The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 3)

[fantome profane]

The women did ,in fact,tell Peter and the rest of the disciples.The angel commanded them to do so in Mark 16:7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of YOU into Gal′i·lee;.."

Yes the man (it does not say angel) at the tomb told the women to go and tell. And then it says the women did not do that. You can't ague that the women did in fact tell Peter because they were told to when it specifically says that they did not.

It is confirmed in Matthew 28:8 So, quickly leaving the memorial tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to report to his disciples.

Yep, that is what it says in Matthew, but it is not what it says in Mark. Just like our friend in the Shuttlecraft, the author of Matthew directly contradicts the author of Mark. And as I said to CotW the author of Matthew does this because he finds the Gospel of Mark to be not good enough, it does not serve his purpose so he changes it. That is the same reason someone wrote a new ending to the Gospel of Mark, they didn't like the first ending, so someone created a new one.

Also in Luke 24:9. "and they returned from the memorial tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

Peter is included in those eleven.The 12th,Judas Iscariot, had already been dismissed.

Same thing as Matthew, the author of this Gospel didn't like what was written in the gospel of Mark and so he changed it.

I am on no ones side, but you are correct about the contradiction.It does say that the women told no one until they reached the disciples.But you are also incorrect because it does confirm that the women did tell Peter.It does not mention it in Mark, but it is confirmed in the other gospels.The angel commanded it in Mark though,chapter 16 verse 7.So we have the command to do so by the angel in Mark 16:7 and the confirmation of this in Matthew 28:8;Luke 24:9.


This is how Peter was able to tell Mark.

It seems the both of you are incorrect.


Thats why it is important to read all the holy writings to get an accurate knowledge of the truth.

First it does not say in Mark they "told no one until they reached the disciples", it says they "told no one" - full stop.

And yes it is good to read all the gospels, but not to do what you are doing here. What you are doing here is called "eisegesis", that is you are "reading into" the text something that is just not there. You are taking parts of Matthew and/or Luke and reading them into Mark. And you just can't do that. I mean it might be acceptable for your faith, but from a historical perceptive it is just a big no no :tsk:.

And I think the intention of this thread, this series of threads, it to present a historical argument, not a faith based argument. Reading Matthew back into Mark is just historically invalid.

 

[Nada]

Yes the man (it does not say angel) at the tomb told the women to go and tell. And then it says the women did not do that. You can't ague that the women did in fact tell Peter because they were told to when it specifically says that they did not.

Yep, that is what it says in Matthew, but it is not what it says in Mark. Just like our friend in the Shuttlecraft, the author of Matthew directly contradicts the author of Mark. And as I said to CotW the author of Matthew does this because he finds the Gospel of Mark to be not good enough, it does not serve his purpose so he changes it. That is the same reason someone wrote a new ending to the Gospel of Mark, they didn't like the first ending, so someone created a new one.



Same thing as Matthew, the author of this Gospel didn't like what was written in the gospel of Mark and so he changed it.



First it does not say in Mark they "told no one until they reached the disciples", it says they "told no one" - full stop.

And yes it is good to read all the gospels, but not to do what you are doing here. What you are doing here is called "eisegesis", that is you are "reading into" the text something that is just not there. You are taking parts of Matthew and/or Luke and reading them into Mark. And you just can't do that. I mean it might be acceptable for your faith, but from a historical perceptive it is just a big no no :tsk:.

And I think the intention of this thread, this series of threads, it to present a historical argument, not a faith based argument. Reading Matthew back into Mark is just historically invalid.

You are incorrect.It was an angel in the tomb who commanded the women.EXAMPLE.Daniel 9:21 "while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice."

Do you see how it calls Gabriel,who is obviously Gabriel the angel,a man? Notice too it says while Daniel was still in prayer Gabriel came to Daniel in swift flight.

This is letting us know that While Daniel was still praying this angel came quickly to Daniel to assist him.Thats how fast angels are.They are supernatural beings with much power.

Gabriel and Michael are the only angels ever mentioned by name in the holy scriptures.

What you see as a contradiction in Matthew and in Mark are really misconceptions on your part because you do not understand the holy scriptures.The Gospels of Jesus Christ being,Matthew, Mark Luke and John, are all speaking of pretty much the same thing except from different perspectives.What you think about them changing the ending because they did not like it is pure speculation and has no real merit.

The only ones that were actually walking with Christ were Matthew and John.Mark was a young child when Jesus was preaching.The disciples used to meet up at his mothers house.Mark received most,if not all,of his second hand accounts, from Peter.Mark assisted Peter while in Babylon, later on in his ministry.

Luke was a physician.He later jumped on as a disciple of Jesus Christ.He was a gentile that converted to Christianity.His book Luke was written according to what he had heard, and learned, from those disciples that actually were walking with Jesus, and heard him preach, and saw ,first hand ,his miracles.


Like I told you before.The angel commanded the women in Mark 16:7 not to tell anyone except the disciples and Peter.Verse 8 confirms they told no one on the way.

