Amaleq13

Do you think the fact that he mentions a similarly anonymous young man fleeing the scene of Jesus' arrest earlier in the text might be relevant?

There are also examples of men referred to as wearing white so that really doesn't help your case.

James Brown

sschlicter and aChristian have already made it clear that they cannot read one of the accounts in a vacuum without bringing into consideration the other account as well. aChristian even went so far as to say that gMatthew was written in 35 AD and was widely circulated, meaning that any first-century reader of Acts would be as familiar with Matthew's hanging scene as a modern post-Nicean reader. They appear to be unable to separate the two passages, much like a person who can't find a joke funny when he already knows the punchline.

I've said it before: Read both accounts together, and you have a contradictory death. Read both accounts separately, and you have a contradictory life. Pick one.

thentian

Sorry, Steve, I have changed my position; I no longer say that the bible is full of contradictions; I say that it is full of lies! As a result of this topic I have completely lost faith in my ability to tell if anything is contradictory or even if it is at all possible for anything to contradict anything, but I still trust that I am able to tell when someone is lying.

Mark says it was a man while Matthew says it was an angel, therefore one of them must be lying. It's as simple as that. Note that Mark does not write that it looked like a man; he writes that it was a man. And similarly, Matthew unambiguously tells us that it was an angel, not that it just looked like it was an angel.

I also feel that it is less than honest to say that it was one man (or angel) there when in reality there were two. An honest person is not "economical" with the truth but tells it like it is.

sschlichter

I 'think' he was already dead when this occurred, but what I think is not the question. You failed to point out the word or phrase that states the cause of death in Acts 1:19.

the white robe that you describe as glowing, the causing of fear, the sitting in the tomb of a resurrected man, the knowledge of the plans of the resurrected man. Luke 24:4 describes them the same way, as men that suddenly appear in white. No wings, no glowing, no flying, two legs, two arms, a torso, a head, and a mouth. In other words, appearing as a man.

sschlichter

It is evident to me that Mark is also talking about an Angel. (and Luke 24 as well). I gave you many reasons why that is. If you need a technical resolution then consider that Angels are spirits and take on the form of a man (an angelophany). If you do not accept the fact that the angels looked like men as plausible then now you can have an Angel that because he took on the form of a man, is technically correct to be called a man.

Too bad the content is not more technical for you. Matthew was a tax collector, perhaps if he would have included the records from that line of work we could have tested your concept of inerrancy because there would have been plenty of math involved. Errors in that field are easier to agree on.

~Steve

aChristian

I have never seen one that I am aware of, but I may have seen one and not realized it. I do know some facts about angels that the people writing here are ignorant of. If you want to learn about them, the bible is the place to go.

Amaleq13

I'm glad you put quotes around the notion that thought was involved in such a ridiculous reading.

The entire sentence does that job for anyone reading it without your faith-based presumptions and the ridiculousness of your reading only serves to support that conclusion.

...belongs to Matthew's angel, not Mark's young man. Please pay attention.

A fearful response upon finding a guy in the open tomb of your beloved leader neither requires nor even suggests he had a supernatural nature.

Entering and taking a seat in a tomb that is open requires no supernatural powers.

Remembering what Jesus told his followers several times requires no supernatural powers.

Your belief that Mark's young man was somehow supernatural apparently has no basis in the actual text.

Why make your job more difficult by adding contradictions when you haven't been able to deal with what has been presented?

Two men instead of one man (or a single, flying angel).

Outside the tomb rather than inside.

No glowing? Their garments are described as "shining"! Luke uses the same word to describe lightning so you are clearly wrong to say their garments did not glow. You really should read the stories some time. :banghead:

aChristian

You have filled in a detail about the 911 accounts that was not given in the texts. You filled in the detail that two of the four airplanes went into the twin towers and two others went elsewhere. This was not in the accounts given. You filled in the details with your common knowledge about the 911 event. That is the same thing people 2000 years ago did with the gospels.
.[/QUOTE]

Mary's words to Peter are right there in section 8 subsection 1. You just need to read a little more carefully before you accuse the harmony of leaving things out. It meets the Easter challenge.


A Harmony of the Gospel by A.T. Robertson is one of them. I can't think of the titles of the others off the top of my head.


[/QUOTE]
.[/QUOTE]




The silence from the apocrypha, the Talmud, and Josephus do nothing to affect the fact that the reliable eyewitnesses most involved in the events and with the best understanding of the events do record them. There is no good reason to not believe them. In addition, the authors of the apocrypha (especially), the Talmud, and Josephus do not have the credibility that the authors of the gospels have.

aChristian

You need to do a little studying about angels and then get back to us.

Amaleq13

You make no sense. I'm just relating how Luke describes the two men and noting that Steve has apparently not read the story since it clearly does involve glowing garments.