SDA Question

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

It is right in the verses I have already posted!!

Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mt 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

As it began to dawn on the first day of the week the women went to the tomb, As they were going there was a great earth quake due to an Angel from heaven that rolled back the stone and sat on it waiting for them,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri

It is right in the verses I have already posted!!

Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mt 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

As it began to dawn on the first day of the week the women went to the tomb, As they were going there was a great earth quake due to an Angel from heaven that rolled back the stone and sat on it waiting for them,

yours in Christ
deu 58

If, as you are attempting to do, you interpret these two verses to mean that the women were at the tomb when the earthquake occurred they would have witnessed the resurrection. We know that they did not. This is why I prefer history to theology. History can keerp you grounded. The obvious conclusion is that this is not to be interpreted as a chronological account.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

If, as you are attempting to do, you interpret these two verses to mean that the women were at the tomb when the earthquake occurred they would have witnessed the resurrection. We know that they did not. This is why I prefer history to theology. History can keerp you grounded. The obvious conclusion is that this is not to be interpreted as a chronological account.

If you will look at what the scripture says it does not say that they were AT the tomb when the earth quake occurred, It says they were on their way to the tomb,

Mt 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

Mt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Mt 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

Mt 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you

The angel was already there waiying when the women arrived, They did not see Jesus rise for the Angel said to them, Come and see the place where he had lain,

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri



If you will look at what the scripture says it does say that they were AT the tomb when the earth quake occurred, It says they were on their way to the tomb,

Mt 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

Mt 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Mt 28:6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

Mt 28:7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you

The angel was already there waiying when the women arrived, They did not see Jesus rise for the Angel said to them, Come and see the place where he had lain,

You omitted "not" in that first sentence. You used vs. 1 and 2 to show a continuum. Clearly one is not meant so your efforts with the other verses also fails. This passage does not try to tell us the order or proximity in which these events happened. This is evident from the first 2 verses. You cannot honestly ignore what the author tried to say in the way he structured his account.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

You omitted "not" in that first sentence. You used vs. 1 and 2 to show a continuum. Clearly one is not meant so your efforts with the other verses also fails. This passage does not try to tell us the order or proximity in which these events happened. This is evident from the first 2 verses. You cannot honestly ignore what the author tried to say in the way he structured his account.

Thanks for pointing out the typo, I have corrected it, I am not ignoring the the context of the verses, You are, You are now trying to fall back on the ever handy chronological order argument but it just does not work this time,

There is nothing wrong with the chronology that is shown in the verses themselves,

Dawn is a approaching,

The women leave for the tomb,

Earthquake caused by angel of the lord,

Gaurds at the tomb incapacitated,

stone is rolled back,

Jesus leaves the tomb

Angel awaits the arrival of the women to announce the resurrection,

Women arrive at the tomb and are greeted by the Angel, Angel tells them to go in and see for themselves that he is risen,

Pretty straight forward simple stuff here guy,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri



Thanks for pointing out the typo, I have corrected it, I am not ignoring the the context of the verses, You are, You are now trying to fall back on the ever handy chronological order argument but it just does not work this time,

There is only one reason why you posted v. 1 and 2 alone. No multiplication of words will erase that fact.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

There is only one reason why you posted v. 1 and 2 alone. No multiplication of words will erase that fact.

Yes your right there is one reason I only posted verses 1and 2,

Because those alone should have been enough, But now for some reason the rest of the verses are disqualified????

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri


Yes your right there is one reason I only posted verses 1and 2,

Because those alone should have been enough, But now for some reason the rest of the verses are disqualified????

yours in Christ
deu 58

Because the first two show that he was not being strict on chronology. You have to respect that fact.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

Because the first two show that he was not being strict on chronology. You have to respect that fact.

When I first posted the verses you did not even notice the the earthquake, Now all of a sudden that I have pointed it out to you it is a chronological problem, Which for some reason you call a fact,

I have laid it out point by point, There is no chronological problem,

I think the real problem is you are trying to save face, This topic has been exhausted, Believe what you will but I stick to the bible and history of the church.

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri



When I first posted the verses you did not even notice the the earthquake, Now all of a sudden that I have pointed it out to you it is a chronological problem, Which for some reason you call a fact,

I have laid it out point by point, There is no chronological problem,

I think the real problem is you are trying to save face, This topic has been exhausted, Believe what you will but I stick to the bible and history of the church.

yours in Christ
deu 58

I have always known that the earthquake took place before the women got to the tomb. What is your point? You are the one trying to extract a chronology from a passage that is clearly not intended to be used for that purpose.

