Amaleq13

Then you do not understand what constitutes a weak argument from silence. Your position with regard to accepting a vague, textually-unsupported, speculative emotional state is a perfect example.

Those weren't "plausible guesses". They were a shotgun blast of apologetic wishful thinking that, like the "dr"s narrative, pretend John 20 doesn't clearly depict Mary's initial reaction absent any angelic message.

No. That is a red herring as no such assumption is involved.

We need only recognize that John is quite clearly describing Mary's initial reaction to the empty tomb absent any other provided explanation.

There is nothing plausible about imposing such a radical change without support from the text. There is nothing plausible about the notion that, within the time it took to walk from the tomb to Peter and without any indication in the text, Mary had gone from being joyful in hearing that Jesus was alive to completely ignoring that wonderful angelic message and being concerned about the location of his dead body.

Amaleq13

I've never disagreed about whether "joy" and "amazed" are synonyms.

Because you did you when asserted that they both state joy!!

No, I continue to refer to things that you apparently still don't comprehend. It continues to be quite obviously false to declare that both Matthew and Mark state "joy". :huh:

Your "little timeline" fails to explain how one can legitimately claim an author states something which is not actually found in his text.

The "joy" that Mark somehow states without actually using the word or a synonym is from the angels? That makes no sense.

Yes and, as long as you continue to contradict John's chronology, your effort will continue to fail to meet the challenge.

Doug Shaver

According to one gospel, on one occasion Jesus appeared to all the disciples except Thomas, and then sometime later he appeared to all of them including Thomas.

According to Paul, he appeared to Peter on some unspecified occasion before appearing to "the twelve."

Doug Shaver

What needs excusing? We're saying it can't be done, and nobody has ever done it.

aChristian

It doesn't report Mary's reaction, it only gives her words in John 20. It doesn't say whether she was hysterical, happy, sad, desperate, etc.


The text does not say that it gives us her emotions for the entire time. Your position that it does is not supported by the text.

Amaleq13

No reason to pretend we can't see what it does say. She is clearly quite concerned about the location of Jesus' dead body. That concern is not plausible following her joyful reaction to the angel's message but that is precisely what the narrative claims.

This false characterization of my position continues to be both a straw man and red herring.

My position is based on what the texts explicitly state and a rejection of that which conflicts with what is explicitly stated.

aChristian

In my opinion it has been done many times. I gave three links in addition to sschlichter's harmony. The second link even gives it in a single narrative as was requested.

aChristian

No reason to pretend to know that her emotions did not change. I already gave a plausible scenario where it makes sense. In addition, you have more than one narrative to fill in the details rather than relying on your limited understanding of the one narrative.

The texts do not explicitly state her emotional state. It is not explicitly stated that her emotions did not change or were not mixed. You claim I am falsely characterizing your position. Does that mean that you think her emotions may have changed to some degree?

sschlichter

So, he appeared to Peter and other disciples, and then the twelve?

Would you say that Peter was designated the 'leader' in any sense according to either Paul or any of the gospels?

Doug Shaver

According to the author of John, on one occasion he appeared to Peter and nine other disciples, and then on a subsequent occasion he appeared to Peter and ten other disciples. The difference between the nine and the ten was Thomas, who was absent on the first occasion.

According to Paul, he appeared on one occasion to Peter, and then on a subsequent occasion he appeared to "the twelve."

No, I would not say that either Paul or any other NT writer designated Peter as the leader, at least not explicitly. However, I would agree that it is reasonable to infer from some of Paul's remarks that Peter was one among a small group of men who held leadership positions in the Jerusalem church.