- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by NemesioIm sorry Nem. I'm very busy at late. I'll try get to this as soon as I can.
I'm sorry, DJ. Someone must have modded your response to my
post. Could you post it again?
I really, really want to explain to you why Telerion does and doesn't
believe in Muffy.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by NemesioStone moved before or after Mary arrives?
You've got to be kidding. Do you only read those threads which you started? I've gone on
about this dozens of times.
[b]Stone moved before or after Mary arrives?
St Mark 16:2-4 -- Very early when the sun had risen, on the fi ...[text shortened]... simultaneously
believes and does not believe in Muffy.
Nemesio[/b]
I'd say before Mary arrives. St Matthew 28:1-2. What makes you think that verse 2 happened after verse 1? The greek word used in Matthew is very similar to the one used in Mark. Why would the greek word used in Matthew clearly indicate that the women were present? This would mean they would have been there during the earthquake. I don't think that you can make these assumptions purely on the tenses of the words given. Matthew and Mark usually used words of different tenses to explain the same event. Besides, the point is really that the stone was moved. They would not enter the grave if the stone was not moved.
ps: check your greek spelling again😉
Did Jesus die before or after the Passover Seder?
The Passover Lamb was ALWAYS sacrificed the morning before the Passover Seder.
Not true. They started on Thursday and carried on on Friday.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Stone moved before or after Mary arrives?
I'd say before Mary arrives. St Matthew 28:1-2. What makes you think that verse 2 happened after verse 1? The greek word used in Matthew is very similar to the one used in Mark. Why would the greek word used in Matthew clearly indicate that the women were present? This would mean they would have been there during the earthquake. I don't think that you can make these assumptions purely on the tenses of the words given. Matthew and Mark usually used words of different tenses to explain the same event. Besides, the point is really that the stone was moved. They would not enter the grave if the stone was not moved.
ps: check your greek spelling again😉[/b]
How would they (or anyone) know that the angels moved the stone and then sat on it
if it happened before they arrived? In St Matthew's account, it happens after they arrive,
as is clearly demonstrated by the grammar.
Did Jesus die before or after the Passover Seder?
The Passover Lamb was ALWAYS sacrificed the morning before the Passover Seder.
Not true. They started on Thursday and carried on on Friday.[/b]
ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
The Passover Lamb is ALWAYS sacrificed before the Seder because that is what protected
the Jews from losing their first-born sons in the 10th plague during the captivity. The Passover
Lamb is on the lintels of their door before they eat.
This is why, in Sts Mark, Luke and Matthew, we KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY that Jesus ate
the Passover with his Disciples the day before he died.
However, it is 100% clear in the St John account that the Passover has not been eaten.
If they had eaten, then defilement and preparation for Passover would have already
taken place.
Review:
St John 18:28 -- Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning. And
they themselves did not enter the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat
the Passover [Pascha].
St John 19:14 -- It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon.
St John 19:42 -- So they laid Jesus there because of the Jewish preparation day; for the tomb
was close by.
It is a bald-faced contradiction. You've not yet provided an explanation for my
explication of this contradiction. The Paschal Lamb is sacrificed for the evening
in the Synoptics (thus the Passover Seder is the Last Supper), but in the St John
account they are preparing not to be defiled so they could eat the Passover.
Contradiction.
I can't explain Telerion's seeming contradiction until you explain this one, djbecker.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by NemesioHow would they (or anyone) know that the angels moved the stone and then sat on it if it happened before they arrived?
There were Roman soldiers there. Maybe you would like to give a viable explanation why else a Roman soldier would leave his post if it would result in his death?
In St Matthew's account, it happens after they arrive, has is clearly demonstrated by the grammar.
If you had five witnesses relating what happened during an accident scene, and there were only a few slight gramatical differences in their reports, would you doubt the viability of their report in a court of law?
ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
The Passover Lamb is ALWAYS sacrificed before the Seder because that is what protected
the Jews from losing their first-born sons in the 10th plague during the captivity.
There is a lot of reliable historical evidence which suggests that many of the Jews had the Passover lamb on the Thursday and others had it on the Friday, simply because of the sheer number of people that did it. If you are not willing to accept the evidence, then you will clearly find a contradiction. So my advise is go and study some Jewish history.
