Re: not one stone upon another

[Athetotheist]

Here's another piece I posted in Random Ramblings and thought I would bring over into a debate forum to see if any issue can be taken with it:


In Matthew 24:2 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be thrown down with "not one stone left here upon another". Apologists regard the Romans' demolition of the temple in the year 70 as a remarkably accurate fulfillment of Jesus's words.

This doesn't seem to be the case since the famous Western Wall, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, is still standing stone upon stone.

Apologists may argue that Jesus was referring only to the temple buildings themselves in the Matthew passage, but in Luke 19:41-44 he makes the same prophecy for the entire city, which included the temple complex where the Western Wall stands. Between prophesying every stone at the temple thrown down and prophesying every stone in the whole city thrown down, Jesus didn't have much room to let the Western Wall slip by.

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

[1213]

...Are these scriptures fully compatible with John, who has no angels appear at the tomb until Mary Magdalene goes there for the second time?

I think so.

Can you demonstrate?

I think people who claim they are not compatible, should show it is so. But, I made the combination anyway:

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them
They were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” for it was very big.
Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from the sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the door, and sat on it.
For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
They entered in, and didn’t find the Lord Jesus’ body.
Therefore Mary Magdalene ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him!”
Therefore Peter and the other disciple went out, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.
Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing. Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He isn’t here, but is risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?”
Go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.”
They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and didn’t know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?” She, supposing him to be the gardener, said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him, “Rhabbouni!” which is to say, “Teacher!” Jesus said to her, “Don’t touch me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Now while they were going, behold, some of the guards came into the city, and told the chief priests all the things that had happened.
Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #61]

For fear of him, the guards shook, and became like dead men.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
They entered in, and didn’t find the Lord Jesus’ body.
Therefore Mary Magdalene ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him!”

Here you have the guards reacting to the appearance of the angel in Matthew, then Mary Magdalene running to the disciples with her message in John because she hadn't seen any angel.

Therefore Peter and the other disciple went out, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran together. The other disciple outran Peter, and came to the tomb first.
Stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he didn’t enter in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and entered into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying, and the cloth that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. So then the other disciple who came first to the tomb also entered in, and he saw and believed. For as yet they didn’t know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing. Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth.

Here you have the disciples finding the tomb empty and going home, then the angels appearing to the women in Luke before they ran to tell the disciples about the tomb being empty.

Go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him.’ Behold, I have told you.”
They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and didn’t know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?”

Here you have the women running "with fear and great joy" to give the disciples the message from Matthew's angel, then a distraught Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus but not recognizing him, still thinking him dead because no angel had told her otherwise.

[1213]

Here you have the guards reacting to the appearance of the angel in Matthew, then Mary Magdalene running to the disciples with her message in John because she hadn't seen any angel....

Yes, there was many things going on that day. First the women went to the tomb, found it empty, went to the others and told them that it is empty, then went back to the tomb and wondered what is going on, the men went then away while at least Mary stayed and was sad until the angels and Jesus...

[TRANSPONDER]

Here you have the guards reacting to the appearance of the angel in Matthew, then Mary Magdalene running to the disciples with her message in John because she hadn't seen any angel....

Yes, there was many things going on that day. First the women went to the tomb, found it empty, went to the others and told them that it is empty, then went back to the tomb and wondered what is going on, the men went then away while at least Mary stayed and was sad until the angels and Jesus...

We are drifting off the destruction of the temple onto the resurrection but ok. Let's pull it all together.

As soon as it's light enough to see without tripping over tree roots, they go to the Tomb, first thing Sunday, after the Sabbath. Wearing my theist hat I'll argue that the angel has already come down, rolled away the door and perched on it like PoE's Raven. The Other angel is inside, Jesus having gone and the Tomb guard having rushed off to Jerusalem.

The women arrive and the angel delivers the message about the disciples seeing Jesus in Galillee and Luke saying they should stay in Jerusalem (for the reasons I explained elsewhere).

Despite what Mark says, they do (according to the other three) run to tell the disciples. On the way they run into Jesus, according to Matthew, but not according to Luke or John, who tacitly denies any angels there at all, yet, and no message is given.

At this time, Cleophas (and Another) depart for Emmaeus having heard the women report the angelic message but they specifically say they did not see Jesus, contradicting Matthew.

The women (or just Mary) with Peter and the other one go to look at the tomb and see the grave -goods. They depart leaving Mary Magdalene, who then sees the two angels who have popped out of nowhere and then she meets Jesus who tells her not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended. But really its because he's got a lot to do.

Around this time, Jesus appears to Simon because Luke says so. Nobody else mentions this and even he doesn't describe it. Then as Simon goes to tell the disciples that Jesus is indeed risen, Jesus zooms off to intercept Cleophas on the road to Emmaeus and invites them to lunch and reveals himself. They rush back to Jerusalem where the eleven (Luke) but only ten according to John as Thomas is not there, relate their accounts of seeing Jesus and then Jesus walks through the door. After having a fish supper with them he breathes the Holy Spirit over them (John) and leaves.

So do the disciples according the Matthew - travel to Galilee to see Jesus where he tells them what he could have told them in Jerusalem? Thomas then comes back after a week or so and refuses to believe any of this and so Jesus appears to him to convince him and says that should be good enough for any later doubters.

Then a bunch of them (former fisherman) go back to Galilee to take up their old Jobs (John) and see Jesus, like they hadn't already seen him there (Matthew) and they all stayed in Jerusalem anyway (Luke).

