Adam and 4000 BC

So are you saying that some of the women got there before the stone was rolled away and saw the angel do it, while others got there after the fact? Mark 16: 2-5 says that three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) showed up at the tomb early on Sunday wondering who would roll the stone away for them and saw that it was already rolled away. Matthew 28: 1-7 says that two women,(Mary Magdalene and the other Mary) went to the tomb, experienced an earthquake, and saw an angel of the Lord come down, roll the stone away, and sit on it. In John 20:1-11, Mary Magdelene arrives at the tomb and finds it empty. No angel. She tells the disciples who come to the tomb and find the linen cloths in which Jesus had been wrapped. In Luke, the women went to the tomb, found the stone rolled away, and the tomb empty. Then two men in shining clothes appeared. And you say "Both seem to allow for the stone being rolled away before they got there". I don't see how that could be true. We could concoct farfetched scenarios to explain how they could see the stone rolled away by an angel and be surprised that it was already rolled away when they got to the tomb. Maybe the sight of an angel opening the tomb was so traumatic that they repressed it. Maybe they developed amnesia or were afflicted with Alzheimer's. Maybe Mark thought an angel coming down and opening the tomb before their eyes was a trivial detail. Maybe it doesn't much matter, because the stone was rolled away and the tomb was empty! But when people say the Bible is consistent, inerrant, etc., they maybe should clarify that this doesn't apply to every detail, and that the Gospel writers got the important point across. But either the stone was rolled away before they got there, leaving an open tomb, or it was rolled away by an angel when they got there, for them to see being opened.

It's not that I don't "want" it to be that way. It's that it doesn't seem to be. First of all, it says in Mark's account that the young man in the tomb told them to go and give the disciples a message. But after they left the tomb "they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." So no matter how many disciples Jesus had, none of them got the message from the women. Matthew (28:8) says they ran to tell the disciples., and that the eleven disciples went to the hill in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go". John says that "Mary Magdelene went to the tomb, saw that the stone had been taken away, and "went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved" (presumably John) and told them. Now it's possible she told the two and they told the other nine. But it certainly seems that Mary Magdelene was alone. So you're saying three women visited the tomb and went running, and John just neglected to mention two of them?

Just to clarify, your position that the three women subsume the others is logically possible, although implausible, and the theory that the two disciples informed the other nine is logically possible. But it doesn't seem logically possible that the women told no one and that they told any disciples. That's the main point I'd like you to address. Does it seem like I'm really stretching to find an inconsistency here?

*****************

P.S. I wrote this before reading your remark: "I've never said that every word in the Bible is important but that God will not allow the Bible not to serve the purpose that it was written for." If I were a juror listening to this testimony given under cross-examination, I'd be impressed with how much agreement there is on what I consider to be basics. One or more women (not men) showed up at the tomb on Sunday morning after the crucifixion, the stone was rolled away, in three accounts, one or more figures are at, or show up at, the tomb, whom Mark identifies as a young man clothed in white, Matthew calls an angel, and Luke describes as two men in shining clothes. And word of this somehow gets to the disciples. If I also knew that the witnesses were putting this in writing decades after the event, and that some or all of them might not be first-hand eye witnesses and were relying on hearsay, I'd allow for these normal discrepancies, which is par for the course with witnesses. In this case,I'd also keep in mind that the gospel writers were trying to convey a reality to their audiences in an effective way, which at that time included a certain amount of hyperbole and embellishment of detail.

 

You're welcome.

Well, it was bound to happen. Plus, I've never said that every word in the Bible is important but that God will not allow the Bible not to serve the purpose that it was written for.

I try.

 

Sorry I thought that your calling me Pharisaical instead of addressing my arguments was a bit of ad hominem attack. Was I incorrect?

 

You mean to say that you've ever looked up something I've said and you have concurred?

 

That's what I believe, too. I may acknowledge more poetic license on the part of God and the inspired writers.

 

Excuse me but I don't read where the scriptures say that anyone saw the angel rolling the stone away. Perhaps you can cite that scripture for me.

Sometimes I wonder if you even read what I write. As I already mentioned, Luke 24:10 seems to indicate that Mag′da·lene Mary, Jo·an′na, Mary the [mother] of James and also a number of other women
were at the tomb. John didn't neglect to mention anything, he just mentioned what he thought was important, perhaps he only mentioned Mary because that is who he heard about it from.
As for who told the disciples, it would seem some went running and told some of the disciples, some stayed at the tomb and later left to tell other disciples.

Yes it does seem like you're really stretching to find an inconsistency here. As I pointed out Luke 24:10 seems to indicate that there many women there at the tomb and not just one or two or three. So the case is that some did leave immediately and told some of the disciples while others did not.

