Part 2--
"According to the scriptures" means that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy written about him in the OT scripture.
It was likely just a little over a week later if we go by when Thomas finally saw Jesus in John's gospel.
I don't believe Mark's "omission" was not included because he didn't know about it.
I'm done discussing anything but the topic of this thread. Whatever you've written after your response here, I'll read
and maybe make a short comment if you say something new that we haven't already discussed. You can have the last word.
I don't understand your explanation.The "according to the Scriptures" bit indicates that they determined when Jesus rose from the OT (Hosea 6:2), rather than anyone actually seeing him then.
"According to the scriptures" means that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy written about him in the OT scripture.
You act like you are! You've been dismissing things in the NT left and right in this thread with self-declared authority! I have to keep pestering you for evidence.I am not a Bible schlar!
Yes, I know.
Thank you for the links.Here is a commentary by a Christian preacher:
I don't know except that is what they choose to write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.Then please do. Why does Mark omit any mention of appearances in Jerusalem? Why does Luke omit any mention of appearances in Galilee?
If you are asking me why it wasn't in the short version, I don't know.So why does Mark choose to omit the first appearance of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem, and instead chose to allude to an appearance perhaps weeks later?
It was likely just a little over a week later if we go by when Thomas finally saw Jesus in John's gospel.
I don't believe Mark's "omission" was not included because he didn't know about it.
How is it a contraction?And I think in that scenario Luke omitting the Galilean sightings makes some sense.
For some reason, possibly dramatic effect, Luke presents the post resurrection events as happening all on the same day in the gospel, and perhaps leaves out the Galilean appearances because they do not fit that. In Acts, he says Jesus was around for 40 days, so was aware of other events. And while that is technically a contradiction, it is not something I have an issue with; it shows the author is a little flexible with the truth where it makes a better narrative, but nothing in that suggests a reason not to think it happened.
When I was an atheist I didn't want anything to do with Christianity. The last thing I would have done was get on an online forum to discuss it. Now I agree it's fascinating.Sounds good. When I saw you had made three posts responding to me, my heart did sink a little. But I think the birth of Christianity is a fascinating subject and it is good to have a more grown-up discussion about it.
I'm done discussing anything but the topic of this thread. Whatever you've written after your response here, I'll read
and maybe make a short comment if you say something new that we haven't already discussed. You can have the last word.