Sheshbazzar

Hope you had a good time, and it is understandable why one would prefer the taking of a little R&R.
I think most of us can well relate
I thought, when I renounced my beliefe in the Bible, that I was finally escaping from that religious nonsense dominating my life and my thoughts.......

Yeah, I know that I have the same flaw. ho' well, "I yam what's I yam"

dr lazer blast

It seems as though you are not responding to the post I asked you to respond too, I'll post it again just in case you forgot.


its not new considering I said this like around 5 pages back. Also you're incorrect about joy and amazement not being synonmous

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=amazement+and+joy

as that is commonly used all the time.




now you're just skating around the issue, hitting straw men.

Mark says that the last thing they had was fear, so it is entirely plausible that they had fear joy and fear.

refute the way I am interpreting the scripture and the bolded statement.

aChristian

As I said in my original posts, conservatives have given many plausible harmonizations. In this particular case, the two texts are probably referring to two different visits that Mary made that morning.

sschlichter

I am wondering about how useful making up a narrative is going to be. I went thru the gospels and lined them up in 4 columns and they seem to jive to me perfectly. Here is the link. http://www.taskautomationpartners.co...nascension.htm I did not add or change the order of any of the texts. I cannot put an html table in the post so I did it as a link.

Why not just let the gospels supply the narrative and leave everything as speculation. I have not seen any actual contradictions as of yet but would be interested in hearing of any.

Amaleq13

No, that was the specific sentence to which I was responding. The phrase "fear joy" is incoherent and you simply drop Matthew's joy without justification.

I already pointed when you tried this before that posting a list of google hits for the use of "joy and amazement" together does not establish or even suggest they are synonymous. I also indicated that it didn't matter regardless since Matthew's joy continues to be a problem for the plausibility of your narrative regardless of the addition of amazement or even your faulty definition of it as being the same as joy.

That they are commonly used together does not mean they mean the same thing. It means they are complimentary terms. A joyful reaction does not entail or preclude an amazed reaction. More relevant to the problem with your narrative, the inclusion of amazement does nothing to negate Matthew's joy.

[QUOTE]now you're just skating around the issue, hitting straw men[QUOTE]

You still aren't using that term correctly. That you have replaced doubt with disbelief changes nothing. The text offers no support for disbelief of the angel's message. Fear, amazement, and joy not only fail to suggest disbelief but the last clearly indicates acceptance.

We've already seen that this was wrong. :huh: Since you must included all details, you have fear, amazement, and joy in response to the message from the angels. The transition from all of those described responses to the sole concern for the location of Jesus' dead body and failure to even mention the angel or message to Peter is simply not plausible.

I've already done it at least twice. I've already paraphrased Johnson in this thread but it continues to be apropos. I can only provide an explanation to you, I cannot provide an understanding. :huh:

Amaleq13

Plausible only to similarly faith-driven individuals.

I agree this is very obvious. It is also obvious that the visit described in John 20:2 is implausible coming after the visit in which Mary gets the message from the angel and reacts with joy at the information that Jesus was not dead.

Amaleq13

It has the same implausibility. Mary runs to Peter solely concerned and mystified about the location of Jesus' dead body despite having just reacted joyfully upon hearing from an angel that Jesus was alive.

Sheshbazzar

According to Matthew, on the day of the resurrection, early in the morning X meets the two Marys as they are returning from the empty tomb (Matt 28:9)
and tells them "Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They shall see me there."(Matt 28:10) ....so the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain X had designated (Matt 28:16)

But

According to Luke, on that day of the resurrection, in the afternoon (Lu 24:29), of that very same day, X appeared to two disciples as they were on their way to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. (Lu 24:13)
After he had walked with them, and when he broke bread with them, they finally recognized him. (Lu 24:14-32)
So they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them. (Lu 24:33)
While they were telling the others of the events of that day, (Lu24:35)
X himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."(24:36)
Then he spoke with them, and invited then to touch him (24:37-40) And while they still could not believe it (because of their joy) and were amazed, he said to them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in front of them. (Lu 24:41-43)
Then he spoke with them and opened their understanding (Lu 24:44-48)
and instructed them "But stay in the city of Jerusalem until you have been clothed with power from on high."
After he had parted and been carried up into heaven (Lu 24:51)
They worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the Temple courts blessing God. (Lu 24:53)

According to the narratives these things all took place within no more than a maximum of 36 hours from the women discovering the empty tomb.
According to Matthew's account, X instructs the eleven "to go to Galilee (28:10) so the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain X had designated" (Matt 28:16)
But according to Luke's account, on evening of that followed, X appeared in the midst of the disciples and commanded them to remain in the city of Jerusalem until they had been clothed with power from on high.

So did the eleven travel the 50 or so miles to a mountain located somewhere in Galilee?
Or did they return to the city of Jerusalem and stay continually in the Temple courts?

Going a little beyond the Gospel accounts, one must ask themselves (and/or their God) whether they will accept the account as it is given in The Book of Acts.

" To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [said he], you have heard of me." (Acts 1:3-4)
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." (Acts2:1)
(For those who don't know, "Pentecost" means "50th", it being the 50th day "from the morrow after The Sabbath"
"And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after The Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete:
Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall you number fifty days; (Lev 23:15-16)
In our parlance, from that Sunday on which He arose, forty-nine days or seven full weeks, until the fiftieth day, that Sunday following seven Saturdays (Sabbaths)

So were they far far away somewhere on a mountain in Galilee during most of this time?
Or did they remain in the vicinity of Jerusalem until the Day of Pentecost was fully come?
To obey one directive certainly would appear to be disobeying the other.
Please explain and reconcile how the eleven could remain in the city of Jerusalem, continually in The Temple courts during the same Fifty day period that they were also supposedly off visiting a mountain some fifty miles away in the Galilean territory.

aChristian

I think the visit in John 20:2 is the initial visit.

dr lazer blast

having joy and amazement, being amazed with joy, etc. does not need to be synonymous for someone to be experiencing them, as you can see from the google link it is entirely plausible that writers or people use amaze with joy to describe things
jumbo shrimp is not synonymous, yet it is used all the time, its called an oxymoron. great joy and amazement. I am not stating they're synonymous at all.


It doesn't need to be the same thing amazement and joy can be used together to describe something, they don't need to be synonomous, and you claiming that is a strawman. I never once claimed ANYTHING needed to be synonomous, you're just putting words in my mouth telling me basically how things need to be when they don't need to be that way.

2 words describing one event do not need to be synonymous, love hate relationship, cruel kindness, etc.


once again you are back to square one.