Red Flags In Emmaus

[FirstSunday33ad]

Pot, meet kettle..

Hardly justified considering I am making sense of the scriptures and you are trying to prove that they do not make sense.

They left for Jerusalem at once and there they met the disciples gathered together..

Seems clear to me.. they left at once (immediately) and found the others. They were excited and wanted to spread news.

It is clear to me to that that is what happened. But your 21st century sense of "immediately" (ie, get in a car and drive down lighted streets to an address) does not match 1st century "immediately" (which is, do not continue on your present journey but turn around and go back to where you came from). The sense of immediately can mean - and considering the time of day, most likely meant - that they waited till daybreak and walked back to Jerusalem. It was there in Jerusalem that they met the disciples -eventually - and told them the news.

It's also unlikely that a man could rise from the dead.. we are talking about miracles here, right? Luke's gospel is divinely inspired, right?

Meaningless red herring.

speculation on your part. The holy spirit was guiding them, for they had a mission..

Speculation?? Have you seen the desert at night? Remember we are talking about the 1st century, no electric lights, no flashlights. It's not "speculation" to say at night would couldn't see your hand in front of your face.

[quotehow many people could read at that time?[/quote]

Red Herring.

as soon as feasible = at once, now? When did the word "eventually" slip in there? what is eventually... a week, two weeks?

It is called "explanation". Eventually they met the disciples. Given the time frame, I would guess about two to three weeks later.

[Jayrok]

Again you selectively use the verses.

Note what else the Emmaus men say:

"“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.

If these men were disciples in the same sense that the eleven were disciples, they would not have described Jesus as being a prophet. Especially as Peter at this time had already declared Jesus to be the "Christ, the Son of the Living God".

In light of this information, when these men say that "some of our women..." this sense indicates a community of followers that resided in Jerusalem that was led by Peter and the eleven. It is more likely that these men heard the report of Jesus' resurrection through the grape-vine and not first hand and this is the reason that they did not know what to make of this news.

To say that they "heard it through the grapevine" is not likely when given the fact that these men said some of our women went to the tomb this morning and told us..

The women who went to the tomb, included the marys.. these same women told them what the angel said. Are you suggesting that the women that told these guys weren't the Mary's.. but were just some other women who happened to go to the tomb?

Your interpretation is reaching for things that just aren't there..

I also question why these disciples didn't tell the stranger on the road that Jesus was God encarnate.. If they were disciples of Jesus, how could they not know he was the son of God? Was this a secret for just Peter and John?

[Jayrok]

It is called "explanation". Eventually they met the disciples. Given the time frame, I would guess about two to three weeks later.

This is FirstSunday33ad's explanation.. that doesn't make it correct. I'd stick with the text for the proper explanation..

[FirstSunday33ad]

To say that they "heard it through the grapevine" is not likely when given the fact that these men said some of our women went to the tomb this morning and told us..

"US" as in the community. Reports in the 1st century were not always face to face; the grapevine was an important way of dispersing information.

The women who went to the tomb, included the marys.. these same women told them what the angel said. Are you suggesting that the women that told these guys weren't the Mary's.. but were just some other women who happened to go to the tomb?

I'm am suggesting no such thing and I wonder where you get this impression. Luke is quite clear on who the women were.

Your interpretation is reaching for things that just aren't there..

I also question why these disciples didn't tell the stranger on the road that Jesus was God encarnate.. If they were disciples of Jesus, how could they not know he was the son of God? Was this a secret for just Peter and John?

Exactly...obviously they were not followers in the sense that they walked with Jesus. They lived and stayed in Jerusalem and at this stage still thought of Jesus as a prophet. It was not until His resurrection and ascension that they understood that He was the Messiah.

[FirstSunday33ad]

This is FirstSunday33ad's explanation.. that doesn't make it correct. I'd stick with the text for the proper explanation..

You mean YOUR explanation? The one that snips pieces from each Gospel so long as the support your contention of discrepancy? Sure, stick with a conclusion in search of evidence.

[Jayrok]

You mean YOUR explanation? The one that snips pieces from each Gospel so long as the support your contention of discrepancy? Sure, stick with a conclusion in search of evidence.