Regards,
Daniel
Originally posted by dj2beckerNuhuh! i saw it... he was a monkey thing... im gunna look up what ep. that was..
I am afraid you are the one that looks like some weird little monkey thing... Check it out in the mirror 😉
I'm afraid my God does not appear in episodes of South Park...
HA! episode 47!
There were Roman soldiers there. Maybe you would like to give a viable explanation why else a Roman soldier would leave his post if it would result in his death?
Hmm . . . ever thought of this one: they never left their post, and all these resurrection accounts are made up? That would certainly be viable.
If you had five witnesses relating what happened during an accident scene, and there were only a few slight gramatical differences in their reports, would you doubt the viability of their report in a court of law?
Do you have a single thought that has not been put into you by a half-wit apologist? Of course, I would doubt their validity.
Example: Frank is shot to death in his bedroom. Joe goes on trial for manslaughter (silly boys playing detective). Two witnesses for the prosecution, Jack Wayne and Sam Radley, claim that Joe walked into Frank's room a few moments before they heard a gun go off. Two witnesses say that Joe walked into Frank's room just after the shot was heard.
Who do you believe? Well, would it matter to you that upon cross-examination one witness, Chet Morton, for the defense claims that he heard the shot before the chamber clock rang out the hour, while the other, Callie Shaw, claims that she heard the shot a few minutes after the chamber clock rang out the hour?
The only differences in the testimonies regard when two actions occured, but the certainly we cannot believe all four testimonies.
There is a lot of reliable historical evidence
Everytime I read this from you, I take it to mean, "I don't have any evidence to give you, but a website that I once read somewhere said that 'there is a lot of reliable historical evidence.' "
So my advise is go and study some Jewish history.
My advice to you is even simpler: go and study. Get an original thought.
Originally posted by telerionPerhaps the witness analogy was not appropriate.
[b]There were Roman soldiers there. Maybe you would like to give a viable explanation why else a Roman soldier would leave his post if it would result in his death?
Hmm . . . ever thought of this one: they never left their post, and all these resurrection accounts are made up? That would certainly be viable.
If you had five witnesses relating ...[text shortened]... Jewish history.
My advice to you is even simpler: go and study. Get an original thought.[/b]
Let's try this. You're having a tea party with two women. The first one says, "You know, my husband heard a gun-shot go off at Frank's place a few minutes before nine". The second one says, "My husband heard it too, but it was a few minutes after nine". Is it reasonable to conclude that no gun was fired at all?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, it would not be reasonable in that analogy. But then that's not really the kind of problem that we find in the resurrection accounts.
Perhaps the witness analogy was not appropriate.
Let's try this. You're having a tea party with two women. The first one says, "You know, my husband heard a gun-shot go off at Frank's place a few minutes before nine". The second one says, "My husband heard it too, but it was a few minutes after nine". Is it reasonable to conclude that no gun was fired at all?
It's more like this.
Agent J: We once were engaged in a fight with alien lifeforms from outerspace.
Agent K: Yeah, its true. It's only happened once in our lives.
Hotty Linda Fiorentino: Sure . . . When did this happen?
Agent J: After breakfast.
Agent K: Before breakfast.
Hotty Linda Fiorentino: Really . . . and how many were there?
Agent K: 2
Agent J: 4
Hotty Linda Fiorentino: Uh-huh . . . What did they say before starting the fight?
Agent K: Surrender or die, earth scum!
Agent J: Please don't hurt us. We come in peace.
Agent K: You see they would have caught us unawares if it hadn't been that giant earthquake.
Agent J: What earthquake?
Hotty Linda Fiorentino: I'm sorry what we you saying? I was daydreaming about telerion.
All four accounts read like this. If you read them seperately they sound fine, but side-by-side, they make no sense at all.
Originally posted by dj2beckerShow me ONE piece of historical evidence that says that different
There is a lot of reliable historical evidence which suggests that many of the Jews had the Passover lamb on the Thursday and others had it on the Friday, simply because of the sheer number of people that did it. If you are not willing to accept the evidence, then you will clearly find a contradiction. So my advise is go and study some Jewish history.
Regards,
Daniel
sects of Jews held the Passover Seder on different days.
Just one.
Nemesio