This is how I see the events unfolding:
Early Sunday morning Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, along with Salome, Joanna, and other women, bring spices to the tomb to treat Jesus’ body. En route they say to one another: “Who will roll the stone away from the door of the memorial tomb for us?” But on arriving, they find that an earthquake has occurred and Jehovah’s angel has rolled the stone away. The guards are gone, and the tomb is empty!

When the women find Jesus’ tomb empty, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell Peter and John. However, the other women evidently remain at the tomb. Soon, an angel appears and invites them inside.

Here the women see yet another angel, and one of the angels says to them: “Do not you be fearful, for I know you are looking for Jesus who was impaled. He is not here, for he was raised up, as he said. Come, see the place where he was lying. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he was raised up from the dead.” So with fear and great joy, these women also run off.

By this time, Mary has found Peter and John, and she reports to them: “They have taken away the Lord out of the memorial tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Immediately the two apostles take off running. John is fleeter of foot—evidently being younger—and he reaches the tomb first. By this time the women have left, so no one is around. Stooping down, John peers into the tomb and sees the bandages, but he remains outside.

When Peter arrives, he does not hesitate but goes right on in. He sees the bandages lying there and also the cloth used to wrap Jesus’ head. It is rolled up in one place. John now also enters the tomb, and he believes Mary’s report. But neither Peter nor John grasps that Jesus has been raised up, even though He had often told them that He would be. Puzzled, the two return home, but Mary, who has come back to the tomb, remains.

In the meantime, the other women are hurrying to tell the other disciples that Jesus has been resurrected, as the angels commanded them to do. While they are running along as fast as they can, Jesus meets them and says: “Good day!” Falling at his feet, they do obeisance to him. Then Jesus says: “Have no fear! Go, report to my brothers, that they may go off into Galilee; and there they will see me.”

Earlier, when the earthquake occurred and the angels appeared, the soldiers on guard were stunned and became as dead men. Upon recovering, they immediately went into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. After consulting with the “older men” of the Jews, the decision was made to try to hush up the matter by bribing the soldiers. They were instructed: “Say, ‘His disciples came in the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’”

Since Roman soldiers may be punished with death for falling asleep at their posts, the priests promised: “If this [report of your falling asleep] gets to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and will set you free from worry.” Since the size of the bribe was sufficiently large, the soldiers did as they were instructed. As a result, the false report about the theft of Jesus’ body became widely spread among the Jews.

Mary Magdalene, who remains behind at the tomb, is overcome by grief. Where could Jesus be? Stooping forward to look into the tomb, she sees the two angels in white, who have reappeared! One is sitting at the head and the other at the foot of where Jesus’ body had been lying. “Woman, why are you weeping?” they ask.

“They have taken my Lord away,” Mary answers, “and I do not know where they have laid him.” Then she turns around and sees someone who repeats the question: “Woman, why are you weeping?” And this one also asks: “Whom are you looking for?”

Imagining this person to be the caretaker of the garden in which the tomb is situated, she says to him: “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

“Mary!” the person says. And immediately she knows, by the familiar way he speaks to her, that it is Jesus. “Rab·bo′ni!” (meaning “Teacher!”) she exclaims. And with unbounded joy, she grabs hold of him. But Jesus says: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”

Mary now runs to where the apostles and fellow disciples have gathered. She adds her account to the report that the other women have already given about seeing the resurrected Jesus. Yet, these men, who did not believe the first women, apparently do not believe Mary either.

By combining the different accounts this is what is what I get and it seems plausible to me.

 

I believe you may have misunderstand me. A minor scribal error is not a problem for me. Whether a name was misspelled or a number has one too many zeros is not a problem but when a spurious scripture has been added, God will see that is corrected so that his message does not remain corrupted.

 

You know what one of the things is that make me love you. thedope? It's the unending respect you give to each that discourses with you. I love that you never use cheap winks or big grins. Or that most insulting and cowardly of responses - the eye roll. If any person goes to the trouble to type out a thought, an opinion or even a criticism of another post, an eye roll rather than a typed response is the ultimate disrespect, as is an 'lolz'.

You don't do such things. It's been noticed.

Sorry for changing the subject, everyone. I just suddenly felt the impulse to say something here.

I can't post on the topics being debated here, though. My knowledge is inadequate for doing that. But I'm reading it all. So, please carry on.

 

Now I'm confused, I don't look up things you have said, I look up scriptures. I know that we can both read the words and yet our accounts of the meanings of the words differ.

You have openly stated that you challenge my statements so that people will not be mislead or confused. If this is the case you must feel that you are moved to do this for the sake of righteousness. It is my intuition that men find righteousness, satisfaction, but they can not administer righteousness, only god is good.

I have never regarded the bible as inconsistent but wide ranging in account.

 

Brother, men administer righteousness. They have power at first and then administer what God could not allow them to. They also administer documents claiming deeds that may be or still may be performed, medals for achievement they still need to finish in their hearts.