You are the one that has to "snip" pieces from each gospel to try and make them harmonize.. you say things like "John doesn't have to mention this because Luke does".. you said we can't just read one of them to get the story, we have to read them all bits and pieces at a time.. And since (as you say) the gospels were written in "blocks", we don't know exactly when an event really took place.. Chapter 20 could mean six months ago, then chapter 21 could mean next week, etc..

but whatever...

[FirstSunday33ad]

You are the one that has to "snip" pieces from each gospel to try and make them harmonize.. you say things like "John doesn't have to mention this because Luke does".. you said we can't just read one of them to get the story, we have to read them all bits and pieces at a time.. And since (as you say) the gospels were written in "blocks", we don't know exactly when an event really took place.. Chapter 20 could mean six months ago, then chapter 21 could mean next week, etc..

but whatever...

Oh quite the contrary my good fellow, I have harmonized the Gospels using every single verse.

That you are limited in your understanding of how first century writers structured their material and of the type of logic they used (that is "block logic" not "written in blocks"), is hardly the fault of the Gospels.

But you are putting words into my mouth and I can't have that. I never said you could not read just one to get the story nor did I say that you had to read them in bits and pieces. I stated that you could not read them individually to get the full story. If you wanted the full story, then you had to read them together as a whole.

I have no idea where you are getting the "bits and pieces" claim.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Poly,

Lee: I do think that Mark 16:11-14 was not part of what Mark wrote…

Poly: Are you saying that all our Bibles contain false and apocryphal stories, I mean what experts call the longer ending in Mark?

Well, the current translations either list several endings to Mark, or at the very least put a footnote in about the earliest manuscripts not having these verses. So we can tell where there is a question! Yes, I believe the longer ending is apocryphal, as is 1 John 5:7, but these are well-known, and with the possible question about John 8 (which seems to me authentic), I think these are all of the questions of this type that need consideration.

Lee: Now about the disciples not believing, the account is indeed consistent if the disciples didn't believe them at first, but then went to the tomb themselves, and later became convinced…

Poly: Sorry, but the account of Cleophas himself makes it clear that the disciples went to the tomb and came back empty-handed, as far as faith in the resurrection is concerned, I mean: "but him they saw not" (v.24). If they had been convinced, the pilgrims would have known it and shared their faith.

Yes, but maybe the disciples on the road to Emmaus left before the other disciples were convinced of Jesus' resurrection? Peter didn't seem convinced even after seeing the empty tomb, and when the Emmaus-road disciples returned, we have "The Lord appeared to Peter!"

Poly: The other disciple whom Jesus loved didn't tell Peter or the others anything about his own insight, which is very interesting indeed. I remind you of what the disciples told Thomas: WE have seen the Lord (20:25). This is quite different from: "he has appeared to Simon", in Luke.

Yes, but could this mean that Jesus appeared to Peter and the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then the disciples from Emmaus arrived before Jesus' visit to all the disciples that evening:

Luke 24:36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

And then they all told Thomas, "We have seen the Lord!"

Blessings,
Lee

[Jayrok]

Oh quite the contrary my good fellow, I have harmonized the Gospels using every single verse.

you've harmonized them to your own satisfaction, which is very easy to do.

I have no idea where you are getting the "bits and pieces" claim.

You take bits of John, like a fishing trip in Galilee, and shove that into parts of Luke, between verses of conversation with the disciples.. and claim a week or two time span occured between those verses.. then you try to talk down to others when they disagree with you with phrases like this:

"You remain "unconvinced" - gee what a shock".

Have fun convincing yourself..

[FirstSunday33ad]

you've harmonized them to your own satisfaction, which is very easy to do.

That reply doesn't make a bit of sense. If I had harmonized the Gospels but was NOT satisfied with the result, I could hardly claim that I had harmonized the Gospels now could I?

And if it is so easy to do, why do you claim that the CAN'T be harmonized. It is your claim that the Gospels are so rife with contradiction that harmony is impossible.

You take bits of John, like a fishing trip in Galilee, and shove that into parts of Luke, between verses of conversation with the disciples.. and claim a week or two time span occured between those verses.. then you try to talk down to others when they disagree with you with phrases like this:

"You remain "unconvinced" - gee what a shock".

Have fun convincing yourself..

I take this to mean you are abandoning this thread. Oh well then, last word to me then.

