear came after joy which goes along with the gospel of Mark saying the last emotion they felt was fear.

Mark only describes fear as they left the angels. Matthew describes fear and joy as they left the angels.

Neither supports the notion that fear followed joy and negated it.

Neither supports your fallacious attempt to change the explicitly described fear into doubt about what the angels said.

Therefore, your narrative continues to fail to meet the requirements of the challenge.

Quote:

A logically sound argument is not an arugument from authority...

Your own source (actually all sources on logical errors), as well as common sense, say otherwise. It is simply idiotic to suggest that all appeals to authority on a subject qualify as fallacious reasoning. Have you never read a single scholarly work? Have you never heard of a bibliography or citations? That is the only way you could remain ignorant of the legitimacy and ubiquity of citing authorities on a subject as support. :banghead:

Yep, and also the good Dr. uses argument from authority in his longer posts explaining argument from authority.

jab · 07-12-2008, 03:20 PM

the good doctor argues:

Quote:

thats the problem now isn't it?, is the pastor invovled in the baker challenge? no he isn't, so his opinion isn't valid.

er, the logic of this escapes me.

On the other hand, it is better to cite two authorities than merely one, I'll grant the dr. that much in his assertions about argument from auhtority.

thentian · 07-12-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jab

er, the logic of this escapes me.

Just wait till you get to the ad hominiums! It's like Escape From Monkey Island!

dr lazer blast · 07-12-2008, 06:45 PM

jab is just going through the thread bringing up old arguments. I'll wait till he gets to the current argument to address anything. Who knows, he might succeed where atheos and amaleq failed. I wouldn't even say atheos failed, In fact I should say he might succeed where amaleq has failed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2008, 06:45 PM	#680
dr lazer blast Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: charleston sc Posts: 1,622	jab is just going through the thread bringing up old arguments. I'll wait till he gets to the current argument to address anything. Who knows, he might succeed where atheos and amaleq failed. I wouldn't even say atheos failed, In fact I should say he might succeed where amaleq has failed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.