Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

[b]not be the SECOND coming, it will be the third, fourth, fifth or something like that...coming...

First you want Luke to say that Jesus ascended to the Father on the night of the resurrection (which it does). What does the Gospel of Luke say about events subsequent to that ascending? aside from saying that the disciples spent time worshipping in the temple, that's where the account ends. Now you want Acts, which picks up where Luke leaves off, giving a very brief precis of the events following the day of the resurrection, to somehow be in conflict with matters that Luke never even addresses in his gospel. And again what does the Bible record of the "second coming"? NEVER does the Bible refer to a SECOND coming - it simply says that Jesus will RETURN.

[Gary]

Nothing. The word translated "touch" has a range of meanings in English - which is why it is rendered differently in some translations as "do not cling to me." IMO the latter translation is both more in character with Jesus' personality and quite in character with the reaction of a woman happily reunited with someone she missed dearly.

Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and another Mary go to the tomb, an earthquake occurs, an angel descends, sits on the stone, scares the crap out of the Roman guards, and tells the "women" not to fear and that Jesus had risen. Now why would Matthew mention TWO women arriving at the tomb and the angel telling WOMEN (plural) not to fear, if one of those women had run away? But I'm sure that Christians will excuse this and say that Matthew just mentioned the two Marys but there were other women with them, just not as important as these two. Ok. Let's go with that. But how did Mary see that the stone had been rolled away, but didn't see the angel 'whose appearance was like lightning' sitting on the stone? And, why did Mary tell Peter and John that someone had stolen Jesus body when she had just witnessed a great earthquake, had seen the stone moved by the angel, had seen the guards faint, and had seen the angel sit on the stone?? Now, Christians may say that the earthquake and moving of the stone occurred before the women got there. Ok. Let's go with that. Then at a minimum, Mary Magdalene would have seen a "being" whose appearance was like lightening AND seen the guards lying passed out on the ground...but she still thinks someone has stolen the body...the body that she does not bother to see if it is still in the tomb...and when she reports to Peter and John says not a word about the angel and the guards!

So in John's account, Peter and John enter the tomb, see the burial clothes, John "believes" but neither John or Peter understand that Jesus would rise from the dead. (So what did John "believe"?) They leave to go home, but Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, she bends down, and sees two angels in the tomb who ask her why she is weeping, she then turns around and sees Jesus.

If we buy our evangelical Christian friends' argument that the other Marys ran to tell the nine disciples and that Mary Magdalene ran somewhere else to tell just Peter and John, we have an odd dilemma: Matthew says that Jesus appeared to the "women" on their way to tell the disciples...and let them touch him. But...when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene later in the Garden, on her return trip there, he specifically orders her not to touch him because he has not yet ascended to his Father!!!

This story has more twists and turns that a soap opera!

[Gary]

Nothing. The word translated "touch" has a range of meanings in English - which is why it is rendered differently in some translations as "do not cling to me." IMO the latter translation is both more in character with Jesus' personality and quite in character with the reaction of a woman happily reunited with someone she missed dearly.

[b]

[One Bad Pig]

I'll readily accept the variation to the translation for "touch" - it is well within the range of meanings for haptomai. So Jesus says "Do not cling to me for I have not yet ascended to my Father, but tell them I am ascending (actually: I ascend) to the Father." Even if the Koine Greek "gar" is translated as (the perfectly acceptable) "indeed" instead of "for" - there is no need to guess why Jesus refused the touch/cling ... he has stated the reason. And - he has also stated what he will be doing before Mary reports to the disciples.

I see no need to invent another "ascension" on that day in between visits to people; there's no reason he would need to do so.

The fact remains though, that "de" doesn't imply any (unrecorded) passage of time - it can't.

It denotes a transition. All it means is that what happens next happened after what happened before. I'm not saying it implies a passage of time; I'm saying it does not preclude one.

[tabibito]

I see no need to invent another "ascension" on that day in between visits to people; there's no reason he would need to do so.

It denotes a transition. All it means is that what happens next happened after what happened before. I'm not saying it implies a passage of time; I'm saying it does not preclude one.

If "de" doesn't imply a passage of time (and it doesn't), nothing in the text implies that there was a passage of time. So with what does the concept of a passage of time arise?