I do nothing of the kind with the verses of John. I take ALL of John's Gospel and harmonize it with Matthew, Mark and Luke. I draw attention to the fact that Matthew states that the eleven went to Galilee and then refer to John to show what they did and what they experienced in Galilee. When they return to Jerusalem, I return to Luke who completes the story for us by telling us the Jeruslem experiences that followed.

The thing you fail to understand and what causes you to contradict yourself, is that the harmonization holds together; the story flows smoothly without sudden leaps away from the action or breaks in the flow of argument. Harmonized, the story of the resurrection holds together and remains sensible. When Polynesian girl claimed this could only be done by removing text you applauded her; why do my results earn your condemnation when they are in fact better?

[Jayrok]

That reply doesn't make a bit of sense. If I had harmonized the Gospels but was NOT satisfied with the result, I could hardly claim that I had harmonized the Gospels now could I?

Meaning, you can come up with scenarios that would satisfy your desire to harmonize. That is easy to do. You treat difficulties by just placing events mentioned in other accounts awkwardly in between events in the account you are trying to harmonize (with the others).

It is your claim that the Gospels are so rife with contradiction that harmony is impossible.

and I'm certainly not alone.. I believe the narratives in the gospels are independent of one another. The contradiction arises when you try to fit the events in one of them into the chronology of another one. They tell different stories based on the same event. The problem with this is if you are trying to force the bible to be 100% innerrent, you are forced to reconcile each and every sentence in each and every gospel account. Each of them have to mesh with the others.. and they don't. Sorry.

I draw attention to the fact that Matthew states that the eleven went to Galilee and then refer to John to show what they did and what they experienced in Galilee. When they return to Jerusalem, I return to Luke who completes the story for us by telling us the Jeruslem experiences that followed.

The problem with this is the fact that there is no time for them to go to galilee in Luke's account. That meeting with the disciples occured the same night as Jesus' resurrection. You are trying to say that it occured weeks later, after the fishing trip to Galilee.

The thing you fail to understand and what causes you to contradict yourself, is that the harmonization holds together

It doesn't hold together. It is delusional to suggest that Luke left out an important tidbit like Jesus' command for them to meet him in Galilee. And how do I contradict myself? I'm just posting what Luke says.. I'm not trying to fit fishing trips 80 miles away in between paragraphs in Luke.

the story flows smoothly without sudden leaps away from the action or breaks in the flow of argument.

Then how ironic that you use these "breaks" in the action when using John to fit into Luke.. i.e. Luke 24:33 -- "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem.<break> There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together"..

Your "break" goes between the words "Jerusalem" and "There".. This is where you claim the two disciples didn't find the Eleven there until the eleven returned from Galilee.. And that could not have been in less than a week, at least.. This "break" isn't even between paragraphs.. it is in the same sentence!

The truth is, they found the eleven there that same night, just as Luke writes.

When Polynesian girl claimed this could only be done by removing text you applauded her; why do my results earn your condemnation when they are in fact better?

When they are better? I believe that you've convinced yourself that you are correct. But forgive me for saying this, but I think you are delusional.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Meaning, you can come up with scenarios that would satisfy your desire to harmonize. That is easy to do. You treat difficulties by just placing events mentioned in other accounts awkwardly in between events in the account you are trying to harmonize (with the others).

That still does not make sense. If there is a problem with my chronology then point out what it is. But to accuse me of "coming up" with "scenarios" implies that I am inventing facts that have no support. As I am strictly using only those verses that are supplied in all four Gospels and I use EVERY SINGLE verse, it is hard for you to justify that claim.

and I'm certainly not alone.. I believe the narratives in the gospels are independent of one another. The contradiction arises when you try to fit the events in one of them into the chronology of another one. They tell different stories based on the same event. The problem with this is if you are trying to force the bible to be 100% innerrent, you are forced to reconcile each and every sentence in each and every gospel account. Each of them have to mesh with the others.. and they don't. Sorry.

There are independent of one another, but you are the first non-Christian I have met who admits this fact. The narratives are four perspectives from four different sources who wrote for four different audiences and with four different purposes. They tell the SAME story of the same event - that the Messiah had come in the form of Jesus Christ; that He lived, taught, worked miracles, was crucified, died and rose again on the third day.