 

[Cliff2]

Hello Stateri



When I first posted the verses you did not even notice the the earthquake, Now all of a sudden that I have pointed it out to you it is a chronological problem, Which for some reason you call a fact,

I have laid it out point by point, There is no chronological problem,

I think the real problem is you are trying to save face, This topic has been exhausted, Believe what you will but I stick to the bible and history of the church.

yours in Christ
deu 58

"history of the church"

I would be careful with that one with over umteem denominations I would only be following the Bible.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

I have always known that the earthquake took place before the women got to the tomb. What is your point? You are the one trying to extract a chronology from a passage that is clearly not intended to be used for that purpose.

You said,

Quit the nonsense and engage in discourse. You may be correct regarding the earthquake. Please provide the relative citation.

Again, I am not hear to teach you, so there is no need to fear. As to your ability to see clearly something you have never experienced, I can only commend you on your unique ability.

As I do you on yours

Yous in Christ
deu 58

 

[deu58]

Hello Cliff

"history of the church"

I would be careful with that one with over umteem denominations I would only be following the Bible.

Yes you are right, I should clarify I only accept Church history that has biblical support,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Cliff



Yes you are right, I should clarify I only accept Church history that has biblical support,

yours in Christ
deu 58

So, you judge Church history by Jewish History?

 

[deu58]

Hello Sateri

So, you judge Church history by Jewish History?

And the church fathers when they are in line with scriptural teachings, The first Christians were Jews, We`have been grafted in, They are a part of our Christian history,

The`OT must be translated by the NT for us to understand the changes from the law of Moses to the law of Christ,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Sateri



And the church fathers when they are in line with scriptural teachings, The first Christians were Jews, We`have been grafted in, They are a part of our Christian history,

The`OT must be translated by the NT for us to understand the changes from the law of Moses to the law of Christ,

yours in Christ
deu 58

I see you have been taught well.. Or shoud say you drank in what you were taught. You have no idea if it makes any sense. OT being interpreted by the NT, etc.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

I see you have been taught well.. Or shoud say you drank in what you were taught. You have no idea if it makes any sense. OT being interpreted by the NT, etc.

Actually to me it makes perfect sense, Why shouldn't it?? What do you really know of my ideas or any otherthing about me?? Your method is to recieve partial information and then jump to conclusions,

You do that with people and scripture, Maybe you are upset that I do not embrace you new theology, but to tell you frankly I see your new theology as seriously flawed,

You asked if I accepted Jewish history as christian history, Now I guessing you do not, And you think the NT writers misinterpreted things,

So this means you really do not base your theology on the Bible, So where do base it????

You have said our churchs have got it all wrong and have halted Gods plan of salvation, So that means all the thologians who have helped develop the teachings of the church are wrong also,

Except you, So where do get your info and how do you cross reference it with other teachings if you are the only one who really knows what is going on???

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri



Actually to me it makes perfect sense, Why shouldn't it?? What do you really know of my ideas or any otherthing about me?? Your method is to recieve partial information and then jump to conclusions,

You do that with people and scripture, Maybe you are upset that I do not embrace you new theology, but to tell you frankly I see your new theology as seriously flawed,

You asked if I accepted Jewish history as christian history, Now I guessing you do not, And you think the NT writers misinterpreted things,

So this means you really do not base your theology on the Bible, So where do base it????

You have said our churchs have got it all wrong and have halted Gods plan of salvation, So that means all the thologians who have helped develop the teachings of the church are wrong also,

Except you, So where do get your info and how do you cross reference it with other teachings if you are the only one who really knows what is going on???

yours in Christ
deu 58

You prefer theology to facts because you can disregard the facts in theology. Won't cut it, my brother. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

 

[deu58]

Hello Stateri

You prefer theology to facts because you can disregard the facts in theology. Won't cut it, my brother. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

And where are you getting these "facts"???? you seem to think that people should accept your "facts" when really all you have shown is you do not accept the word of God as true,

yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[statrei]

Hello Stateri



And where are you getting these "facts"???? you seem to think that people should accept your "facts" when really all you have shown is you do not accept the word of God as true,

yours in Christ
deu 58

I simply show you the facts in the Bible that you have conveniently overlooked. That's not very good.