The problem with the "risen" Jesus.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 89
#61
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I also find it  strange and puzzling that this interpretation of the matter of "ascended"  hasn't been pointed out by the faithful hear at all, has it?
You couldn't understand the simple fact that both Mary and the disciples touched Jesus, and stupidly think it was "bias", that Jesus either should have been touchable or untouchable at all times, and we should have told you something as detailed and complex as the old testament rituals Jesus had yet to fulfill?

I thought you were too stupid to understand that. And as we see, you were. I didn't need it. I could, and did, show your argument to be stupidity just on the touching alone. Both Mary and the disciples were allowed to touch Jesus. No need to confuse your addled mind with unnecessary stuff.

So now you slide to Jesus not allowing Mary to detain Him as He did the disciples, as if detention is some moral right Mary had.

Even Castin, who is not even a Christian, was able to understand the passage and find a resolution. But you, our supposed biblical scholar, was mired in stupidity.

Please, tell us you're pretending.
Topic's author
#62
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I assume you realise that Luke andJohn were written by different people. And to different audiences. 
 
I do. 
 
you seem to have difficulty withJohn's rendition of the events surrounding Mary and then Thomas.
 
 
No. I don’t think I am. It is simple.
 
 
 
Firstly Jesus says don't touch -actually he says "don't hold onto me" for "I have not returnedto my father" .
 
I have covered the point of touch,cling, hold and even detain. To do any of these is to - touch. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17 
 
and then in v 27 he says to Thomas"put your finger here". I think you are suggesting that Jesus isinconsistent about whether he can be touched or not and that he is beinginconsistent and John in fact is contradicting himself. 
 
 
No. It still all amounts to the actof – touching. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17 
 
 note however, Jesus never said toMary don't touch - he says don't hold onto me.
 
 
 Jesus!!!! To hold IS to touch. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17



 
 
 This was not a simple touching - it was a fullon significant hug of some description. In the second place - despite Jesus'suggestion to Thomas, there is no evidence that Thomas ever actually touchedJesus.
But he was invited to touch, whereas anotherwasn’t. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17 
Jesus' words were more of arhetorical sense once Thomas had actually seen him in the flesh.
 
I see, that good ole’ trusty  “interpretation” excuse again. Tell me, why would this "god" invite someone to touch him if he didn't meant it? And what would have happened had this poor uneducated DOUBTING disciple, who had incidentally, actually witnessed the raising of a very dead Lazarus,  decided to actually put his fingers into the wounds of this god?
 
 
  the words do not describe a simple touch but aclinging a holding a not wanting to let him go sense.
 
Which is touching.
 
“Jesus saithunto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to mybrethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”.
 
 
 He tells her to stop- in other words therewill be other opportunities for her to see him before he goes to his father.
  There is no evidence for your surmises. But you are entitled to them. Pleaseafford me the same courtesy when the occasion arises.
 
 
 perhaps she was clinging to him in a sensethat her clinging might prevent him from going.
 
 
Perhaps. But still touching.
 
 
. Jesus simply tells her to getserious. she cannot stop what is happening. 
 
 He also tells her not to touch him too.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17


Get over it , this is a biblical contradiction that cannot be squared by you telling me that to hold, grab, touch,cling or detain do not mean TOUCH! To do all those things one has to TOUCH. 
Topic's author
#63
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Both Mary and the disciples wereallowed to touch Jesus.
 
That is not true. Read for yourself:
 
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God"
 
So now you slide to Jesus not allowing Mary to detain Him as He did the disciples, as if detention is some moral rightMary had.
 
 
Sorry but it was you alone who bought the word “detain" into the mix when all scriptures consistently refer to touching in one form or another,  no matter which bible you choose. Even the member who you praise so highly for his “best  post ever” uses the word “ hold”, which means to have contact with and touch.  
 
Even Castin, who is not even a Christian, was able to understand the passage and find a resolution.
 
No. He said that  he “ found the whole thing dubious”.  which means hesitating or doubting. I think that you didn’t understand Castin’s take at all on this thorny subject. Go see it is at post 56.  
 
 But you, our supposed biblical scholar, was mired in stupidity.
 
I never claimed that, but it has become clear to me that I do know scripture just a little bit better than you ethang5
 
 
Please, tell us you're pretending.
About what exactly?  I am with Castin on this; the whole affair is“dubious “in the least and bias.
 