And contrary to what you may think it is not my motive to "force the Bible to be 100% inerrent". It is my purpose to reconstruct the events that took place during Jesus' ministry and resurrection. This has been done very successfully. It is not enough for you to simply claim that something doesn't "mesh" with the others, you must demonstrate, using the methodology of ancient historical research, why they do not.

The problem with this is the fact that there is no time for them to go to galilee in Luke's account. That meeting with the disciples occured the same night as Jesus' resurrection. You are trying to say that it occured weeks later, after the fishing trip to Galilee.

That is exactly when it occurred and for you to claim that it happened the same night only demonstrates ignorance of the time and place. Again, I should not have to keep repeating this fact. The Emmaus men had reached the end of the day when they stopped to eat - in other words they had been walking all day and night was coming on.

For them to be able to report back to the eleven the same night as when they had met Jesus, they would have had to have walked back to Jerusalem, gained access into the city, walked down the streets, found the building where the eleven were staying all in a few hours. This of course would have happened in pitch blackness and under the ever present danger of thieves and Roman patrols. Assuming that they could even get to Jerusalem, they would then have to convince the guards at the gate to open the door in the gate and let them in - an extremely difficult job for people without valid reasons for being out after dark.

Inside the city their job would only be half over. Stumbling through dark deserted streets, they would have to avoid drunks, patrols and thieves as they made their way towards a locked and darkened building. Assuming that they knew the city well enough to find their way through in pitch blackness and that they were able to find the actual house, they would then run the risk of being taken for robbers or murderers as they tried to gain entrance.

No, what these men did do is what people of the 1st century always did. They would have waited until daybreak and then walked back Jerusalem. But by this time it was too late as the eleven had already left for Galilee.

It doesn't hold together. It is delusional to suggest that Luke left out an important tidbit like Jesus' command for them to meet him in Galilee. And how do I contradict myself? I'm just posting what Luke says.. I'm not trying to fit fishing trips 80 miles away in between paragraphs in Luke.

Why is it "delusional"? Do you know under what circumstances Luke wrote his Gospel or for what audience. Luke was writing for a Greek audience in Jerusalem. There can be a number of reasons why he left the Galilee trip by the eleven out of his account;

1) he may have been unable to confirm the details
2) he felt it it would not interest his audience that they would only want to know the details that occurred in Jerusalem
3) he was limited in the amount of information he could provide due to a lack of writing paper and wrote only what he knew would be of interest.
4) a combination of all the above.

Any one of these is a far more believeable reason than some fantasy about a separate tradition for the Jerusalem church or whatever other fiction you have chosen to accept.

Then how ironic that you use these "breaks" in the action when using John to fit into Luke.. i.e. Luke 24:33 -- "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem.<break> There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together"..

Your "break" goes between the words "Jerusalem" and "There".. This is where you claim the two disciples didn't find the Eleven there until the eleven returned from Galilee.. And that could not have been in less than a week, at least.. This "break" isn't even between paragraphs.. it is in the same sentence!

The truth is, they found the eleven there that same night, just as Luke writes.

Except Luke does not write that they found the eleven the same night. You are reading that into the text simply because he did not write that is was not the same night.

In fact Luke makes no reference to time at all. As I pointed out, in the first century, "immediately" meant you stopped doing what you planned to do and started doing something else. It did not have the same sense of "immediacy" that it does today. For example, a first century historian wrote that an Aurelian, after defeating the Macromanni, he "immediately" went to Pannonia to confront the Goths. But modern historical research shows that this "immediately" took about a week or more.

As for the "paragraphs" and "sentences", you should know that in the first century there were no paragraphs or sentences. Words ran together in a long unbroken string of letters. As for the "break"; it occurs between sentences and not "in the same sentance".

When they are better? I believe that you've convinced yourself that you are correct. But forgive me for saying this, but I think you are delusional.

Because I did not have to delete anything.

I don't forgive you for calling me delusional because there is nothing to forgive. You believe that I am creating a harmony when none exists because it is important to your world view. You in fact are the one who is operating under the delusion. You prefer to continue to deceive yourself because to admit that the harmony actually does work and does make sense would be too much of a challenge to your reality. You prefer to continue to believe that there is no harmony when it is quite obvious that there is.