Need I go on? These are independent stories made up and (as one would expect) terminally destroy each other.

[Athetotheist]

Here you have the guards reacting to the appearance of the angel in Matthew, then Mary Magdalene running to the disciples with her message in John because she hadn't seen any angel....

Yes, there was many things going on that day. First the women went to the tomb, found it empty, went to the others and told them that it is empty, then went back to the tomb and wondered what is going on, the men went then swat while at least Mary stayed and was sad until the angels and Jesus...

Matthew says that an angel rolled the stone back and sat on it. Why do the other writers have that angel playing hide-and-seek with the women when they arrive?

[TRANSPONDER]

The 'Two angels' argument is a fun one, and got to be the 'biggie' with the resurrection, but I have seen some adroit re-writing to use 2 angels to explain everything..... heck let's have a look as I consume my morning coffee and pipe, (urchh urch... )

Starting John having NO angels and NO message before the Marys report back to the disciples. Matthew Appears to have the earthquake and the descending angel and the Tomb guard falling flat in terror when the women are there to see all this. The angel supposedly shows them the empty tomb, Jesus evidently having left before the tomb door was rolled away. The tomb guard rush off to Jerusalem and the Marys run into Jesus. They run into him, not just one of them, as one apologist tried to argue here.

Mark of course has them finding the stone already rolled away and no angel perched on it. Thus (wearing my theist hat) I'd argue that all that happened before the women arrived and the story has to be adapted a bit so the angel is actually in the tomb when they look in Or he is outside and invites them in to see the place where Jesus lay and the message is given then. And I'll leave it to the apologists to explain why mark ends there without mentioning the relatively unimportant bit where the risen Jesus appears to the Marys.

Now we look at Luke, here the Marys find the stone rolled away and found the tomb empty and they are 'perplexed'. So they couldn't have seen the angel roll the stone away and Jesus walk out, so Matthew's tale has to be adapted there. Now, according to Luke, they did not see the angel immediately they went in but they suddenly were there (2 of them) and they deliver the message which is NOT to go to Galilee, because, as I said, Luke knows that the disciples started the Church in Jerusalem and that he saw Paul's letters is surely why he had to change the Synoptic story to fit the Pauline letters.

They run back to the 'eleven' disciples and no mention of seeing Jesus (as Cleophas reports). I see no way around it - Jesus appearing to they Marys in Matthew has to be a Biggie and an invention, along with his Nativity, the descending angel and the Tomb -guard. You find a witness unsafe in a couple of things and you can't trust him in anything. Jail for Matthew on a perjury charge. Luke next in the box.

[JehovahsWitness]

The 'Two angels' argument is a fun one, and got to be the 'biggie' with the resurrection, but I have seen some adroit re-writing to use 2 angels to explain everything..... heck let's have a look as I consume my morning coffee and pipe

So is the goal of the endeavor to find possible explanations within the paremeters of the narrative that harmonize the gosple account or is to find possible explanations that make atheist happy?

For example if the goal is to harmonize the gospel narraives, then there existing more than one angel in heaven is indeed a plausible explanation. If the objection is : no that could NOT be a possible way to harmonize the accounts because I dont believe in angels then thats a whole different ball game.

Its seems to me the only reasonable objection a proposition that there weretwo or more angels would be "no, impossible, there is only one angel in heaven because according to Mattthew X verse XX God only created one angel so your proposition is rejected on that basis"

I also cannot see why , if the challenge is to harmonize the various gospel accounts, when someone takes up the challenge they are dismissed as "making excuses". This is like telling someone to pick up a ball, and when they do, accusing them of moving the ball!



JW

To learn more please fo to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

[1213]

...Let's pull it all together.

As soon as it's light enough to see without tripping over tree roots,...

It seems you didn't understand what I was saying in my earlier post, where I showed how they are combined without errors.

[brunumb]

For example if the goal is to harmonize the gospel narraives, then there existing more than one angel in heaven is indeed a plausible explanation.

How is that a plausible explanation for the description of the event as written in the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

The 'Two angels' argument is a fun one, and got to be the 'biggie' with the resurrection, but I have seen some adroit re-writing to use 2 angels to explain everything..... heck let's have a look as I consume my morning coffee and pipe

So is the goal of the endeavor to find possible explanations within the paremeters of the narrative that harmonize the gosple account or is to find possible explanations that make atheist happy?

For example if the goal is to harmonize the gospel narraives, then there existing more than one angel in heaven is indeed a plausible explanation. If the objection is : no that could NOT be a possible way to harmonize the accounts because I dont believe in angels then thats a whole different ball game.

Its seems to me the only reasonable objection a proposition that there weretwo or more angels would be "no, impossible, there is only one angel in heaven because according to Mattthew X verse XX God only created one angel so your proposition is rejected on that basis"

I also cannot see why , if the challenge is to harmonize the various gospel accounts, when someone takes up the challenge they are dismissed as "making excuses". This is like telling someone to pick up a ball, and when they do, accusing them of moving the ball!



JW

To learn more please fo to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY

That is a nice example of evasion. And a strawman argument as well. You pick one of the most easily explained problems (one angel or two) and pretend that's the basis of my whole argument. I hardly even raised the question of one angel or two and even harmonised the stories about what they and the women did. Because the problems are more than that and by pretending that 'one or two angels' was the only point, you rather discredit your whole case because you had to evade it, and that without the nonsense of pretending that my case is denying the existence of angels.

By evading my whole argument and misreprenting mine, I'd say that you have discredited both yourself, your case and your religion. Nice going.