#64
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
the words in greek is the word for cling not merely touch. Not that it matters.  She was touching him and she did not wish to let go. Jesus told her to stop clinging to her. I reject your notion that he did not want her to touch him  especially since that is only an interpretation in one translation. she could not prevent him from leaving again. This is the point of what he is saying. He is not saying - don't touch me fullstop. 

With Thomas he did invite him to touch him - but this was in response to Thomas saying earlier that he would not believe unless he touched his wounds with his own hands. Yes, it was rhetorical - because Jesus knew Thomas' heart. And if Thomas had touched him - it would not have changed anything anyway. Jesus did not have an issue with people touching him. He did have a problem with people trying to keep him and trying to prevent him from leaving. He had yet to go to his father and this was going to happen whether they liked it or not.  

It is not a biblical contradiction. It is quite plain what has happened here. hence why he reiterates this to Mary, go and tell them I am going to my father. you want it to be a contradiction - yet you have not made your case. 
#65
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Calling a poster stupid is a personal attack, take care.
#66
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I like ethang5 am in agreement with what tradesecret says.

There is no contradiction here.


And I am not saying there is a problem with these scriptures. See, you'd be better off reading these scriptures without the goal of trying to disprove them or tearing them apart. You are not going to disprove God by attacking scripture. The bible is not supposed to be an idol before God.

But it certainly is good stuff. I would suggest that you shy away from the gospels for now and maybe read the letters. They better explain the faith, and might even clear up some of your issues... I would suggest maybe not going in with the goal of trying to tear scripture apart. Maybe instead go in with the goal of trying to understand the message.

Topic's author
#67
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
the words in greek is the word for cling not merely touch. Not that it matters.  She was touching him and she did not wish to let go.
This is becoming circular without any need. We have finally got to the conclusion, that whatever she was doing she was most definitely touching. As the verse itself  states: and as another verse stated:  one was encouraged to do the opposite and  to touch, no matter how YOU decide to interpret these god inspired scriptures.

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". JOHN 20:17 

Topic's author
#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
See, you'd be better off reading these scriptures without the goal of trying to disprove them or tearing them apart.

My you are well off course with that my friend, aren't you. My "goal as you put it was to have them explained.  How have I tried to disprove anything, how have i tried tear them apart.





#69
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
Posted August 12th, 2018
Disgusted->Vagabond->Bulproof - I just might go to DI and wind you up and get you banhammered, that would be hilarious. You'd start spewing your hate and vitriol and "wala" the thang is gone.
Funny. You threatened to come here, "wind me up" and get me banned. And you get banned! Lol.

Beware the bul for he is coming.

The bully, now called "vagabond" (now called disgusted) is neutered on DebateArt. No one need beware of you. You are acting civilized but we all know you can't do it. Your stupidity will break free.

Just call me a prophet.

Ethang5 - Aren't you ashamed you have to chase someone who doesn't respond to you across websites? Pitiful. But come. We will see who gets banned.

With your obsession, you will be just like BoG, repeatedly making fake accounts to keep on the site.

Bulproof -> Vagabond -> Disgusted -> ???

On it goes.

Ethan - The site owner knows who you are and knows your new name.

The moment your inner troll bursts free, and he will, you will experience something similar to when Airmax took you for a ride in the black party van.

Prophesy!! Lol.

Disgusted - Calling a poster stupid is a personal attack...

When did you learn this troll? To show how dense you are, you are still trying to "wind me up", even after your temp ban. You can't wind me up, but you can get banned again.

Do I still need to beware troll?
#70
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Well, you don't seem very open to the correct answer to your issue here, so excuse me if I have you wrong. I did not mean to be presumptuous.
#71
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Calling someone a troll is a personal attack, beware little thang.
#72
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, this is not circular. It is quite clear. Jesus did not forbid Mary from touching him. He forbid Mary from clinging to him and not letting him go. These are quite different things. Your literalistic sticking to your own version is what is circular, nothing else. There is no contradiction here. 
#73
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Both Mary and the disciples were allowed to touch Jesus. 
 
That is not true. Read for yourself: 
 
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not;
Why would Jesus say don't touch me if she was not touching Him? You have been the one insisting it was touching. Now make up your mind. Did she touch Jesus or not?
 
So now you slide to Jesus not allowing Mary to detain Him as He did the disciples, as if detention is some moral rightMary had.

