http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html is an interesting article.

The author claims that there are Gospel stories which are , I quote, 'stereotyped' and 'contrived'.

Is it the general view that some Gospel stories are contrived?

I quote Matthew 28:1-5 'After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. '

Do forum members think that Matthew meant to write that Mary Magadlene and the other Mary were among the women that the angel spoke to in verse 5?

Sure, why not? The author seems to make a good case for this.

The only problem I have with it:

"...Matthew had points to establish to make his story -- women went to the womb; they saw the Risen Jesus;"

:o

BTW - are we supposed to see the terms "contrived" and "stereotyped" and think that he was insulting the Gospels?

Originally posted by stevencarrwork
http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html is an interesting article.

Oh. Glad you think so. Trying to pull a Sun Tzu end-around, are we, old chap? Sow a little division? We're more grown up than that here.

Ever get Rohrbaugh out of his chair at the college?

Ever figure out about those self-deceiving sundog seers?

If you're here for honest exchange, answer those two as well. It might be a start. :D

JPH

Well, neither member has answered my question (what a surprise?!!!) about wether Matthew meant that the angel in verse 5 spoke to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

The silence is as deafning
as Rorhbaugh's non-answer to my email.

According to the Cambridge English dicitionary

'contrived
adjective
DISAPPROVING
Didn't you think his excuse sounded a bit contrived (=too reasonable rather than honest)?

(disapproving) A story, film, play, etc. that is contrived is artificial and not believable.'

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...y=contrive*1+0

So, Hamster is totally correct in his claim that the author of the original site makes an excellent case that the Gospel stories are contrived.

Well, neither member has answered my question (what a surprise?!!!) about wether Matthew meant that the angel in verse 5 spoke to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

Quote: "To the people who read and wrote this, it didn't matter."


According to the Cambridge English dicitionary

'contrived
adjective
DISAPPROVING
Didn't you think his excuse sounded a bit contrived (=too reasonable rather than honest)?

(disapproving) A story, film, play, etc. that is contrived is artificial and not believable.'

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/def...ey=contrive*1+0

So, Hamster is totally correct in his claim that the author of the original site makes an excellent case that the Gospel stories are contrived.

May the other definition of contrived come out and play?

con·trived ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-trvd)
adj.
Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored: a novel with a contrived ending.

You're simply playing an equivocation game. "It said 'Fine for parking there' so I parked there... since it was fine."

I would say those wemon were all there.

Why?

Originally posted by stevencarrwork
http://www.tektonics.org/tillmagged.html is an interesting article.

The author claims that there are Gospel stories which are , I quote, 'stereotyped' and 'contrived'.

Is it the general view that some Gospel stories are contrived?

I quote Matthew 28:1-5 'After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. '

Do forum members think that Matthew meant to write that Mary Magadlene and the other Mary were among the women that the angel spoke to in verse 5?

Could you be a bit more expansive in what you are looking for? If you are trying to make a point with this, could you please state it? If you have a question would you please restate it because I am confused as to what it is you are asking about?

GP

It's Stevie at it again...

Well, neither member has answered my question (what a surprise?!!!) about wether Matthew meant that the angel in verse 5 spoke to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

As usual, you missed the answers. Quite typical of this one.

The silence is as deafning as Rorhbaugh's non-answer to my email.

I could write him myself and ask him what the holdup is. Maybe he just got tired of answering mail from someone who had a delusion of competence in an area he himself had been studying for decades in.

Meanwhile, still waiting for answers to the questions:

1) What about those self-deceivers?
2) And those ancient people who couldn't think of damming a river?
3) And heck, that link at the bottom of http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html that explains all about guilt and shame in other societies...

We know. Stevie is the expert that trumps them all.
:o
JP

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Could you be a bit more expansive in what you are looking for? If you are trying to make a point with this, could you please state it? If you have a question would you please restate it because I am confused as to what it is you are asking about?

GP

Why GP.

Stevie is an old nemesis who is looking mainly to try to sow division, mainly between myself and anyone he can. In current parlance, a troll. ;)

See him evade and spin at the link I have just above, plus

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_THL.html

Stevie, wanna debate guilt and shame? You should be vastly familiar with both by now.

