sschlichter

of course, but Paul was later referring to what was then the twelve. I.e. Judas replacement was with them when he appeared but it was before he was chosen as the replacement.

over 40 days, what doesn't reconcile?

Sheshbazzar

And "plugged in" to each other wherever it suits your imagination.


Did you even read John 20:22? What happened? When?

Your misunderstanding, or misuse of language, The use of that introductory "UP TO" alters the meaning into, that the departure to Galilee took place before the events recorded in Mark 16:14, Luke 24:43, and John 20 even happened -
What? do you really intend to indicate that the disciples departed for Galilee before Mary Magdalene even came to the tomb? (John 20:1) and before that evening when He came and stood in their midst? (John 2:19-22) If otherwise, then you really ought to have left out the "UP TO".
Just poor composition.

The conversation ends with 24:49, BEFORE they leave for Bethany.


See above, do your own re-reading, learn how to properly use English to convey what you mean.

A deadline.
IT was not intended that Acts 1:4 and 2 be taken as "the same assemblage" The point being made was that the word "assembled" referred to a gathering in a fixed location of which Acts 1:4 and 2 were provided only as examples, not that they were one and the same meeting.

(Although it is very possible that one long continuous meeting was going on, not really that unusual an event, I've attended "Camp Meetings" that have went on all week, night and day, and this certainly was/is the custom for the celebrating of The Feast of Tabernacles, certainly the believers would be extending hospitality to those travelers who were arriving early for fellowship and in anticipation of that great High Day. This however is NOT the point that I was making)

This mention of Acts 1:4 and 2 was in refutation of your implication that the 40 days "assembling" of X with his disciples took place while they were on the road traveling and in the midst of return journey to Jerusalem for the Day of Pentecost. THAT is what I stated was NOT plausible.
(see above, it would not have been "Kosher" for the Apostles to arrive at the last moment)
If, as John indicates, some nine (or more) days had already expired before the -third- "appearance" (and they still as yet had to travel to that mountain where he made his -fourth- appearance) and then if He "assembled" with them 40 days (in one location) virtually all of the time to Pentecost was used up-
And in a contradiction of the express commandment to REMAIN at Jerusalem until they recieved the Holy Ghost, they were only in Jerusalem for not more than the first ten days of the 50 day count towards The Day of Pentecost, else they could not have returned in time to be present for the events of Acts chapter 1 and chapter 2.


But for all that, my position remains, they found the empty tomb. -finis-

Amaleq13

There is no other way you can claim that both accounts state that they had fear and joy.

It continues to be a false claim but that is the only way you can make it.

Matthew states fear and joy.

Mark states fear and amazed.

They both state fear.

Matthew states joy.

Mark states amazed.

You say they both state fear and joy.

You are obviously wrong but your claim clearly requires that "amazed" mean the same as "joy". There is no other way you can claim that both state joy unless you claim "amazed" means "joy".

An oxymoron is a combination of incongruous or contradictory terms. It doesn't make those terms mean the same thing. You haven't explained what phrase you are identifying as an oxymoron nor how that manages to get Mark to state "joy" when he actually states "amazed". :huh:

Actually, I've explained it several times. Refer back to my Johnson paraphrase.

You don't know the difference between an explanation and an assertion?

Since "joy" and "amazed" are not incongruous or contradictory, connecting the two into a single phrase would not be anything like an oxymoron. IOW, "joyfully amazed" is not an oxymoron.

The fact that, even if such a phrase were an oxymoron, the implausibility would remain, suggests you continue to have no clue as to its nature. :banghead:

On the contrary, they are quite compatible terms describing something. Along with "fear", they comprise the descriptions of the reaction of the women to the angels' message. We've already discussed how all three of these are compatible and appropriate reactions to the message from the angels.

Your problem occurs when your narrative depicts the encounter with Peter as taking place after this scene. That chronology is implausible.

Speaking of straw men, you might want to review the thread. I've never said they couldn't. I've only pointed out that they were not synonymous.

That you think this is my position suggests you need to read more carefully or ask more questions.

I hope you finally grasp why your statement requires it. There is no other way you can claim that both authors state fear and joy except by claiming that Mark's "amazed" means the same as Matthew's joy.

Then your narrative continues to be implausible. :huh:

Sheshbazzar

Someone apparently flunked their English finals. Who? Who? Who? said the wise old owl.

sschlichter

forget John 20:22. It has nothing to do with the timing of pentecost. I understand that the passage has the word holy spirit in it but it is not relevant to the timing of pentecost.

after, as I have said in every post so far.

doesn't matter, you go ahead and think that, if you like.

neither matthew, mark, luke, john, or Paul said anything about the 40 days being in one location. Only Sheshbazzar stated this.


I am more interested in what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul said about the tomb. I already know what you think. If you are comfortable with this belief, you shouldn't need to continuously restate it.

dr lazer blast

incorrect. Love hate describes a relation ship, so you have provided no logical reason why joy and amazement can't describe an event.




There you go hitting strawmen. It does not mean the same thing, 2 words do not need to mean the same thing to describe one event, so you are incorrect.






Amazed and joy are 2 words describing an event, noticed where I said it is AKIN to an oxymoron do you know what AKIN means? it seems you don't. You continue to hit strawmen.





On the contrary, they are quite compatible terms describing something. Along with "fear", they comprise the descriptions of the reaction of the women to the angels' message. We've already discussed how all three of these are compatible and appropriate reactions to the message from the angels.

Your problem occurs when your narrative depicts the encounter with Peter as taking place after this scene. That chronology is implausible.



That is the strawman you are hitting. The 2 words do not need to by synonymous. They are 2 words describing an event.