Sorry but it was you alone who bought the word “detain" into the mix when all scriptures consistently refer to touching in one form or another, 
Touching can detain Him genius. That is why Jesus mentioned the things He had to do that touching Him would delay.

no matter which bible you choose. Even the member who you praise so highly for his “best  post ever” uses the word “ hold”, which means to have contact with and touch.  
Exactly brainiac. We all agree that she was touching Jesus.

Even Castin, who is not even a Christian, was able to understand the passage and find a resolution.

No. He said that  he “ found the whole thing dubious”. 

Yes, but SHE understood it. She's not christian, so of course she doubts it. But she understood it.

which means hesitating or doubting.
But still understanding it. 

I think that you didn’t understand Castin’s take at all on this thorny subject. Go see it is at post 56.  
 I understand it fine. You seem to think she needs to believe. She understood it, even as an atheist. Why can't you?

But you, our supposed biblical scholar, was mired in stupidity.
 
I never claimed that, but it has become clear to me that I do know scripture just a little bit better than you ethang5
Lol. You think Jesus is showing bias, and you think you know scripture? That's funny.
 
Please, tell us you're pretending.

About what exactly?

About not understanding simple English.

I am with Castin on this; the whole affair is“dubious “in the least and bias.
I doubt Casting thinks it is biased. Either way, bias is only possible if Mary had some right to touch Jesus. She didn't. Jesus could allow anyone or no one to touch Him without being biased at all.

Sorry, but it is idiotic to think if Jesus says to Mary in the morning, don't touch me, I have not done so and so, He must say the same thing to others in the afternoon. That is just stupidity.
#74
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
Calling someone a troll is a personal attack, beware little thang.
Not if the person is in fact a troll. You've been banned from 2 sites for trolling. Count them. 2, including this one.

As I've told you. Stop being a troll, and you won't get called one. And you will stop being banned too. Simple as that. You still seem to think the mods are idiots, and that you can fool them into banning me.

Keep trying, I've got more prophesy for you.
#75
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@disgusted
Calling someone a troll is a personal attack, beware little thang.

Ethan's behavior is being dealt with as we speak, please make sure to report his personal attacks. He will stop this very soon or face the consequences.
#76
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
hahahahahaha we have a new bog, how wonderful.
#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
And no new answers to the question you're dodging.

That is the problem with evolution. It makes no sense upon examination, and those pushing it can't answer questions to it.

I think Lunate proposed 2 proto chickens. Would you like to adopt this suggestion seeing as how you can't come up with one on your own?

Or will you just bray again?






#78
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
The proto chicken is your creation and then you lied about my not responding about your strawman proto chickens sexual mate, you claimed, lyingly ,that you were questioning the mythical mate of your mythical "first" chicken.
You were asking about your mythical proto- chicken. A figment of your imagination, try to tell the truth.
Topic's author
#79
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen, this is not circular.

It is if you  you keep insisting one thing and I can categorically show you the scripture states another -  touch. 

"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God"


It is quite clear.

Yes it is, isn't it. The scripture is very clear, Jesus tell Mary  "Touch me not". 

Jesus did not forbid Mary from touching him.
The scripture says different. See above.

He forbid Mary from clinging to him and not letting him go.
No it doesn't say that. YOU are saying that. It is there to read besides as I keep saying (1) clinging is still touching. (2)  you are trying to weave into this story your own interpretation that Jesus told Mary to "let him go".. There is absolutely NO INDICATION that Mary had even touched him at all at this point, the verse before this simply states 

"Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

The immediate following verse goes on to say:

"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God"


But here you are, trying to tell anyone interested that Mary was indeed, "clinging " to Jesus. It seems he stopped her before she could reach out and "touch " him. But you are refusing to see this. This is making the argument circular.


These are quite different things. Your literalistic sticking to your own version is what is circular, nothing else.

I am indeed sticking to the literal version as told by the verse. You are also "sticking to your version" of YOUR interpretation.

There is no contradiction here. 

There is clearly a contradiction. This risen god  disallows one person to touch him on the one hand , but allows, indeed encourages, another person to do the complete opposite.
#80
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
Seems like you've become lost on the thread. The proto-chicken is the idea of the evolutionists to explain the answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

You often lose track of the debate in threads so its no biggie. If you do not believe in the proto-chicken, just say so. If you do, then tell us who did it mate with.