[Jayrok]

That still does not make sense. If there is a problem with my chronology then point out what it is. But to accuse me of "coming up" with "scenarios" implies that I am inventing facts that have no support. As I am strictly using only those verses that are supplied in all four Gospels and I use EVERY SINGLE verse, it is hard for you to justify that claim.

You invented the idea that the disciples were not in Jerusalem when the two men arrived. You are also inventing the notion that when Jesus appeared to the disciples and says “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”..... that he is only talking to the disciples who didn't go to Galilee (i.e. the two on the road).. There is no evidence to back that up.. it's just your theory.

It doesn't make sense for him to be talking to them, because those two already saw Jesus in the flesh.. he ate with them, so why would they be startled and unbelieving? Jesus was talking to the other disciples.. the eleven.

And that is why it doesn't make sense for them to have already been to Galilee. By the time Jesus appeared to the fishermen on the sea, it was his third time appearing to them. They were getting used to him popping in to say hi.

It is not enough for you to simply claim that something doesn't "mesh" with the others, you must demonstrate, using the methodology of ancient historical research, why they do not.

I thought about posting in your long verse by verse thread, but saw J Powell doing the same thing. Those tend to get long and drawn out and nothing gets done. No one reads them as they get long and hard to follow. I've picked a couple of parts to discuss, not the whole story. But yes, I find problems in other parts of the story too.. just haven't commented on them.

But going back to the two on the road, since it's the topic of his thread...

That is exactly when it occurred and for you to claim that it happened the same night only demonstrates ignorance of the time and place. Again, I should not have to keep repeating this fact. The Emmaus men had reached the end of the day when they stopped to eat - in other words they had been walking all day and night was coming on.

For them to be able to report back to the eleven the same night as when they had met Jesus, they would have had to have walked back to Jerusalem, gained access into the city, walked down the streets, found the building where the eleven were staying all in a few hours. This of course would have happened in pitch blackness and under the ever present danger of thieves and Roman patrols. Assuming that they could even get to Jerusalem, they would then have to convince the guards at the gate to open the door in the gate and let them in - an extremely difficult job for people without valid reasons for being out after dark.

Inside the city their job would only be half over. Stumbling through dark deserted streets, they would have to avoid drunks, patrols and thieves as they made their way towards a locked and darkened building. Assuming that they knew the city well enough to find their way through in pitch blackness and that they were able to find the actual house, they would then run the risk of being taken for robbers or murderers as they tried to gain entrance.

No, what these men did do is what people of the 1st century always did. They would have waited until daybreak and then walked back Jerusalem. But by this time it was too late as the eleven had already left for Galilee.

Couple of things..

Let's say they did wait for daybreak, or even a few hours before daybreak and they reached the city in the morning.. You are saying the eleven were gone to Galilee, correct?

So this would have been Sunday morning/afternoon.. and the eleven were on their trek to Galilee.. Since we are using all the gospels, let's jump to John 20:19 and 20:

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

So per John, the disciples were together, behind locked doors, on the night of Jesus' resurrection (the first day of the week)..

Are you saying they were in Galilee behind locked doors? There's no way they could have made it to Galilee in one day, as cars weren't invented yet. So they must have been in Jerusalem still on Sunday night..

So let's say they met Jesus in the room in Jerusalem, then in the morning, they went to Galilee (monday).. The two on the road show up monday morning and the boys are gone.. so they just wait there for their return.

Now a week later, they must have been back at the house in Jerusalem because John 20:26 says so..

So, on Monday morning, the disciples trek to Galilee to meet Jesus.. Now this is strange, because they just met him last night in the house.. Why did they go to Galilee? Because according to Matthew, The angel told the women to tell the disciples to go there and they'd meet Jesus. Well, Jesus had a change of plans because he met them in Jerusalem instead (according to John)..

Ok, so they get to Galilee and they meet Jesus on a mountain (Matthew 28:16).. There, Jesus gives them the great commission. He commands them to go and make disciples of all the nations and baptize in the trinity..

So what do they do? They fish first, and Jesus appears again.. Then, instead of going to make disciples of all the nations like Jesus told them to do, they go back to Jerusalem and hole themselves up in the same room in the house.. they lock the doors in fear of the jews.. This is a week later (remember John 20:26).. At this time, the two from the road tell the disciples they saw Jesus..

