Doug Shaver

Obviously, it's taken you quite some time to put the narrative together.

It will take me a while to go through it and check its coherence. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

dr lazer blast

I never claimed they were synonymous. I am going to give you the benifit of the doubt and assume that maybe it is ME not explaining things right. It makes sense to me, however maybe I am not conveying that when I type. Maybe a simple timeline will get the point across. Keep in mind that this time line is not an EXACT time, I am simply using this to prove a point and layout a series of events.

Mark 16
8And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Quote:
Matthew 28
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

12:00

They left the tomb quickly.

12:01

They trembled with fear

12:02

They were amazed with great joy

12:03

They were afraid.


Amazed and joy are not synonymous, it is amazed WITH great joy i.e amazed accompanied by great joy or amazed next to great joy

sschlichter

ok, whatever, let's talk about John 20:22. Nothing happened here. This was a predictive statement where Christ was preparing them for Pentecost. Since the Holy Spirit is not dispensed in the breathe of Christ (especially after being dead for 3 days). It has no bearing on the timing of any events. Christ wants them to receive the Holy Spirit and they will, later.

Everything else you deconstruct is based on your misconceptions about John 20:22.

I am not sure what Jewish rule you are talking about, why you are assuming that this is an assembly in a religious custom, and why you are assuming they would honor each custom.

Matt 12:1 - 2 is an example of an assembly of the disciples that is occurring while walking and breaking Jewish customs.

At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on a Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pick heads of wheat and eat them.

But when the Pharisees saw this they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is against the law to do on the Sabbath."

Amaleq13

When you assert that two authors who use two different words are saying the same thing with those different words (ie "Both accounts state that they had fear and joy."), you most certainly are claiming that the words are somehow synonymous. It is the only way you can claim they are both saying the same thing.

How gracious of you.

Yes, that is what I've been trying to explain to you. Amazed and joy are not synonymous so it is false to claim that the authors both state joy. One states "amazed" and one states "joy".

Meanwhile, this does nothing to correct the identified implausibility in your narrative.

dr lazer blast

care to explain?, or do you like to assert baselessly? i never once claimed they were synonoumous in the first place, YOU started making straw men arguments claiming that they wern't synonoumous when i never said they were in the first place.

Please explain how my narrative is not implausible with a VALID criticsm.

Doug Shaver

I should have noticed this myself earlier, but Gregor raises a vital point in post #437.

Barker's challenge was not "provide a harmony." Here it is in his own words:
You have not provided any narrative. All you have put on your Web site is Bible quotations.

What Barker is looking for is a rewrite: Tell the story in your own words so that the time and place of every incident, and the identities of those present, is made explicit. You are free to add whatever details are needed for clarification, and you can use pure guesswork for those details if you must, just so long as you do not omit any detail mentioned in the NT accounts.

I'll give you an example. The following narrative incorporates the material from Mark 16:19, Luke 24:50-51, and Acts 1:4-11.

On the 40th day after his resurrection, Jesus went with the 11 surviving disciples disciples to Bethany. After they got there in the early afternoon, the disciples asked him, "Lord, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel now?" Jesus replied, "The Father has his own timetable, and you don't need to know it. You will be empowered by the Holy Spirit and be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the entire world."

After saying that, Jesus then raised his hands and began pronouncing a blessing. Before he was through with the blessing, he began to rise into the sky. The disciples watched him ascend until he disappeared into a cloud.

With that in mind . . .

According to Acts, Judas was not replaced until after the ascension. In the gospel narratives, including John's, there were only 11 disciples.

However, I'm prepared to stipulate that in Paul's thinking, "the twelve" was sort of a name for the group and could be applied to it even when one of its positions was temporarily vacant.

A greater problem, it seems to me, is that Paul rather clearly implies that Jesus' appearance to Peter happened on some occasion prior to his appearance to the twelve. Would you care to suggest when and where that might have been?

sschlichter

sorry, but the gospel account is the narrative that I would supply. If you want to claim the gospels are contradictory then critique them, not what an apologist might pile on top of them. I want to smear my fallible opinion on it like I want to smear honey on myself and walk into a bears caves. I do not proof text or re-arrange and the gospels are technically historical narratives.
What value in finding me fallible?


I thought about the possibility that the twelve was a name for the immediate followers (even when there was only 11). However, I have come to the conclusion that Paul was writing about the twelve including Judas' replacement Matthias. At the time that Paul was writing, they would have been called the twelve (properly).

Acts 1:21 Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us,
Acts 1:22 "beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us - one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us."