If you don't know. That's OK too.
#81
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
There is clearly a contradiction. This risen god  disallows one person to touch him on the one hand , but allows, indeed encourages, another person to do the complete opposite.
So what? Why must He behave the same way with different people at different times? Where is the logic in that assumption?

What am I asking. Of course you can't answer.

#82
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
The isoproto rooster that my millipedial nascent daschound found in thangs backyard is gay. Damn it's the end of thang's world.RIP
Topic's author
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
Please, disgusted, is too much to ask you to take your argument with ethang5 somewhere else. Please!


#84
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5

The proto-chicken is the idea of the evolutionists to explain the answer to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

The proto-chicken is the idea of the thang.

I have already told you that the egg came first and why. Your ignorance and claims of mythical creatures is all your problem, reality supports me.
Not surprising given your severe lack of any knowledge.
#85
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
I have already told you that the egg came first and why. 
I know. I don't care where the egg came from. I've never contradicted it. All I asked is, who did the "chicken" from your egg mate with?

Though you call others ignorant, you have not been able to answer. You can't cite where you say I lied. And insist a Christian proposed abiogenesis.

As such, I have to conclude you have nothing sensible to add to this convoy, and I can put you back on ignore. But you did well, for once, you tried to debate. Perhaps you will do better in later attempts.

Buh bye.
#86
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
To which convoy do you refer. proto chicken out?
#87
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, 

the word in the greek is the word hapto.  It actually has the meaning to anoint. At times it is also translated cling, grasp, touch, or  light. In the various versions of the NT, it variously translated as cling, hold, or even touch. In the version you are using, it is translated as touch. In my version it is cling to. There are also two other words for touch that might be more appropriate. Katago and prosphano. 

These are both not simply translations but interpretations. In that sense, I would suggest the context and the circumstances might assist in the more accurate interpretation.

In the specific context, for it to mean simply "touch" as opposed to "cling to" which is what you are insisting upon has some problems as you by your further insistence that it contradicts the later passage relating to Thomas. I personally think that it is not unreasonable to think that the author of the gospel is not so dumb that he misses this alleged contradiction.  Nor is there any reason to suspect that Jesus was so mixed up that he sends contradictory messages within such a short period of time.  

There also does not seem to be any particular reason why Jesus would say don't touch and then touch to either Mary or Thomas. The notion that he somehow discriminated between the two seems inconsistent with the rest of the gospels and really has no merit to it.

What we do know from the context is that Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus after he rose from the dead. Was this because she did not believe as the two men on the road to Emmaus or indeed like Thomas  in the next few verses. This is possible of course and I don't immediately discount it. It seems that all of the disciples found it difficult to believe Jesus' words that he would rise from the dead even though he had told them countless times and had also demonstrated numerous miracles before their eyes. The fact is people are hard hearted even when confronted with the truth directly in front of their eyes. 

Of course with Mary, it may well be that she really was grief stricken which also would not be unreasonable given the recent events and the stories that someone had stolen his body. When she saw Jesus, and recognised who he was, it is also not unreasonable that she would immediately hug him, and cling to him and not wish to let him go. You seem to think this is extrapolation, but the word in the greek can be translated that way so it is not extrapolation. It makes better sense than simply Jesus saying "don't touch me". Why would Jesus say "don't touch me"? It does not make sense. Christian theology has never been about the body being evil or even sinful. Christian theology has only ever taught that the heart is sinful.   And Jesus heart in particular was not sinful and nor was his body. Sometimes some crazy Pentecostals suggest that Jesus had to go heaven to see his father and then come back again before seeing Thomas and the other disciples. I think that is nonsense. There is no evidence and no data to support this idea either. 

Although I concede that the word might be interpreted touch, I think it does not fit the context and it is certainly not the best fit. You can insist upon it if you like, but you are using a version that other versions and many scholars disagree with and clearly you require to insist upon it so that there is a contradiction. That makes it a subjective decision you are drawing your conclusion upon.  I on the other hand am drawing upon scholarly work, the greek language, the context of the passage and don't have any particular subjective need to bear. I say this last one, because apparent contradictions have no bearing upon whether the bible is true or not. That may well be the atheist's or agnostic's position but it is not the Christian position. We after all believe in the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit, where God is one and God is three persons. And we don't see this as a contradiction because it is not a contradiction. We also acknowledge that these things are spiritually discerned. 

but in relation to the above passage, you have not demonstrated even on a basic level that there is a contradiction. you have not shown conclusively or even at all that the word means touch in this context. Yes, you have provided one version which says touch. But I have provided other translations which show otherwise and furthermore I have provided the underlying Greek which provides alternative translations. Your theory makes no sense either in the context, or in the circumstances and by your own admission - tends towards contradicting the passage. Why make such an insistence unless you have an axe to grind? It certainly is not very scholarly or becoming. 