Matthew 28:8 confirms this and so does Luke 24:9.You fail to realize that these 4 gospels go hand and hand.

Its like if Me you and shuttlecraft see what happened and heard what happened about this account.I will write something.You will write something.Shuttle craft will write something.Its all about the same story except you and I were actually present.Shuttle craft heard of this from those who were present.So he writes what he heard.We are all not going to have the exact same thing.It will be written according to what we saw or heard.Our perspectives.These were true disciples of Jesus Christ and all of this had to be verified in order for it to be considered actual and true.


You are trying to understand the holy scriptures by reading it like a history book with no actual studying.One must approach the HS with the intent on wanting to know God and His Word.To better serve Him.To obtain an accurate knowledge of the truth.Not to argue.The truth is all there but you have to understand first what the message is and what these men were trying to do.

Its called the holy scriptures for a reason.Its all one.Not just bits and pieces put together.Its all the inspired Word of God.

 

[fantome profane]

One must approach the HS with the intent on wanting to know God and His Word.To better serve Him.To obtain an accurate knowledge of the truth.Not to argue.The truth is all there but you have to understand first what the message is and what these men were trying to do.

Its called the holy scriptures for a reason.Its all one.Not just bits and pieces put together.Its all the inspired Word of God.

At this point all we can do is try to understand the other persons perspective. I am not approaching the Gospels with the intent of wanting to know "God". I have absolutely no interest in knowing "God". And I don't believe for a second that there is any such thing as "the inspired word of God". I think that is clear, I think you understand where I am coming from now.

I understand your perspective and where you are coming from on this. But as I said in my previous post, I think the intent of these series of threads is to make a historical based argument. If we interpret these like you suggest as "holy inspired word of God" that would make it a faith based argument.

 

[Nada]

At this point all we can do is try to understand the other persons perspective. I am not approaching the Gospels with the intent of wanting to know "God". I have absolutely no interest in knowing "God". And I don't believe for a second that there is any such thing as "the inspired word of God". I think that is clear, I think you understand where I am coming from now.

I understand your perspective and where you are coming from on this. But as I said in my previous post, I think the intent of these series of threads is to make a historical based argument. If we interpret these like you suggest as "holy inspired word of God" that would make it a faith based argument.

" I am not approaching the Gospels with the intent of wanting to know "God"." Then we have nothing further to discuss.Have a good day

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Fantome Profane,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
Shabbat Shalom!
Part of the problem in seeking to understand what the Gospel writers are indeed communicating to their readers is our collective ignorance. We do not live in their time, and we are not familiar with their language; therefore, how do we really know what they are relating to us?
Consider this sentence in Mark 16:1:
Mark 16:1
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. KJV
The Greek text which I possess shows that the Sabbath, mentioned in the first phrase, is singular in number, and the definite article is indeed found with the word, "Sabbath". The verb, "had bought" in the Greek is an aorist tense, and, therefore, does not allow for the insertion of "had" with the Greek verb, "bought". The insertion of "had" shows the bias of the translators. They understood that the Ladies had no opportunity to go out and buy the spices after the ending of the weekly Sabbath Day, which I believe to be Saturday; therefore, the translators inserted the word "had" to graciously help us understand that the Ladies bought the spices sometime before the weekly Sabbath Day mentioned above. This, of course, cannot be proven based upon Mark's account alone.
Should we consider what the other Gospel accounts have to say, then the situation becomes somewhat clarified. Without consulting the other accounts, and without understanding the Greek tenses, we really cannot say with any certainty what Mark is telling us in verse 1 of chapter 16 of his account concerning the buying of spices.
What say you, Fantome Profane, when did the Ladies buy the spices?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[fantome profane]

Hi Fantome Profane,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
Shabbat Shalom!
Part of the problem in seeking to understand what the Gospel writers are indeed communicating to their readers is our collective ignorance. We do not live in their time, and we are not familiar with their language; therefore, how do we really know what they are relating to us?
Consider this sentence in Mark 16:1:
Mark 16:1
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. KJV
The Greek text which I possess shows that the Sabbath, mentioned in the first phrase, is singular in number, and the definite article is indeed found with the word, "Sabbath". The verb, "had bought" in the Greek is an aorist tense, and, therefore, does not allow for the insertion of "had" with the Greek verb, "bought". The insertion of "had" shows the bias of the translators. They understood that the Ladies had no opportunity to go out and buy the spices after the ending of the weekly Sabbath Day, which I believe to be Saturday; therefore, the translators inserted the word "had" to graciously help us understand that the Ladies bought the spices sometime before the weekly Sabbath Day mentioned above. This, of course, cannot be proven based upon Mark's account alone.
Should we consider what the other Gospel accounts have to say, then the situation becomes somewhat clarified. Without consulting the other accounts, and without understanding the Greek tenses, we really cannot say with any certainty what Mark is telling us in verse 1 of chapter 16 of his account concerning the buying of spices.
What say you, Fantome Profane, when did the Ladies buy the spices?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

hmm, I really don't know when they bought the spices. Do these kind of spices have an expiry date? Are we assuming they were bought specifically for this occasion? Or could they have bought them weeks, months ago and had them on hand? I am not understanding the significance of this question of when they bought the spices, but I am intrigued.