If Jesus gave them his commission and told them to go forth and do great things, why were they hiding in a locked room in fear of the jews? and why were they startled and surprised when they saw Jesus yet again?

Now, if your theory is true, the eleven have already seen Jesus 3 times.. no wait, that makes two times.. See, according to John, the fishing trip sighting was after the meeting where Jesus showed himself to Thomas.. So if this is the meeting (with Thomas) where the two from the road tell their story, that means they went "back" to galilee to fish.. But we know they couldn't have went "back" to Galilee because Jesus commanded them to stay in Jerusalem (luke 24:49)..

Why is it "delusional"? Do you know under what circumstances Luke wrote his Gospel or for what audience. Luke was writing for a Greek audience in Jerusalem. There can be a number of reasons why he left the Galilee trip by the eleven out of his account;

1) he may have been unable to confirm the details
2) he felt it it would not interest his audience that they would only want to know the details that occurred in Jerusalem
3) he was limited in the amount of information he could provide due to a lack of writing paper and wrote only what he knew would be of interest.
4) a combination of all the above.

so to be straight.. Luke left off the Galilee trip because the Jerusalem greeks didn't care about that? although the story dealt with their Messiah? ok..

Any one of these is a far more believeable reason than some fantasy about a separate tradition for the Jerusalem church or whatever other fiction you have chosen to accept.

What I accept? heh.. It's your story, kid.. I'm just questioning you on it..

I don't forgive you for calling me delusional because there is nothing to forgive. You believe that I am creating a harmony when none exists because it is important to your world view.

my world view?

my world view isn't in question in apologetics..

You in fact are the one who is operating under the delusion. You prefer to continue to deceive yourself because to admit that the harmony actually does work and does make sense would be too much of a challenge to your reality. You prefer to continue to believe that there is no harmony when it is quite obvious that there is.

defensive.. Do you honestly think that the resurrection stories are the only reason I question the validity of christianity? if so, then you are delusional..

There are more nuts falling off that tree than just those accounts..

[FirstSunday33ad]

You invented the idea that the disciples were not in Jerusalem when the two men arrived. You are also inventing the notion that when Jesus appeared to the disciples and says “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”..... that he is only talking to the disciples who didn't go to Galilee (i.e. the two on the road).. There is no evidence to back that up.. it's just your theory.

It doesn't make sense for him to be talking to them, because those two already saw Jesus in the flesh.. he ate with them, so why would they be startled and unbelieving? Jesus was talking to the other disciples.. the eleven.

And that is why it doesn't make sense for them to have already been to Galilee. By the time Jesus appeared to the fishermen on the sea, it was his third time appearing to them. They were getting used to him popping in to say hi.

*sigh*

There were other people in the room. This was the Jerusalem community remember. Jesus hadn't appeared to them as yet. He had appeared to the eleven and the Galilee community but up to this time of Luke's narrative He had not yet appeared to the Jerusalem community.

When the disciples return they gather the community together and tell them that Jesus has returned and appeared to them all. At that point in walk the Emmaus men with their - now dated - news. Just as they are all abuzz Jesus appears and has to reassure those who wonder what He is and what is happening by saying :

"Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have"

I thought about posting in your long verse by verse thread, but saw J Powell doing the same thing. Those tend to get long and drawn out and nothing gets done. No one reads them as they get long and hard to follow. I've picked a couple of parts to discuss, not the whole story. But yes, I find problems in other parts of the story too.. just haven't commented on them.

But going back to the two on the road, since it's the topic of his thread...

Well thank you for that. That thread was so long it still gives me nightmares. As this on is starting to.

Couple of things..

Let's say they did wait for daybreak, or even a few hours before daybreak and they reached the city in the morning.. You are saying the eleven were gone to Galilee, correct?

So this would have been Sunday morning/afternoon.. and the eleven were on their trek to Galilee..

Actually it would have been Monday morning that they were on the way, but continue.

Since we are using all the gospels, let's jump to John 20:19 and 20:19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

So per John, the disciples were together, behind locked doors, on the night of Jesus' resurrection (the first day of the week)..

Are you saying they were in Galilee behind locked doors? There's no way they could have made it to Galilee in one day, as cars weren't invented yet. So they must have been in Jerusalem still on Sunday night..