You also made an observation that it does not matter whether it means cling because that still means touch. If that is your position, then whatever. If Jesus says "don't touch", I suggest to you that it is quite different to "don't cling". the first may have been before she touched him and might be a command not to touch her. It might be after she had already touched her and he is commanding her not to do it. This seems to be what you are saying. The "don't cling" has more implications. It suggests she was touching him already and that she does not want to let go. For him to say don't cling, does not mean that he did not want her to touch him, it means that he does not want her to cling to him. In this sense he is actually caring for her in her grieving state. Your interpretation makes him out to be mean spirited which again is inconsistent with his character from the rest of the gospels. Where else has he ever rejected people wanting to come to him? 

At the end of the day, your position is soundly refuted. There is no contradiction. 

Topic's author
#88
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
the word in the greek is the wordhapto.  It actually has the meaning to anoint.At times it is also translated cling, grasp,touch, or  light.
 
 
 
 
I don’t accept that. BUT if you say it means all those things then the word Jesus chose to use was “touch”.

That is quite clear. You conflating with other words doesn’t make you right and you are simply -  and I believe - intentionally confusing the issue.  Are you suggesting that the gospel writer here didn’t understand which word and which context he should use?
 
 
 
 
In the various versions of the NT, it variously translated as cling, hold, or even touch. In the version you're using, it is translated as touch.
 
Yes and all mean to have contact by touch.Stop pretending not to recognise this fact
 
 
 
 
you by your further insistence that it contradicts the later passage relating to Thomas.
It does but that is not my only problem with this verse. It shows bias, something I believe the gospel writers didn’t care about or probably didn’t have a word for one sided instances such as this. .
 
 
 I personally think that it is not unreasonable to think that the author of the gospel is not so dumb that he misses this alleged contradiction.
 
 
So he knew exactly which word to use then, didn’t he? And in which context it was to be used, didn’t he? Do you now see how your excuses and explanations are falling apart every time you try anew approach to this thorny problem?
 
I have explained above. It wouldn’t have been a contradiction if the gospel writers of the time put women below men as they clearly did in those times and do at times it show in the bible.
 
 
“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. KJV
 
 
 
 
Indeed the Gnostic gospels have The Magdalene Scared to death of Peter. Pete makes it quite plane that he is misogynistic.
 
Simon Peter said to them [the disciples]: “ let Mary leave us, for woman are not worthy of life”.
 
 
He also speaks slights behind Jesus’back because Jesus touched Mary in his (Peters) presence..  There are many examples of these instances.
 
 
 
 
  Nor is there any reason to suspect that Jesus was so mixed up that he sends contradictory messages within such a short period of time.  
 Exactly!  So here again the more you attempt to explain away this problem, here again you have shown it not to work.  
 
Are you saying Jesus knew and understood PERFECTLY what he was saying and which word to use and where and which context to use the word “TOUCH”.
 
You are denying this in one breath and in the next you are saying the Gospel writer AND Jesus knew exactly what they were conveying and talking about.
 
 They used the word “TOUCH” specifically!.  BECAUSE THE ACTUALLY DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING AND IN WHICH CONTEXT TO USE THE WORD "TOUCH".
And , as I have already pointed out via the gospel of John that there is absolutely no reason to believe she had "touched" the risen Christ AT ALL at that stage. It appears he stopped her before she could LOOK FOR YOURSELF!!!!



John 20:16  Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.


John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.



Topic's author
#89
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 If Jesus says "don't touch", I suggest to you that it is quite different to "don't cling". the first may have been before she touched him and might be a command not to touch her. It might be after she had already touched her and he is commanding her not to do it.

"Might may, might". If but's and maybee's

Struggling aren't you? And as I have pointed out to you twice now,that  there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Mary had even touched Jesus before his instruction not to " TOUCH" him.  Read these consecutive verses and top weaseling. 
John 20:16  Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.


John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.