[William]

[tabibito]

The most pertinent points I have retained in the cited section. I won't assume any attempt on your part to prevaricate.
So taking that as an honest assessment, all that can be said at this time is:
"it is enough." I will be very surprised if you don't get evidence direct from God that is satisfactory to you, and in short order. Of course, you will then in all likelihood be in the position of having evidence that is by no means satisfactory to anyone else.

[William]

The most pertinent points I have retained in the cited section. I won't assume any attempt on your part to prevaricate.
So taking that as an honest assessment, all that can be said at this time is:
"it is enough." I will be very surprised if you don't get evidence direct from God that is satisfactory to you, and in short order. Of course, you will then in all likelihood be in the position of having evidence that is by no means satisfactory to anyone else.

I can get this. This makes sense to me.

so, have you received such evidence and do you mind sharing what it was?

[tabibito]

Yes, as to what it is - lets just say that I know how Cassandra felt.
A young man of my acquaintance who was recently baptised said to me much the same as you wrote, before he committed to Christ. And I said much the same to him as I have now said to you. I was present when he went white. Never met anyone before that who had a vision and heard a message spoken - and that message and vision related to myself and one other: being matters that he had no knowledge of, and can't have, because I have never mentioned them to anyone else.

[William]

Yes, as to what it is - lets just say that I know how Cassandra felt.
A young man of my acquaintance who was recently baptised said to me much the same as you wrote, before he committed to Christ. And I said much the same to him as I have now said to you. I was present when he went white. Never met anyone before that who had a vision and heard a message spoken - and that message and vision related to myself and one other: being matters that he had no knowledge of, and can't have, because I have never mentioned them to anyone else.

yes, I can see where some personal experience like that could be convincing.

I feel compelled to add that I cant help but feel most people use things like this, the suggestion that if you are truly looking, that God will reveal something convincing to you, as way to set "emperor's New Clothes" types of boundaries. what i mean, it gives a suggestion that if one is honest and truly looking, then they will see it in only one outcome - and that if that one outcome isnt reached, then one can only conclude that the person wasn't honest and wasn't really looking. I am doubtful of this, but then, I haven't witnessed anything yet.

You may not view it this way or mean it this way, but i did want to offer what often comes to mind from such claims. nevertheless, I do appreciate the comment and time.

[tabibito]

yes, I can see where some personal experience like that could be convincing.

I feel compelled to add that I cant help but feel most people use things like this, the suggestion that if you are truly looking, that God will reveal something convincing to you, as way to set "emperor's New Clothes" types of boundaries. what i mean, it gives a suggestion that if one is honest and truly looking, then they will see it in only one outcome - and that if that one outcome isnt reached, then one can only conclude that the person wasn't honest and wasn't really looking. I am doubtful of this, but then, I haven't witnessed anything yet.

You may not view it this way or mean it this way, but i did want to offer what often comes to mind from such claims. nevertheless, I do appreciate the comment and time.

Nope - I meant what I said about accepting your position as genuine. Even if you receive nothing definitive, I will hold to that position until I have satisfactory evidence to the contrary. Not experiencing such an event as I have barely sketched doesn't constitute evidence of a lack of sincerity.

To tell the truth - I'm more likely to view any report that you HAVE experienced such an event with suspicion.

[tabibito]

To William: Just one tip I will add - consider seriously what your response to any such experience would and should be - it's kind of critical.

[Gary]

I see no need to invent another "ascension" on that day in between visits to people; there's no reason he would need to do so.

It denotes a transition. All it means is that what happens next happened after what happened before. I'm not saying it implies a passage of time; I'm saying it does not preclude one.

[Christianbookworm]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

The apostles should have written a blog detailing everything that happened on each day from the Resurrection to Pentecost. They should have also embedded videos in it. Or Jesus should have messed with the space time continuum and provided an indestructible laptop with infinite battery life and storage space in the Pbs

[William]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

The apostles should have written a blog detailing everything that happened on each day from the Resurrection to Pentecost. They should have also embedded videos in it. Or Jesus should have messed with the space time continuum and provided an indestructible laptop with infinite battery life and storage space in the Pbs

it would have been better than conflicting reports from suspect sources, who claim that miracles confirmed their message, but that we'd have to take their word for that too.

But we can believe them because they claim to speak for God (who would make that up?), and because the scholars agree that some people in the 1st century believed there was a Resurrection.

yeah, who wouldn't believe that?