I propose that Matthias was in the room when Jesus visited the eleven as this was a requirement for his selection. Paul called them the twelve since he was later designated as an apostle. (at the time Paul was writing)

I do not think a private meetting is impossible. I do not think it is plausible that Paul would be the only one to know about, though.

So, I think he is referring to the two separate meetings (one without Thomas, one with Thomas)

The first meeting that did not include Thomas was referred to as the meeting with Peter, not wanting to refer to it as the meeting of the twelve without Thomas.

Joh 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders.

The 2nd meeting that included Thomas (and Matthias - yet un-commissioned) is what Paul referred to as meeting of the twelve.

Joh 20:26 Eight days later the disciples were again together in the house, and Thomas was with them.

Pual, in 1 Cor 15:5 is confirming that their were 2 separate meetings.

~Steve

Amaleq13

Again? No. If you still don't understand that your assertion entails an assumption of synonymous meaning and still don't understand the nature of the implausibility, you are either not capable of understanding or have never made an honest effort to do so.

Your failure is well-established in the pages of this thread. :wave:

Sheshbazzar

Several hundreds of Christian denominations, representing hundreds of millions of Christian believers say otherwise, clearly stating that there was a conveyance of the Holy Spirit from the Saviour upon that particular occasion, and they also cite many other verses of evidence that men had recieved and been "filled" with the Holy Spirit" prior to the Pentecostal event recorded in Acts 2. Your "interpretation" of John 20:22 is a distinctly minority position, one that is not supported by Biblical Scholar's of any repute.

Yes, I am sure that you wouldn't be, but I'm NOT going to do your homework for you, just because you choose to be too lazy to do your own research so that you would know what you are talking about.
And the reverse, why are YOU assuming otherwise?
Who said this, and to whom did He speak?
Unto Whom ought they to hearken, and Whose words obey?

Are you aware of this injunction of The Law?

(Ones qualified and appointed to pass judgment on matters of life and death, are certainly fit to judge mundane matters of "bread and butter")

His disciples were taught from childhood to walk according to the customs, as they were interpreted by the Levitical Priesthood, and only in rare cases of excessive stringency, of misapplication, or abuse of The Torah, did He ever resist that Scripturally given authority.
In short, it was His custom to keep the customs, and to both obey, and teach others to obey His Father's Laws.
And The Law remained in full effect in all of its particulars throughout all the days of His earthly life.

Do YOU see the word "ASSEMBLY" or "ASSEMBELED" anywhere in this verse?
You, are choosing to call what is only a "group" of men out walking, "an Assembly". This hardly even comports with a normal English usage of the term, and in the Hebrew idiom such an informal group would never qualify nor be recognised as being an "Assembly" in the religious sense, rather only as a group of "companions" and "friends".
Whereas when used in the sense, and in the context of Acts 1:4 and 2:1 an "Assembly" is indicated, the precedent being the "solemn ASSEMBLY" and "Holy CONVOCATION" so often mentioned and enjoined throughout The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings, (Ha'TaNaKa)

Moreover, it is the day commanded in Leviticus 23:21 that is in Acts 2:1 still being kept and solemnly observed AFTER the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension.
Guess He just totally forgot to inform his Apostles and disciples during His 40 days of teaching them "all things", that this "Jewish" Holy Day of The Law was no longer to be observed as His death done away with "Old Testament Laws?
Or perhaps it was the latter "Christian" church that departed from The WAY?
The APOSTACY predicted to overtake the church, ever come to pass?
Apologists can't conceive of it, that THEY are the forces of that apostasy, but that myopic lack of recognition does not remove the fact.

Every year at this season I must depart on a three month long business-trip. Living "on the road" with 16 hour work days my access to the Internet is spotty at best (and even with a lap-top, time for lengthy debate is simply unavailable) Thus I must, regrettably, leave these arguments to others.
The next seven days will be well occupied with preparations for that trip, but I will continue checking in from time to time for any new developments, but I simply cannot afford to get embroiled in any further long-night debates.

I'll be missing both my friends and adversaries on here.
Wishing a fine summer to you all, :wave:
Sheshbazzar

Doug Shaver

Then you are in effect declining Barker's challenge. You're perfectly free to do that, but if you then say you have met his challenge, you are being disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.

The only thing I claim on this occasion is that no apologist has ever met the challenge.

Neither your fallibility nor that of any other apologist is at issue. What is at issue is the dogma of scriptural inerrancy. If all of the NT accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities were inerrant, then it would be possible to write a narrative in compliance with Barker's conditions.