sschlichter

it is not true. Angel means messenger. A messenger can be a man. the wings and the harps were added by you and Ameleq. I beleive these to be Angels but there is no reason that the author would not refer to an Angel that looks like a young man as a young man while ascribing supernatural activity to him. This young man alarmed them, was wearing a white robe, knew Jesus had resurrected, knew he was going to Galilee, and had instructions for them.

Mark was describing an angel as we might understand it, but who was he writing to? Did they know what an angel was? Perhaps a supernatural young man was a better way to communicate.

sschlichter

You can conduct this type of investigation if you prefer. However, you will find your witnesses very uncooperative.

thentian

(Matthew 28 2-3)"...for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow"

There is not a shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with an actual angel from heaven here. Now, is Matthew's description correct? If not, he is lying. So it must be correct.

Who do you think Mark wrote to when he used the word "angel" elsewhere in his gospel? Someone other than those he writes to here??? See Mark 1:13, 8:38, 12:25, 13:27, and 13:32 for some good examples of Mark writing about clearly heavenly angels.

Again: When Mark describes this person as a young man in white robes, he is shamelessly lying if he knows that it was an angel.

angelo

Paul's were the very first christian writings, long before any gospel was written.
That he makes no mention of any angels at any empty tomb speaks volumes of the non-historicity of the myths that grew many years later into a corpse reviving to be witnessed by any of his followers.
Paul speaks of an exalted lord who is no longer bound by a body.
In other words, he is stating what his schizophrenic state's visions told him.
From such begginings we have what is called christianity.
Had it not been for Paul, I doubt christianity would have got a foothold 2000 years ago.

James Brown

Mark used the word "angel" 5 times (per the NIV) in his book: 1:13, 8:38, 12:25, 13:27, and 13:32, each account implying actions or abilities beyond those of ordinary men. I think it's safe to say that both Mark and his intended audience knew the difference between a man and an angel. So you say that Mark describes a young man, but that we all should instantly know that what he really is describing is an angel because of all this supernatural power he's displaying.

However, I see nothing supernatural in Mark's description of the young man. That the women were surprised to see a living person inside a tomb where they expected a corpse is not surprising. Wearing white does not make one supernatural. Repeating hearsay ("He is risen") is not a supernatural gift. And his message that they have to go to Galilee to see Jesus was incomplete and misleading; both Matthew and John have Jesus right there at the tomb, and it's Matthew's Jesus that mentions meeting the others in Galilee, so what was the point of the young man being there?

sschlichter

This has already been refuted the last time you said this. the resurrection of Christ is central to Paul's teaching. This is actually a good example of not mentioning things that are not central to what he was teaching. Paul clearly knew that Jesus was buried in a tomb and clearly beievled that he resurrected. You should be able to fill in the blanks as far as whether there was a tomb or not.

sschlichter

My point about possible reasons why Mark would use young man instead of Angle was in the form of a question because it was a question. I agree that the fact that he uses Angel elsewhere might make the question less revealing as to why he used young man in this case. Irregardless, the young man, wearing white robes, in a tomb, announcing the resurrection and the whereabouts of Jesus is a messenger from God even if it looked like a young man.

There is too many examples in the Old and New Testament of men being referred to as Angels and Angels being referred to as men.

God himself is referred to as 3 men in Genesis.

(Gen 18:1) The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent during the hottest time of the day.
(Gen 18:2) Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him. When he saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

If you see this as contradictory, then add it to your list. I do not find it compelling at all.

~Steve

James Brown

Can you expand your answer here? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

lars_egarots

In Revelation 7, there was a great multitude of people no one could count, and they were wearing white robes. They announced the whereabouts of God.

These people, wearing white robes, were clearly *NOT* angels. There were also Angels in the scene (clearly referred to as "Angels"), standing around elders. One of the elders asked, "These in white robes—who are they?"

---

Your statement is no indication that the young man was an angel. Your suggestion is ridiculous, that text inspired by the holy spirit, would refer to an angel as just a young man.

Amaleq13

You claimed the opposite in your last post. :banghead:

No. Unlike with the Gospels, we have no good reason to assume the statements were talking about the same event. In fact, since the original sentence refers to Osama claiming responsibility and we know there were multiple people involved and we know that a ringleader often sends others to do the dirty work, we have good reason to suspect otherwise.

Again, all of this goes to support the notion that the analogy is a failure.

Yes and, if they are not, then the analogy is not actually analogous since Matthew and Acts clearly are both describing the cause of Judas' death.

More relevant to the discussion, it is contrary to the claim that the individual died by hanging.

No, that is simply not credible given the text. The author of Acts is quite clearly describing how he believed Judas died and that description is quite clearly contrary to Matthew's description of that same death.

This is just empty babble. No context can rescue the clear contradiction between one person claiming Judas died from hanging while another claims he died from bursting open.

Your entire position rests on pretending that, contrary to the plain meaning of the text, Acts is not describing the death of Judas but something that somehow happened to his body after he died by hanging. That reading is simply not rational. It is forced by your faith despite the lack of rationality.

Do you deny that, absent Matthew's account, you would accept the description in Acts as depicting the cause of Judas' death?

(Acts 1:18) (Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

You think he survived having his intestines gush out and the other disciples picked a replacement while he recovered?

No, that would be my ability to read the text without any faith-based assumptions.

In addition, the fact that many Christians accept that these accounts contradict (including our own Ben Smith), denies your claim.

Now? You must not be reading my posts because I have consistently and repeatedly referred to Matthew's angel as glowing and flying. I do so because that is the description the author provides. You've read Matthew, right?

Where is the clear indication of something supernatural about the young man Mark describes?