If an event happend and one person recorded a person being 'joyful' and another person recorded the person being 'amazed' this is not impossible.
They don't need to by synonymous, 2 different perspectives do not need to by synonoumous to plausibly describe a reaction. Fallacy you continue you to make is when you assert, 'they need to be snynonymous'

once again you are back to square 1.

gregor

[Ignoring dlb's train wreck]

I guess I didn't understand the Easter Challenge. I didn't understand it being: "Can you to either: (i) link to some generic 'bible is true' site or (ii) simply cut and paste from the bible into a four column chart the verses at issue."

I thought the challenge was to create a narrative (key word), that lists the people, places, and times of events (key elements), that is consistent with the gospels.

Let me help out:

The first trip to the tomb was by ________, ______, and _____, at _____ o'clock on ______, carrying Jesus's body. They did ______ with the body and left.

The second trip to the tomb was by _____ and ______ at ____ o'clock on _____, whereupon they saw _______.

Etc.

[please complete through the ascension]

Sheshbazzar

edit

Sheshbazzar

YOU WISH. No -honest- scholar has any need to "forget", omit, or overlook any passage.

I never claimed that it had anything to do with the timing, only that it made the rest of the following narrative of questionable value, in that the remainder of John 21 consists of a string of outlandish "fish tales" wherein the Apostles are portrayed as ignorant bumblers who appear to have no inkling at all that they had already recieved the Holy Spirit on the very evening of His alleged resurrection.
And of course John's record in 20:19-22 is in contradiction to the record of Acts 2:1-4
Rather obviously it was soon seen how John's version had "dropped the ball" by suggesting that even after receiving "Receive ye the Holy Spirit;" the Apostles in his story remained a bunch of totally unchanged, misunderstanding, unbelieving, doubting, and uninspired bumblers.
So along comes Acts, quickly penned to remedy that goof, and of course "receiving the Holy Spirit" has to be made over, and rewritten into a BIG BIG PRODUCTION, with the Apostles so "transformed", so "filled" with the Holy Spirit" that there is no room left for doubting. Also dressing them up with receiving "signs", the gift of tongues, and the ability to prophecy, and to raise the dead.
They become much more voluble and skilled public speakers, Interestingly, just like the Greek philosophers, they are now given to the voicing of long flowery and impressive public speeches and proclamations.

A far different scenario than what John's tale had for the "receiving of the Holy Spirit," where they are only "inspired" to go fishing.


Your poor compositional "skills" caused your misunderstanding. Not a shred of humility to be found. No, it is nigh most impossible for some apologist to admit to the making any mistakes. That unrelenting CYA never-in-the-wrong response is indicative of spiritual immaturity and intellectual dishonesty.(Matt 5:25)

"Doesn't matter"? Not a lot of respect for the actual contents of the Bible have you? To me, if its there, it matters.
Every "word", every "Yod and tittle", as might affect the reading and the interpretation of a text. And yes, I will think, unlike you.
They didn't have to; To "assemble" means to "meet", and to "gather together" into a single specific location. The Jewish religion had and has very precise rules as to what constitutes "assembly", born and raised within Judaism they would perforce have conducted themselves in comportment with Jewish usages; Being "assembled" while hiking 50 miles is precluded. As I stated previously, your proposed contrived explanation and scenario is NOT plausible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John said the tomb was empty, NOTHING more.
All the rest was added by ignorant men who couldn't recognise a good story even if it bit them in the ass.
I'll continuously restate it, as it is what evidence supports.
Omitting all of the latter added spurious and outlandish "Christian" "miracle" fabrications, and the self-serving, self-promoting, political/sectarian fabricated "Christian" interpolations.

As for "Paul" almost everything in his writings was reworked and corrupted multiple times for well over 4 centuries, till his original statements and actual beliefs are irrecoverable in "Christian" texts.
I'll consider how true or how accurate what Paul actually has to say is, when a provably authentic, unaltered, and uncorrupted 1st century copy of his actual writing is brought forward.
Even believers are under no obligation to accept any pseudo-Pauline epistles of questionable origins. (Of course if the "Church's" Mafia enforcement is holding a swowd to their throats, they might well be excused for "accepting and offer that they can't refuse").

Amaleq13

I need none since that isn't something I've denied. Do you even realize you are not defending your claim?

You asserted that both authors stated "joy" when the reality of the texts is that only one of them did while the other stated "amazed". Arguing that using "joy" and "amazement" together (which nobody, including you, is actually doing here and nobody, including me, is denying) constitutes an oxymoron (which it doesn't), does nothing to suggest that both authors stated "joy".:huh:

The two words do need to both mean "joy" for you to claim that both authors state "joy". One doesn't state "joy" but "amazed" so those two have to be synonymous for your assertion. Understand?

Yes and, given an accurate definition of "oxymoron", we've seen that is simply not true. Two authors independently using two compatible words to describe the same event is nothing "akin" to an oxymoron which involves a single author combining two seemingly incompatible words into a single phrase.

Amazed and joy are two different words two different authors used to describe an event. You have, instead, insisted that they both used the same word but perversely deny that this means the two different original words are synonymous.

Agreed. I have never said otherwise. That isn't the claim you made, however. You didn't claim that the two authors used two different words to describe the same event. You claimed that the two authors offered the same description despite using two different words. Unless those two different words mean the same thing (ie synonymous), your claim is demonstrably false.

I agree but that isn't what you claimed when you asserted that they both stated "joy".

It is difficult to believe you could read my post and still be this confused.

I can't wait until you stop wasting time on this irrelevant tangent and start working on the actual implausibility in your narrative.