No and neither does John. He clearly states and you even quote him as saying "On the evening of that first day of the week". So it is Sunday night after 6:00 pm - which is when the Jews counted evening as beginning - and Jesus appears to "disciples" in the house where they had met. Considering John repeatedly uses the term "The Eleven" and even "the twelve" when speaking of the apostles collectively, the term "disciples" most likely refers to people who were not the apostles. This conclusion is reinforced by Thomas' reaction to their news that Jesus had risen. Such a degree of doubt towards a report coming from Peter or any of the "senior" eleven would have been insulting. Coming from "newbies" or lower ranking apostles could be expected.

Now we skip forward a week later, Thomas IS in Galilee and does meet Jesus; the rest is history.

So let's say they met Jesus in the room in Jerusalem, then in the morning, they went to Galilee (monday).. The two on the road show up monday morning and the boys are gone.. so they just wait there for their return.

Now a week later, they must have been back at the house in Jerusalem because John 20:26 says so..

So, on Monday morning, the disciples trek to Galilee to meet Jesus..

So far so good.

Now this is strange, because they just met him last night in the house..

No, at this point only one and no more than five of the eleven had met Jesus, excluding Thomas, Peter, John, Nathanael and the sons of Zebedee,

Why did they go to Galilee? Because according to Matthew, The angel told the women to tell the disciples to go there and they'd meet Jesus. Well, Jesus had a change of plans because he met them in Jerusalem instead (according to John)..

They went to Galilee to meet Jesus. Do you note the chronology of who Jesus appeared to first? First the lowest of the low - women. Then the doubtful: the Emmaus men who still call Him a prophet. Then "newbie" disciples who nobody believes. Then the lower apostles, then Thomas, finally Peter and John - the big boys. This was typical behaviour of Jesus to go to the lowest first and the great last.

Ok, so they get to Galilee and they meet Jesus on a mountain (Matthew 28:16).. There, Jesus gives them the great commission. He commands them to go and make disciples of all the nations and baptize in the trinity..

No, Jesus did not give them the Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee. This was not given until His ascension.

So what do they do? They fish first,

Uh...they do still have to eat you know.

and Jesus appears again.. Then, instead of going to make disciples of all the nations like Jesus told them to do, they go back to Jerusalem and hole themselves up in the same room in the house..

Why should they go to a new house? This is 1st century Jerusalem remember? You couldn't just open the newspaper and look under "flats for rent"

they lock the doors in fear of the jews..

Where are you getting this? They do no such thing.

This is a week later (remember John 20:26).. At this time, the two from the road tell the disciples they saw Jesus..

If Jesus gave them his commission and told them to go forth and do great things, why were they hiding in a locked room in fear of the jews? and why were they startled and surprised when they saw Jesus yet again?

Again you are examining the Gospels seperately and are assuming that each event happened seperately. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus told His apostles repeatedly that He was going to send them into the world. He told them in Galilee, by the lake and in Jerusalem. It was His final instruction at His ascension that was the signal that the commission was about to begin. His work on earth was over and now His apostles and disciples were expected to be His emmissaries when the Holy Spirit came. THAT was the start of the Great Commission.

Now, if your theory is true, the eleven have already seen Jesus 3 times.. no wait, that makes two times.. See, according to John, the fishing trip sighting was after the meeting where Jesus showed himself to Thomas.. So if this is the meeting (with Thomas) where the two from the road tell their story, that means they went "back" to galilee to fish.. But we know they couldn't have went "back" to Galilee because Jesus commanded them to stay in Jerusalem (luke 24:49)..

giving head a good shake Wow...you are one confused individual.

Jesus appeared 1) in the house without Thomas. 2) a week later in Galilee with Thomas. 3) besides the lake to Peter and John. Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem where the meet Jesus with the Jerusalem church AND the Emmaus men.

so to be straight.. Luke left off the Galilee trip because the Jerusalem greeks didn't care about that? although the story dealt with their Messiah? ok..

So you don't accept this theory? Big deal. Neither do a lot of people. NEXT.

What I accept? heh.. It's your story, kid.. I'm just questioning you on it..

And doing a very very poor job of it I might add.

my world view?

my world view isn't in question in apologetics..

