TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:01 pm
I don't think that anyone is going to buy the excuse that the Marys were told by the angel first ting at the tomb where Jesus was (risen)
No one claimed that the angel told the Marys at the tomb where Jesus had risen.
No one has claimed that, so why are you saying
no one is going to buy such excuse, when no one is making the claim in the first place?
This is gaslighting, and straw manning, and it is disgusting.
and eyewitness testimony erxplains how John apparently forgot and instead has Mary say that they didn't know where Jesus was. After all, if witness testimony is as unreliable as that the whole Gospel is unreliable, yes?
Why John had Mary say what she said was already explained to you.
You know, I grow wearing of refuting the same ole lines time and time again.
I yearn for more objections to dismantle.
Do you have anything new for me? What do you have?
I am starving.
And the synoptics (Mark and Luke) are clear about the two women that went inside, Mary Magdalene and the other mary.
Neither states that Mary Magdalene went inside.
Thus when invited to go inside in Mathew, they must have, and also in John. or how would they know the body was gone?
It all began with the angel which on the stone, who stated "He is not here. He has risen. See where his body lay".
You can add on Luke's other women, but Mary Magdalene definitely went in the tomb, according to the story.
No Gospel states that Mary Magdalene went inside the tomb.
You do know what I am talking about. Mary saying 'we do noit know where they have laid him' implies that no angel had said that he had risen and was walking about.
Bad exegesis. I can provide you the correct understanding of this stuff...but I can't
make you understand it.
Moreover, Luke has Cleophas say that the women went to the tomb and saw angels who said that Jesus was alive.
Point?
That's not what she says in John and 'meshes up' with John not having an angelic message, or even an angel.
That is because she did not see the angels that the other women saw at the tomb.
The contradictions that exist in my head shouls also exist in yours, were you not so intent on explaining them away. Unfortunately it is your conclusions that do not stand up and are being refuted, not mine.
My job is to defend it, your job is to attack it. My job is to remain saved, your job is to remain unsaved.
You know how the game goes.
Mark 16.5 says 'they' entered the tomb.
They = those who went inside....excluding those that didn't.
Now, the others don't say so specifically, but Matthew and Luke have the angelic invitation see where jesus had lain.
Point?
John implies that they looked inside or how wouldn't they know he wasn't still there?
Point?
In any case, whether they went in or not is not the issue but that the synoptics have an angel and explanation thatbJesus has risen and John doesn't. You were attempting to explain that by claiming that Mary Magdalene ran off without hearing the explanation. That is a wangle in your own head and has no support in the gospels.
It does have support, in G-John.
And last I checked, G-John is one of the...
gospels.
Both should have heard that Jesus had risen and wouldn';t be 'laid' anywhere. This is not what is in John.
It was explained to you why John reads different. Not gonna keep repeating myself unless you got something new...which you don't.
No, you are wrong. The resurrection claim in Mark is what the resurrection accounts are supposed to prove.
All Gospels support the claim that Jesus resurrected.
They contradict, and so badly they are on evidence, made up. Eben the angelic message is contradicted by John, as shown by me at length despite your attempts to talk your way out of it.
As much as you tried and continue to try, you will never reach the point of "contradiction".
You see, what had happened was, you've spent X amount of time building your case against the Gospels, only for me to come along and destroy your entire theory...and it is difficult for you to come to grips with.
Nobody is saying that a risen messiah is not a resurrected messiah, though that claim is also debatable.
Ahhh, there ya go. That is something new I can play with.
What is so debatable about that?
You cannot go back to claims that you explained everything in past posts because you decline to go back, and you cannot make those claims stand up here. You are not making yourself look very good. nor do your question marks I showed that you flipped your story.
We've identified something new above...lets abandon the old, played out objections which are dead horses that continue to be beaten.
Lets focus on the new...now, about the risen/resurrected Messiah thing...what about it?