(p.s. I got some spices in my kitchen that are older than some of the people who post here. :thud

 

[outhouse]

" I am not approaching the Gospels with the intent of wanting to know "God"." Then we have nothing further to discuss.Have a good day

So what about credible history, do you throw out all that knowledge because you don't understand it?

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Fantome Profane,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
Shabbat Shalom!
Matter of fact, just yesterday afternoon, I had to check my cabinets and spice rack because I wanted to make some homemade chili sauce from the tomatoes from my garden. I found some tins of allspice and ginger that had to be at least 30 years old. I checked for expiration dates, but could find none. I do not really know whether or not spices can go bad, so I decided to throw them away and go out and purchase newer versions along with some green peppers and some hot peppers. I did all this before the setting of the sun, and, today, eventhough I was tempted to start the process of making the sauce on the Sabbath Day, I did rest (except for writing to you) on this day according to the commandment.
Now, I have already made mention that it cannot be determined from Mark's account when the Ladies bought the spices. In the Greek, the use of the aorist tense means that the author is not telling us when the action of the verb took place, nor is the author telling us anything about the progress of the action, nor is the author telling us anything about the result of the action. The context can maybe supply some information concerning the "when", that is, the context seems to indicate to us "when the Sabbath was past", but even then the "when" is not definite.
If we should be inclined to check with the other accounts, we find this in Luke's account:
Luke 23:54-56
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. (The English translation says "the Sabbath" while the Greek just says "Sabbath".)
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Granted, Luke does not tell us that the Ladies bought the spices, but Luke does tell us that the Ladies prepared the spices and ointments, and that the Ladies did then rest on the Sabbath Day according to the commandment. While I myself do not know how long a process the preparation of the burial spices required, I do understand that work was involved. Were the Ladies required to build a fire? I know that making chili sauce requires a number of hours to render tomatoes and ingredients into chili sauce. How long does it take to prepare burial spices and ointments? So, as of right now, I have an additional problem with the historical accounts. I still cannot determine when the spices were bought, and additionally I cannot see how the Ladies were able to prepare burial spices before the weekly Sabbath began. Considering these issues, how in all the world can Christians even begin to claim that the Gospels contain an historically accurate account?
Do you yourself, Fantome Profane, know anything the preparation of Jewish burial spices and ointments?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We only know what was written about Jesus. There is no way to prove that he lived a moral life that was pure. We couldn't provide that for a person that was living today. Alternatively there is no single set of "morals" that one would have to abide by as they are arbitrary in many cases and often conflict.

The argument is geared towards believers that believe in God, but deny the Holy Trinity.

It really doesn't provide evidence of anything except the Jews were looking for the messiah.

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

How does that not suggest a pre-human existence?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The argument is geared towards believers that believe in God, but deny the Holy Trinity.

If they do not believe in the trinity then what makes you think they will believe biblical evidence? And if they already believe biblical evidence why do you need to defend your case?

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

How does that not suggest a pre-human existence?

That there is nothing directly linking this verse to Jesus. It is the retrospective interpretation of the verse. Though again if geared towards people who are already Christian I can understand your point. It just looses luster with anyone else.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If they do not believe in the trinity then what makes you think they will believe biblical evidence? And if they already believe biblical evidence why do you need to defend your case?

Either Jesus is God, or he isn't..the argument makes the case that he is, plain and simple.

That there is nothing directly linking this verse to Jesus. It is the retrospective interpretation of the verse. Though again if geared towards people who are already Christian I can understand your point. It just looses luster with anyone else.

What the hell are you talking about...it specifically says "The Son"... biblically speaking...who is "The Son"?

That is the last time I will respond to such ignorance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Either Jesus is God, or he isn't..the argument makes the case that he is, plain and simple.

Except for your arguments to hold any weight I have to already accept christianity or at least the bible as fact.

What the hell are you talking about...it specifically says "The Son"... biblically speaking...who is "The Son"?

That is the last time I will respond to such ignorance.

Who knows. But it is a retrospective to claim "Jesus" to be this "son".

 

[fantome profane]

Either Jesus is God, or he isn't..the argument makes the case that he is, plain and simple.



What the hell are you talking about...it specifically says "The Son"... biblically speaking...who is "The Son"?

That is the last time I will respond to such ignorance.

King David was also referred to as Son of God. Biblically speaking.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

If Jesus is God, I'm Mary Poppins..

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If Jesus is God, I'm Mary Poppins..

I guess you are...Mary...

 

[fantome profane]

Cool, so you will agree that Paul wrote 1Corinthians, right? And in that letter to the church, he states his beliefs, and the beliefs on the Apostles...and this letter predates all of the Gospels.

Interesting that you say that. And when was this letter written? Mid to late 50's? And all the Gospels were written after that. We are getting closer.