Matthew_Green

A number of New Testament critics have argued that Matthew and Mark contradict Luke and John as far as where the disciples would first see Jesus after he rose from the dead. Is there any evidence that Matthew intended for the reader to understand that the first appearances to the disciples was intended to be in Galilee? The best evidence I can think of is the word tense the angel used in Matthew 28:7 where the angel seems to imply that Jesus would be already on his way there by the time the women reached the disciples ( The angel says "Tell his disciples that he is risen and he is going ahead of them to Galilee" not "Tell his disciples that he is risen and he will go ahead of them to Galilee").

The attempts of some apologists trying to reconcile these seem comical: why would Jesus have to repeat what the angel told them? And further, why would Jesus instruct the women to tell his disciples when Jesus could've told them himself? Luke and John both say that he appeared to his disciples that very night. As if the absurdities didn't stop there, some apologists argue that Jesus' appearance to Galilee took place the same time that the disciples were in Galilee two weeks after Jesus rose from the dead (John 21). Again, why did angel and Jesus have the women tell the disciples to go to Galilee when Jesus wasn't going there for a whole two weeks, especially if Matthew 28:16-20 takes place two weeks after the day Jesus rose from the dead? Why the urgency in Matthew? Why did the women rush to tell his disciples? It seems rather obvious to me that the women weren't in a rush to tell his disciples he had risen from the dead when Jesus would appear that very night to his disciples. No, it seems that the urgency of the message would be to go to Galilee because the angel meant to imply that Jesus was already on his way there, waiting for them!

Comments defintely welcome!

Matthew

offa

Matt_the_Freethinker


Comments defintely welcome!

Matthew



Well, Matthew, this board is the wrong place to visit. It is
fundamental.

If you want knowledge you need to study Josephus. He tells all. I had
the fortune to read Josephus backwards. I read about the beginning of
Herod the Great ...

I cut this from Josephus,

Ant 14-158 And seeing that Hyrcanus was of a slow and slothful
temper, he made Phasaelus, his eldest son, governor of Jerusalem, and
of the places that were about it, but committed Galilee to
Herod, his next son, who was then a very young man, for he was but
fifteen years of age;

My question was this, "Did Jesus come from the same Galilee that Herod
was committed to govern?"

BTW, backtracking Herod's age from being about 70 when he died makes
him about 27 when he was made governor of Galilee (Antiquities book
14). I was confused so I started reading each of the previous chapters
in reverse (book 13 chapter 16, then book 13 chapter 15 ... all the
way to his auto-biography) and I realized a pattern.

The most telling chapter in his whole damned volume was book
13 chapter 11. When I read backwards from there I knew what he
(Josephus) was telling. Here is the telling verse:

ANT 13.313 As he was saying this, and that in a melancholy mood,
the news came that Antigonas was slain in a place under
ground, which itself was called also Strato's Tower or of
the same name with that Cesarea which is seated at the
sea. This event put the prophet into a great disorder.


The Scriptures are about pseudo-names. Ahh... another Egypt and
another Galilee. What I determined was that each holy seat in
Palestine was called "Jerusalem". I count five locations named
Jerusalem. Caiaphas was the ruler of the main Jerusalem and he had
four subordinate priests and their temple would also be called
Jerusalem. They were "chief" priests and Caiaphas was high
priest.

The Galilee, a.k.a, Jerusalem, that Jesus was attempting to become
"chief priest" of was actually Qumran. Simon Magus, a.k.a., Lazarus,
was formerly chief priest there. Jonathan Annas was the chief priest
during the crucifixion. He was the "father" that forsaked Jesus.
Jesus' crime, other than his association with Lazarus, was his refusal
to pay tribute (taxes) to Caiaphas who, in turn paid tribute to Rome
(Caesar).


When Jesus prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem it had
already occurred. When Pilate took Jesus' Jerusalem by force in
33 a.d. that was the invasion of "holy ground" by outsiders. You have
to understand, Jesus was crucified and he survived and died about 35
years later.





Thanks, Offa