sschlichter

did Peter see the risen christ before Thomas did according to the gospels?

aChristian

Sounds like sometime after he and John came back from the tomb after checking out the women's claims and let the others know what they found(including those who were walking on the road to Emmaus) and before the two met Jesus on the road to Emmaus. sschlichter has done a good job of harmonization and as I already said, many good jobs have already been done. My references give three examples, the second one even puts it in one continuous story as requested. Apparently those who requested the continuous narrative didn't check out the reference. Here it is again from post 412 http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...i?section=T0-8 .
(I think those who demand a continuous narrative are just making excuses. As Sschlichter said, just read from left to right across the columns of his parallel columns and you have it.)
On a side note, the answer to John 20:22 is that the disciples did receive the Holy Spirit at that time and became NT believers as opposed to OT believers. In Acts, the Holy Spirit came upon the believers, a different type of relationship. However, as sschlichter has already pointed out, they are obviously different occurrences at different times and have no negative impact on the harmonization.

aChristian

You are putting words into the biblical text that don't exist. It does not say that Mary's sole focus was on the disposition of Jesus' corpse, you said that. It does not tell every emotion that she had for every second. You are adding a mistake to the text when you claim that her sole focus was his body. You also claim that she completely disbelieved the angel's message. That is not written anywhere in the text. Again you are putting something into the text that just isn't there.

Amaleq13

I'm relating what the text describes. It describes Mary as solely concerned about the location of Jesus' dead body.

No other concern is described and, given her clear (and reasonable) assumption that Jesus was still dead, no other concern is suggested nor actually plausible. It shouldn't have to be said that one cannot be worried about the location of the risen Lord as well as the location of his dead body. As Pastor Guzik notes, John 20:2 depicts Mary as concerned about Jesus' dead body.

No, you are confused (perhaps due to still not having read the thread?). I've denied that claim for the same reason you do. The "dr" is the one who adds this to his failed narrative.

One must read doubt on Mary's part into the texts and against her explicitly joyful reaction described in Matthew.

Likewise, one must read other concerns into John 20:2 and against the sole and rather exclusionary concern that is described.

aChristian

No the text does not say 'solely'. You do.

That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

It is quite plausible. It doesn't have to be suggested (mentioned) in order for it to be plausible. It doesn't mention the exact hour, minute, and second of the day when it happens either, but there are many answers to this time that are plausible.

Again you are assuming that you know everything about her state of mind for every second of the day of the resurrection and that you know that she could not possibly had any mixed emotions or ever changed her mind or doubted herself at all, even a little. You really seem to be claiming to have a tremendous knowledge of every detail of that day in history. You ought to share your sources for this remarkable knowledge.

Don't know who he is, but does he also know every thought that Mary had for that every day?

You may be right about this.

You don't HAVE to read doubt into the texts, but it is certainly permissible to assume that it may have been one of her emotions and certainly can be used to provide a reasonable guess at more of the details of the account than are given in the text.

sschlichter

that remains a possibility, my friend. and I agree that the topic is tangential.

Amaleq13

Right. I already acknowledged that the text doesn't state "solely". The text describes a sole concern on the part of Mary and suggests no other.

This is, of course, a very weak argument from silence. That aside, do you have a specific additional concern you suspect or are we to just leave it open until such speculation might become "necessary"?

Just to catch you up to speed on a thread you clearly haven't read:
The narrative created by the "dr" asks us to believe that this scene with Peter (John 20:2) follows her joyful reaction upon hearing that Jesus was alive.

Not as the "dr" has it. He quite implausibly contradicts John's chronology.

No, I am just reading the text.

You would if you had read the thread. No, he simply provides a relatively unbiased and professionally honest reading of the text.

Where, in the texts, do you find Mary doubting the angelic message?

Not when that assumption is incompatible with the explicit description of a joyful reaction to the message. And it certainly is incompatible. You need more than a weak argument from silence to plausibly import doubt.

aChristian

John mentions no other, but that does not preclude that she had other concerns or emotions or that they fluctuated wildly. The other witnesses mention other emotions by the participants and so Mary may have experienced many of these same emotions. I don't thnk that it is a weak arguement from silence.

As far as the chronology goes, it seems that Mary may have either left the tomb by herself before the angels or Jesus appeared to the rest of the women as described by Matthew at that point, or she was there and did see the angels and maybe Jesus as well. If she did see them both as I guess dlb is suggesting, them maybe when she returned and told the disciples, they did not believe her, she began doubting herself at that point, and as a last arguement to the disciples told them that whatever she saw, at least "his body is not there and we don't know where they have taken it". Again, these are just plausible guesses filling in details that the eyewitnesses don't give us.

It is incompatible only if you assume that the description given by John of Mary's emotions at one point is the only emotion she experienced the whole day. If they changed, it is quite plausible. (Actually, he doesn't report her emotions at all, just her statement.)

aChristian

Here's that link.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...i?section=T8-1

dr lazer blast

You're flailing bigtime here. Allow me to correct you on that, taken from post #442

your response post #444

So basically you agreed with me, yet here you state that I said mark refers to joy. In the most recent development of this debate, I explained to you, I gave yOU the benifit of the doubt that I wasn't explaining it properly, after I laid out the above explanation that is quoted. So you continue to refer to things that have already been refuted.


another strawman. ahahhahah as you can see I set up a little timeline to give you an idea of how the emotions came about.



Incorrect.

The joy is from the angels.




You are not following the rules. You are supposed to be criticizing the plausibility of the narrative. I suggest you read up on the rules again.