Decypher

I don't think this claim is actually Biblical.

According to the Bible, we aren't supposed to follow someone merely because they can produce "signs" or "wonders". If the resurrection of Jesus is true, it doesn't follow (according to the Bible) that he was "the Messiah", or a "god-man" or whatever. God may merely be testing the Jewish people apparently.

According to the Bible, false prophets will:

(a) Encourage Jews to worship a different God. (Is the "Trinity" a different God perhaps?)

(b) Encourage Jews to abandon the commandments of God. (Christianity has dumped God's law. I know that Christians like to say "fulfilled", but whatever, it isn't being observed is it?)

So even if Jesus really was resurrected, he is still--on Biblical criteria--looking as guilty as it gets of being a false prophet. If we are concerned to follow the Bible then we should reject Jesus!

Decypher

I take your point about where an inconsistency is considered "irreconcilable" then there must be an error.

The point I was trying to make:

(a) The car is painted black all over, and:
(b) The car is NOT painted black all over.

(a) The car is painted black all over, and:
(b) The car is painted white all over.

In both examples, it is impossible that the a+b statements can both be true. There must be an error. But the example that you are using (behaviour of Mary Magdalene) seems to be of a significantly different kind. The gospels are inconsistent with each other, there is a lack of harmony, but it doesn't seem to be the case that necessarily an error exists.

Chili

How about the car was painted black on Matthew's side was painted white on the other side where John was.

John knew that Matthew's side was black in the absense of the morning star which in Matthew was the "other Mary" who in Judaism is not recognized or known.

Boro Nut

Clue to apologists - we're quite able to understand what this generation means on this board, thank you very much. If Jesus had meant to say this generation, he would have said that generation and that generation would have known he meant this generation. Unfortunately for you he said this generation, meaning that generation, not this generation. I'm sure that generation understood this generation was that generation not this, so how come this generation thinks it's this generation not that? I hope I make myself clear. Unlike Jesus.

Or Chili.

Boro Nut

JoeWallack

JW:
Just received The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised by Moulton. Who wants a Fax of page 43?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Farrell Till

I want one. If you will contact me at [email protected], I will send you my fax number.

Farrell Till

JoeWallack

JW:
Bon appetite Monsier Till. Someday, and that day may never come, I might ask you for a favor.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Farrell Till

In support of his claim that "apokritheis" in Matthew 28:5 conveyed the sense of a significant delay, Jerry McDonald cited Moulton's The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised.

I expressed my suspicion that McDonald had distorted Moulton's definition by leaving out information where the ellipsis appeared. Through the courtesy of Joe Wallack, I have received a copy of the page that McDonald mutilated in his citation. I have taken the time to insert html codes for the Greek alphabetic characters so that I can quote exactly what McDonald's "source" really said. I will emphasize in bold characters the parts that McDonald omitted.

As readers can see, McDonald quoted only five words out of this entire definition, and what he left out where the ellipsis appeared in his distortion of the defintion shows just how intellectually dishonest he is. "(A)nd, later, [and] also" were definitions of the aorist form "opokrinamen," but the form of this word in Matthew 28:5 was "apokritheis," which was a masculine singular participle of "apokrino," which McDonald's "source" went on to explain conveyed the sense of "to answer" as in "Mat[thew] 3:15, et al." Here is how Matthew 3:15 reads.

In his third rebuttal, McDonald argued that "apokritheis de" in this text could have conveyed a delay.

His own source, however, said that this form of the word [apokritheis] conveyed only the sense of "to answer." In putting et al, which means "and others," after Matthew 3:15, the editor was saying that "apokritheis" meant "to answer" not just in Matthew 3:15 but in the other passages where it was used. McDonald claimed that the combination of "apokritheis de" in Matthew 28:5 definitely conveyed a significant delay, long enough for Mary Magdalene to go to Peter and the other disciple, tell them that the body of Jesus had been stolen, return to the tomb with them, etc., etc., etc., but he quibbles that this combination didn't have to convey the same sense in other passages. His position on Matthew 3:15 was only that "apokritheis de" could have meant that Jesus delayed significantly in answering John.

McDonald has quit the debate in this forum but claims that he will continue it in
http://iierrancy.com the Errancy forum. After he has posted his next "rebuttal" there, I intend to counter with other examples of where "apokritheis de" was used in Matthew in the obvious sense of immediate reponses. I will keep readers here posted. Meanwhile, we will wait to see what excuse McDonald offers for having so flagrantly misrepresented what The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised said about the meaning of "apokritheis."

Decypher

Do you want someone whacked?

aguy2

If one were to assume that Saul/Paul represents the anti-Christ that Jesus prophesied would follow him within a generation, couldn't the balance of Jesus' prophesies also may be seen as having already come to pass?
aguy2