Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Actually, as the post notes, I said that "the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous." Apparently, there must be too subtle of a difference between saying that "the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous" and saying that it did happen for you to discern any difference.

    And FWICT, he asked you what you thought not what you believe that I think.
    Well I think angels descending from heaven, causing earthquakes, and rolling away stones to be nothing more than pious fiction composed for literary dramatic effect.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    H_A snipped off the rest of the post where I continued to discuss the possible earthquake recounted by Matthew where I discussed other possibilities. Here's the rest:
    You say that as though I should find it unexpected.

    σεισμος εγενετο - True, the aorist can indicate a pluperfect, but the syntax isn't right for that. It is a simple past construct. εγενετο can interpreted in a variety of ways, often "it came to pass," "it came about that," "as it happened," etc. That said, Matthew's story line does indicate that the women arrived after the event. Assuming that Matthew's report was accurate, the women would have been close enough to hear the stone being rolled away and feel the resulting tremor, but not have the tomb in view at the time. Then they arrive at the tomb, find the stone gone from its mouth, and put two and two together. Other scenarios are possible, but that would be the simplest explanation for Matthews report on events - the women recounted their experience, and he recorded the basics.
    As for the angel - according to Matthew's report, he was sitting on the stone when they arrived, with the guards still shaking in fear. The last indicates that only a very short time had passed between the stone being rolled away and the women's arrival. "Shaking in fear" tends to be a short term experience.
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-02-2021, 02:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Far from preposterous yes, but the text isn't pointing to a seismic event. It simply says that rolling the rock away from the tomb caused the ground to quake. Given that the area is mostly limestone, that is an expected outcome.
    H_A snipped off the rest of the post where I continued to discuss the possible earthquake recounted by Matthew where I discussed other possibilities. Here's the rest:

    Further, it appears that core samples of earth near Ein Gedi, just to the west of the Dead Sea a decade ago revealed that an earthquake did indeed took place around the estimated time of Jesus' crucifixion

    Moreover, several scholars have noted that the word σεισμος and translated as "earthquake" here actually signifying any kind of shaking, whether in the earth, air, or sea (for instance in Matthew 8:24 it is translated as meaning "tempest" or "storm.") IOW, the word here might be better understood to signify a large storm.

    Finally, IMHO, Matthew described not something that was witnessed but rather inferred it from what they saw as the various translations such as the NASB make clearer by stating

    Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:2

    And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it

    © Copyright Original Source



    [*Bolding added by rogue06*]

    Weymouth New Testament translates the passage as

    Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:2

    But to their amazement there had been a great earthquake

    © Copyright Original Source



    Please note how this would also indicate that the women inferred that the angel descended from Heaven, not that they witnessed it.

    It should be noted that in his Gospel Matthew appears to largely emphasize what happened and tends to group his information by theme (topical arrangement) and isn't too concerned with exact chronological order. For example, he mentioned the women coming to the tomb in the first verse, but then makes these comments as an aside -- this is what had happened prior to women arriving.


    Now, as to whether there were men or angels there and just how many of them were there (one or two)...

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Actually, as the post notes, I said that "the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous." Apparently, there must be too subtle of a difference between saying that "the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous" and saying that it did happen for you to discern any difference.

    And FWICT, he asked you what you thought not what you believe that I think.
    Far from preposterous yes, but the text isn't pointing to a seismic event. It simply says that rolling the rock away from the tomb caused the ground to quake. Given that the area is mostly limestone, that is an expected outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Well certainly rogue06 is of that opinion:


    See post #103
    Actually, as the post notes, I said that "the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous." Apparently, there must be too subtle of a difference between saying that "the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous" and saying that it did happen for you to discern any difference.

    And FWICT, he asked you what you thought not what you believe that I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    And you think that is a record of an earthquake? ... 可哀そうな

    To repeat my earlier post (#186)

    Qualified by context: αγγελος γαρ κυριου καταβας εξ ουρανου προσελθων απεκυλισεν τον λιθον for an angel of the Lord having descended from heaven, having arrived, rolled away the stone…”

    Do you perhaps think that the addition of accents changes the meaning?
    Well certainly rogue06 is of that opinion:


    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    As I noted, the region is prone to seismic activity thanks to the proximity of the Dead Sea Rift Valley. In his Patterns of Seismic Sequences in the Levant -- Interpretation of Historical Seismicity Amos Salamon reveals that the area experiences tremors there on a virtually yearly basis. And many are large scale. IIRC, Josephus, in his Jewish War, even mentioned one which hit Judea resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. In fact, the late anthropologist and archaeologist Kenneth Russell examined the evidence for roughly a hundred major earthquakes in the region and reported in The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid-8th Century A. D that 71 of them were centered in the Judea-Samaria region.