JP

Steve, instead of making your arguments elsewhere and then posting them here, I would ask that you fully develop them here. Then, after you have made your argument and you may then post links to other sites that support your arguments, but this is not a place to compile web links as the main manner of argumentation.

Thanks,
GP

I was simply asking 2 questions, and hoping people would answer . I repeat them for convenience.

Is it the general view that some Gospel stories are contrived?

I quote Matthew 28:1-5 'After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. '

Do forum members think that Matthew meant to write that Mary Magadlene and the other Mary were among the women that the angel spoke to in verse 5?

Gray Pilgrim reminds us all (no doubt as a warning to Mr.Holding who has done little other than link to his web site, I also linked to Mr. Holding's web site - I apologise), '...but this is not a place to compile web links as the main manner of argumentation.' I hope Mr. Holding heeds this message in this forum.

My Collins dictionary agrees with contrived meaning 'laboured', as in 'forced'. I quote the entry 'obviously planned, artificial, or lacking in spontaneity, forced, unnatural'.

Do forum members agree that Mr. Holding is right to use such a word about the Gospel stories?

I am forbidden to link to web sites, but somebody who does not wish to reveal his real name says that Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew is useful. Could Mr. Holding consult this work and tell us what it says about Matthew 28, whether it supports his view that Matthew did not in verse 1 name the women who the angel spoke to in verse 5?

It is not forbidden to post links, in fact it is sometimes helpful. What is discouraged is making your argumentation elsewhere and not reproducing here in at least a helpful way for those who prefer not to go traveling all over cyber space to understand what is said here. So please post your links as long as you have told us what you think are the relevant posts on other sites. I was warning no one, I was speaking as a poster on this forum, not a mod, sorry for any confussion.

Daltus writes 'I would say those wemon were all there. Why?'

Thank you for answering my question. I'm pleased that somebody has.

May I ask why you would say that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were included among the women adressed by the angel?

Hamster writes 'Well, neither member has answered my question (what a surprise?!!!) about wether Matthew meant that the angel in verse 5 spoke to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

Quote: "To the people who read and wrote this, it didn't matter."'

Is that a yes or a no?

If it doesn't matter which, can I take it as a 'yes', the angel in verse 5 did speak to Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary. After all, it doesn't matter, does it?

I would say that yes the angel spoke to those women. And in expectation of your follow up question, I would say that it shows that women are not a lower level of creation, this thinking was prevelant then. For example a woman's testimony was not valid in court. The inclusion of women as the first witnesses would have shown how the Gospel turns everything on its head. A further example of this misogny can be seen in the Gospel of Thomas. Though it dates from a later period it shows thinking prevalent at that time.

[Saying probably added to the original collection at a later date:]
114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

The whole text can be found here.

stevencarrwork you said:

Originally posted by stevencarrwork
I was simply asking 2 questions, and hoping people would answer . I repeat them for convenience.

Is it the general view that some Gospel stories are contrived?

and Hamster added:

Originally posted by hamster
con·trived ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-trvd)
adj.
Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored: a novel with a contrived ending.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're simply playing an equivocation game. "It said 'Fine for parking there' so I parked there... since it was fine."

After which you said:

Originally posted by stevencarrwork
My Collins dictionary agrees with contrived meaning 'laboured', as in 'forced'. I quote the entry 'obviously planned, artificial, or lacking in spontaneity, forced, unnatural'.

Do forum members agree that Mr. Holding is right to use such a word about the Gospel stories?

I think hamster already answered your question. You are playing the equivocation game. But since you asked what the forum members thought I will answer for myself (a forum member)

You either:

A. Intentionally used a definition of contrived that made it look like Mr. Holding was implying something that he clearly was not.

B. Have a serious reading comprehension problem; or

C. Both


Then you asked:

Originally posted by stevencarrwork
Do forum members think that Matthew meant to write that Mary Magadlene and the other Mary were among the women that the angel spoke to in verse 5?

My question is, what difference does it make? Are you trying to establish an apparent contradiction. If you are it usually helps to give at least two different sources so a contradiction is possible. ;)