No, but it is your worldview that is keeping you from seeing what is clear as crystal. If you used this same methodology towards history in general and towards other subjects in school, you would still be in the eighth grade.

defensive.. Do you honestly think that the resurrection stories are the only reason I question the validity of christianity? if so, then you are delusional..

There are more nuts falling off that tree than just those accounts..

Oh good gravey...OF COURSE NOT! You question the validity of Christianity based on the number of pages in the Bible, on the number of periods and commas, on the type of binding it has. You question the validity of Christianity because you know how far the earth is from the sun, because you didn't get a pony when you were six even though you prayed for one, because someone you really like said Christianity was stupid, because it pisses off your parents, because you just don't like it.

You question the validity of Christianity for a million different reasons and you invent more each day of the week.

I think I know that when it comes to your ability to reject and disbelieve, the Kennedy myth looks like as school picnic.

[Jayrok]

Now we skip forward a week later, Thomas IS in Galilee and does meet Jesus; the rest is history.

not true. There is no proof that Thomas' meeting was in Galilee. This is speculation on your part, that is all.

John 20:26 says A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" NIV

This indicates that this is the same house they were in during verse 19, where you concur they were in Jerusalem.

No, at this point only one and no more than five of the eleven had met Jesus, excluding Thomas, Peter, John, Nathanael and the sons of Zebedee,

Where is your scriptural support that Peter was not among the disciples Jesus appeared to that first night? Same for John, Nathaniel and the sons of Zebedee..

No, Jesus did not give them the Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee. This was not given until His ascension.

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..

I suppose you are going to say that between verse 17 and verse 18, an undisclosed amount of time passed.. like say, 40 days or so.

Jesus appeared 1) in the house without Thomas. 2) a week later in Galilee with Thomas. 3) besides the lake to Peter and John. Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem where the meet Jesus with the Jerusalem church AND the Emmaus men.

Your theory hinges on your idea that when the text says "disciples", it isn't talking about the eleven apostles. But it is talking about them. John 20 opens up describing Peter and John running to the tomb after speaking with Mary mags. Then after they see the empty tomb and his clothes, they go to their homes. Verse 10 says 10Then the disciples went back to their homes,..

Here it is clearly talking about Peter and John.. yet it simply says "the disciples" went back to their homes. In other places, these apostles are called disciples.. His disciples.. You claim that Jesus appeared to "his disciples" on the night of his resurrection, but you assert that Peter, John and the sons of Zebedee were not present at this meeting because Jesus only appeared to them by the sea of galilee. Even though John 21:14 says it is the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples. You are saying that by this verse, the author means the disciples in general, not any specific ones. Ok, sure.

So you don't accept this theory?

I don't accept any of your theories.. neither do any christians I've ever talked to.

And doing a very very poor job of it I might add.

to you. It's all clear to me.

No, but it is your worldview that is keeping you from seeing what is clear as crystal. If you used this same methodology towards history in general and towards other subjects in school, you would still be in the eighth grade.

Oh good gravey...OF COURSE NOT! You question the validity of Christianity based on the number of pages in the Bible, on the number of periods and commas, on the type of binding it has. You question the validity of Christianity because you know how far the earth is from the sun, because you didn't get a pony when you were six even though you prayed for one, because someone you really like said Christianity was stupid, because it pisses off your parents, because you just don't like it.

It seems you are upset. I have several reasons for questioning the validity of your religion, but none of those you post here. And your condescending tone doesn't do much for any credibility you might have either. But, spout away, that's all you've done here anyway.

You question the validity of Christianity for a million different reasons and you invent more each day of the week.

Invent isn't the right word.. reasons mainly come naturally these days, especially after engaging in conversations like this. Your attempt at making all this fit together, while amusing at first, is beginning to appear desperate and just sad.

You are the one who is inventing. You invent ideas like the prominent apostles weren't at the first two meetings with Jesus when he appeared to his disciples in the house in Jerusalem.. nor in Galilee.. You invent ideas like in Matthew 28:18, where Jesus gives them the great commission on the mountain in Galilee, you say that was really at pentecost.. One of my bibles actually says in big bold letters "The Great Commission" right before verse 16 of Matthew 28.

Why is it that we can google hundreds of christian study sites and they explain the events of the resurrection different than you? I mean what makes them wrong and you right?

And why should we trust you and just wave off other explanations as just wrong?