    So the idea of an earthquake taking place is far from preposterous.
    See post #103

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Matthew 28.2

    καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρα νοῦ καὶ προσελθὼν ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον καὶ ἐκάθητο ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ.
    And you think that is a record of an earthquake? ... 可哀そうな

    To repeat my earlier post (#186)

    Qualified by context: αγγελος γαρ κυριου καταβας εξ ουρανου προσελθων απεκυλισεν τον λιθον for an angel of the Lord having descended from heaven, having arrived, rolled away the stone…”

    Do you perhaps think that the addition of accents changes the meaning?
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-02-2021, 09:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    But this earthquake of yours: where is it? It is not in Matthew's record.
    Matthew 28.2

    καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρα νοῦ καὶ προσελθὼν ἀπεκύλισεν τὸν λίθον καὶ ἐκάθητο ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Firstly no other gospel writer mentions this miraculous event and secondly, as previously noted, if someone in the 21st century really believes an angel came down, caused an earthquake, and moved a stone, they will, presumably, believe anything.

    People are free to accept or reject Matthew's record according to their own assessments. As you have noted, there is no collaborating evidence. But this earthquake of yours: where is it? It is not in Matthew's record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Hypatia_Alexandria

    LSJ: σεισμ-ός , , ( σείω ) shaking, shock , γῆς ς . earthquake , E. HF 862 , Th. 3.87 ; χθονός E. IT 1166 : abs., Hdt. 4.28 , 5.85 , 7.129 , S. OC 95 , Ar. Ec. 791 , Th. 1.23 , etc.
    2. generally, shock, agitation, commotion , ς. τοῦ σώματος

    BDAG: σεισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σείω; Eur. et al. in var. senses)a violent shaking or commotion, shock,
    agitation, in our lit. only of natural phenomena, w. the specific type qualified by context

    Qualified by context: αγγελος γαρ κυριου καταβας εξ ουρανου προσελθων απεκυλισεν τον λιθον for an angel of the Lord having descended from heaven, having arrived, rolled away the stone…”
    Firstly no other gospel writer mentions this miraculous event and secondly, as previously noted, if someone in the 21st century really believes an angel came down, caused an earthquake, and moved a stone, they will, presumably, believe anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Hypatia_Alexandria

    LSJ: σεισμ-ός , , ( σείω ) shaking, shock , γῆς ς . earthquake , E. HF 862 , Th. 3.87 ; χθονός E. IT 1166 : abs., Hdt. 4.28 , 5.85 , 7.129 , S. OC 95 , Ar. Ec. 791 , Th. 1.23 , etc.
    2. generally, shock, agitation, commotion , ς. τοῦ σώματος

    BDAG: σεισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σείω; Eur. et al. in var. senses)a violent shaking or commotion, shock,
    agitation, in our lit. only of natural phenomena, w. the specific type qualified by context

    Qualified by context: αγγελος γαρ κυριου καταβας εξ ουρανου προσελθων απεκυλισεν τον λιθον for an angel of the Lord having descended from heaven, having arrived, rolled away the stone…”

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    What caused the ground to quake? Where is the seismic event of yours mentioned?
    According to Matthew 28 this event heralded an angel's appearance. However, if a 21st century individual believes that they will, presumably, believe anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    What caused the ground to quake? Where is the seismic event of yours mentioned?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    A severe and localised quake resulting from a stone being rolled away from the tomb, and (presumably) falling over? How could that possibly happen where the bedrock is limestone? I do wonder.
    Why?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Why was it that the earth quaked again? Oh yes, "for an angel of the Lord came and ..."
    It is a story. It adds "colour and texture".

    Furthermore, why do the other three accounts not mention this seismic event?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    And an earthquake in a region prone to seismic activity. Obviously impossible. And even more impossible to have one take place around the time of Jesus' crucifixion[1].

    Moreover, several scholars have noted that the word σεισμος and translated as "earthquake" here actually signifying any kind of shaking, whether in the earth, air, or sea (for instance in Matthew 8:24 it is translated as meaning "tempest" or "storm." IOW, the word here might be better understood to be a large storm.

    Finally, IMHO, Matthew described not something that was witnessed but rather inferred it from what they saw as the various translations such as the NASB make clearer by stating

    Scripture Verse: Matthew 28:2
    And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it
    A severe and localised quake resulting from a stone being rolled away from the tomb, and (presumably) falling over? How could that possibly happen where the bedrock is limestone? I do wonder.

    Why was it that the earth quaked again? Oh yes, "for an angel of the Lord came and ..."
    Last edited by tabibito; 07-01-2021, 04:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
38 responses
225 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by Alien, 03-31-2022, 02:43 PM
1,956 responses
10,542 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X