jab

Aethos: Say what? "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:8): What a picauyne reading for you to bring lust into this verse.

thentian

"Suddenly" was from the New International Version at BibleGateway. They have all the other versions there as well, so it is easy to look up any differences, and I see that New American Standard Version does not have it while English Standard version does.

So, you´re saying that Matthew is telling the story of the resurrection from the perspective of the women? (Why is talking to Peter not the next thing for them, anyway?) Er... don´t you think that´s a little farfetched? I mean, I don´t think he does that anywhere else in his gospel. Actually, I can´t think of any part anywhere in the entire bible that seems to be from a womans perspective. Hmm... maybe Esther´s Book? It´s been awhile since I read that.

I´d say that a straight reading of Matthew gives a clear chronolögy of events: 1) Women at the grave. 2) Talked to by angels 3) Meets Jesus while on the way to Peter to tell him the good news.

John has the same events, but in a different chronological order, which makes the two gospels contradict each other chronologically-wise: 1) Women at the grave. 2) Finds empty grave (no angels, which is in itself a bit of a contradiction). 3) Tells Peter (who investigates) 4) Mary meets Jesus, having arrived at the grave for the second time, after Peter has left.

ETA: Okay, find a scholar who thinks that Matthew is telling it from tthe women´s perspective, and I´ll go away! As long as he doesn´t also think bananas are proof of ID, at least!

thentian

Keep in mind that xians believe the bible is inspired by an omniscient God, James! They aren´t going to find anythng out of the place with this!

thentian

NIV has "Blessed are the pure in heart... etc"

Interesting how different versions can have such different meanings, isn´t it?

sschlichter

the greek version does not say suddenly.

I am not saying it is from the womens perpsective, I am saying that he was putting this meeting here before being in galilee. You can assume that they told the disciples, since they went to galilee but you are incorrect to assume it is after verse 9.

~Steve

jab

Dr. blast opines: OMG: Let's keep this in the realms of plausible human psychology. If I found that the corpse of a person very dear to me had disappeared to I didn't know where, and someone gave me a story i didn't believe about him being brought back to life, but I thought the person was still dead, I would have strong emotions, but joy would not be one of them.
If, on the other hand, I believed the person had been miraculously resurrected after a painful and unjust death, and I was told so by someone I accurately believed was an angel, I would be full of a mixture of joy (at the good news) and awe-ful fear (from being exposed to an event and a messenger so far above and beyond my ordinary ken).

jab

Er, in the good Dr.'s account, the doubt comes after the joy or simultaneously with it and remains with MM up through her bringing the news to Peter. The joy apparently fades, in the good Dr's account, and once at Peter's MM apparently disobeys the angel's (or angels') injunction to convey what she has been told. However, whereas often in the Scripture, disobeying the injunction of an angel has repercussions for the wayward human, MM seems to have gotten a free pass on this one, or perhaps none of the Gospelers thought it was significant enough to mention that and how MM was punished.

jab

Then the Bible verse is badly written, since in listing events that are to be understood by teh reader as a sequence, the one that comes last in the list happened last. So, does your "word of God" contain a patch of bad writing in a central passage (the Resurrection of Christ), that any semi-professional writer or editor would know to avoid?
No, if the verse is well written, it means either that the fear and joy were commingled, or that the fear came first, then the joy (perhaps co-mingled with remnants of the fear).

dr lazer blast

hey jab you might wanna jump up like 18 pages or so into the current argument, your logic is also inherently flawed. I'll just give you a few examples.

Joy in the form of hope jab.

you've made some errors here, I said that mary went to peter unsure that Jesus was dead or not. The fundamental error you have made is assuming Mary is talking about the dead body of Jesus when she is talking to peter. It is entirly possible she could be talking about just the body of Christ, alive, sleeping whatever.

Even if she did think she was dead, she could just not believe the angels and be concerned about the body of Jesus, the joy described in matthew could've been mary hoping that the body was not desecrated and properly laid to rest, or hoping she could find the body to anoint Christ with spices which is what she came to do in the first place, in any case both scenarios are plausible.

dr lazer blast

you like amaleq have forgotten 2 things. you have forgotten about mark where the last emotion described is fear, so scripture says fear joy and fear matthew states fear and joy whilst mark states that the women did not say anything to anyman for they were afraid, thus the last emotion they had was fear, you have also forgotten that the 4 gospel authors are recording the same event and thus all details must be taken into account as per the challenge listed on page one, you have just left out the details described in mark.