Further to that the power is further sought in still others by the righteous to take over for their distrust at the previously powerful (my opinion that we are slaves first only to realize later: for the master). The righteous God is only the first God Adam broke up with. After god becomes sentient for the power we all lack. We are rationally capable to regain power (individually anyway); I guess I don't believe in empowerment.

 

I said: "I do not expect anyone to take MY word for but to look it up for themselves."
And you said to that: "What then if I look it up and I still do not concur?"
Which would to be saying that something I've said motivated you to look it up in the scriptures but oh well.
Anyway back to the question, You mean to say that you've ever looked up something I've said and you have concurred?

I do it because you intertwine a lot of paraphrased scriptures taken out of context with your own sayings and I like to point out what the Bible is actually saying.

That's good because it is both.

 

Thanks for the comment. I use the "cheap winks or big grins" because reading long passages of dry text I sometime get bored so I try to break it up a bit with "cheap winks or big grins". I also feel that they add some emotion to the words that otherwise can be pretty emotionally flat or emotionally misunderstood sometimes. In any case I just like to use them in expressing myself and I thought that this forum was about freedom of expression. Also they displayed right there to the right and why so if you are not to use them? Does that mean the whole Hip Forums are cheap?

As for If any person goes to the trouble to type out a thought, an opinion or even a criticism of another post, an eye roll rather than a typed response is the ultimate disrespect, as is an 'lolz'?

Even if that typed out thought, opinion or criticism is in of itself disrespectful or has asked and answered several times and is being asked again just to interrupt the discussion or just downright sarcastic itself?

Actually if you think an eye roll rather than a typed response is the ultimate disrespect, then you haven't read many of the discussions in the past where I have been called a @#$%& Christian and to go @#$% myself as a response, which I find a bit more disrespectful than an eye roll.

And all without even one cheap wink or big grin or eye roll.

 

I have looked up scripture you have quoted, predominately to glean context and I have been instructed on occasion by some aspect of your discourse, though I couldn't tell you exactly what they were at this point, but I would be glad to take extra diligence to point out exactly where I agree with you in the future.

I use scripture in the body of a conversations, that is conversationally. I understand their application to be universal. Sometimes it seems that you do not recognize scripture because it is not preceded by book chapter and verse designations. Now when you object to what I say, you do so on the basis that it is not what the "bible says", without it seems, addressing the content of what I am saying. I hear you many times say, where do you come up with this stuff. I don't have any of, "my own sayings," I teach as I am taught.

You must have misspoken here, I'm sure you don't mean that the bible is both inconsistent and wide ranging. Here is a point where we agree, the bible is consistent and wide ranging.

 

No one puts new wine in old skins. That we have usurped the power of god is an illusion. Mans activities do not alter the nature of the world. There is an idea that we can bring truth to illusion and make the illusion real. That is, if we do good we will have riches in this world. The world is not valuable for what it has to offer. Bring illusion to the truth and truth dispels the illusion. The only reason we may find ourselves enslaved is because we agree to it. We look at a government and say they are powerful because they have money and weapons. Yet money is an agreement and weapons do not end life. The body is a shabby home for a child of god. We had thrown our power away as though we never had it.

 

You saw Inception too, eh? The nature of the world was alterable by simply substantializing the Self for ego per being-in-the-World-for-another... I=I.

 

You write inception with a capital letter "I", are you referring to an artifact? I don't understand "being in the world for another". Could you expound?

 

Could the wise men of the east have been Ashoka's missionaries?

 

So, you've taken my post of praise to thedope personally.

An eye roll, in addition to being disrespectful, is not only lazy but is also an admission of defeat. Using an eye roll as a response diminishes one's credibility, not just for the one post but overall as an entity. The less bright are usually the ones who fall back on such 'communication'. I know you to be bright, so when you do it it must be out of frustration. But, when you do it, you disrespect the poster and you diminish yourself. Whether this is more or less disrespctful than what someone else has done in the past is irrelevant.

 

Ah, you're going by that Jehovah's Witness New World translation, aren't you. I cited the Scripture: Matthew 28: 1-2. The KJV, the RSV, the NAS, the NIV, and the NLT make clear that the event happened before the womens' eyes. Only the JW-approved New World translation, by awkward use of the past perfect "had", leaves a shred of ambiguity about whether or not that happened before or after their arrival. My hypothesis is that this translation adjustment was not accidental. I note in passing that the New World Translation is still sticking to the Spiritist (Greber) inspired translation of Matthew 27:52, which has the advantage of being more naturalistic, but the disadvantage of being in conflict with all the other standard translations. The Witnesses strike again! Can't let grammatical technicalities get in the way of a thriving enterprise. Unless you know Greek, you'll need to convince me that your JW version is right and the overwhelming consensus of standard translations is wrong. So excuse me. If you read as many versions of the Bible as you claim, you'd know where I got my idea.

 

I picture dude, looking up at the heavens and thinking OMG WTF...