So who did Jesus appear to first?

[gracelife]

Actually the post was started because at catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp

To make a scriptural argument for the primacy of Peter, the following verses were listed …

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Considering Mark 16:9, at face value, this looked like an error on that page.

Was looking for clarification.

 

[dancus]

thistle:

My comments were not referring to the appearance of Jesus afer his resurrection. I agree he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, but you also mentioned all the Gospels said she was at the Cruxification.In the Gospel of Luke the Cruxification, Death, and Burial of Jesus is Luke 23: 33-56 and no women are named.

That I have never given much, if any, thought. It does seem strange no women are named. The names would have been known to Luke. Also, of all the writers, his concern for women equaled that of Jesus. Just a theory, Luke was not present at the time, as I said, he was second generation Christian. He borrowed heavily from Mark, a lesser amount from Matthew. Now consider this, if you will, Mt27:56 we find three women named. In Mk 15:40 we find other women named, The only constant names Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of James and Joseph. In one Salome is named, in the other a womn described as the mother of James and John. Both Gosples also mention the other women from Galliee who followed Jesus in His ministry, Could it be, given Lukes concern for women. He hesitated to single any one, or more,of them out? Thinking if he mentioned none, problem solved. I said it was a theory, nothing more. Dan

 

[Mystophilus]

thistle:

My comments were not referring to the appearance of Jesus afer his resurrection. I agree he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, but you also mentioned all the Gospels said she was at the Crucifixion. In the Gospel of Luke the Crucifixion, Death, and Burial of Jesus is Luke 23: 33-56 and no women are named.

…within those particular verses; however, the most reliable reading of the description “women who had followed him from Galilee” must include Mary Magdalene, because a/ Magdala was in the area of Galilee, b/ she is listed among the women who were with Jesus as his ministry was travelling around Galilee and began to move out into other areas (Lk 8:1-3), c/ she is at the Resurrection, which means that she was in Jerusalem at the time and is unlikely to have skipped the murder of her Lord, and d/ all of the other Gospels put her at the Crucifixion. I described her as the “only person listed as being” there, and she occurs in the list with the other women from Galilee. Considering that you yourself believe that she was there, I am not really sure what you are arguing about.

 

[thistle]

Mystophilus:

…within those particular verses; however, the most reliable reading of the description “women who had followed him from Galilee” must include Mary Magdalene, because a/ Magdala was in the area of Galilee, b/ she is listed among the women who were with Jesus as his ministry was travelling around Galilee and began to move out into other areas (Lk 8:1-3), c/ she is at the Resurrection, which means that she was in Jerusalem at the time and is unlikely to have skipped the murder of her Lord, and d/ all of the other Gospels put her at the Crucifixion. I described her as the “only person listed as being” there, and she occurs in the list with the other women from Galilee. Considering that you yourself believe that she was there, I am not really sure what you are arguing about.

I’m not arguing. I agree she was there. I was only responding to Dancus statement that she was personally named in each gospel as being present at the crucifixion. She wasn’t but obviously being named in 3 of the 4 gospels that she was there means she was there.

 

[Mystophilus]

gracelife:

To make a scriptural argument for the primacy of Peter, the following verses were listed …

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 16:7).
The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Considering Mark 16:9, at face value, this looked like an error on that page.

Was looking for clarification.

Going back to the catholic.com list, I would say that, from a literary perspective, the last two points are the most significant:
"Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just “Peter and the twelve. "
Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.”

Those two suggest that the NT authors attached considerable importance to Peter, over and above the other apostles, and even a heretic such as myself can see that.

 

[dancus]

gracelife:

Actually the post was started because at catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp

To make a scriptural argument for the primacy of Peter, the following verses were listed …

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

Considering Mark 16:9, at face value, this looked like an error on that page.

Was looking for clarification.

I’ll do my very best to help you, I must tell you this. It isn’t my practise to seek errors in the Bible. The site you mention seems to be chasing an agenda that escapes me. If you believe there an error with that page or verse, I can assure you it’s widespread, which I doubt, Since I saw your post I have compared that verse in the NAB, KJV and Blue Line Bible. The last two are Protestant but Mk 16.9 is consistant. I would refer you to Mk 16.7 there we have an Angel who bids the women to tell His deciples and Peter. Now if I was pushing an agenda I could make a case that Peter was an afterthought. Now we go to Luke 24.34, Read the entire chapter then it will become clear. There again you will find angels at the tomb, no where else in the Chapter. No further mention is made of Angels, then the two men who met Jesus appear in the upper room and describe meeeting Him. Only then does one of the deciples say.“He appeared to Simon.” I do find it strange they’d let them relate their story before inserting this news. Since you have piqued my interest I could check the Vulgate Bible, my Latins good enough for a simple verse. However I can assure you I’ll find the exact same wording. Don’t allow the thought I quoted a Protestant Bible concern you, I my studies I’ve found them to be word for word with ours. I hope I haven’t confused more then helped. Keep this in mind there aren’t any errors in the word of God, only errors in peoples minds. That caused by trying to force an answer an answer someone wants. Dan

 

[dancus]

thistle:

I’m not arguing. I agree she was there. I was only responding to Dancus statement that she was personally named in each gospel as being present at the crucifixion. She wasn’t but obviously being named in 3 of the 4 gospels that she was there means she was there.

Sorry thistle, I can only assume you reject my theory of why no women were named in Lukes Gosple. Oh well, some theories fly and some that do get shot down. Dan

 

[gracelife]

Thanks Dan, the link is actually to a page at the catholic.com website.

I’m not seeing the error in the Bible, but rather at the web page. I agree, it says what it says.

The error, I see is in the wording at catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp

God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7). [should be Mark 16:7]

The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).

I don’t see how the verses in parantheses, support the statement the comes before them. My concern is that someone reading those statements from the catholic.com webpage above and the verses that are referenced in relation to those statements could see an error (beyond the typo).

 

[dancus]

Mystophilus:

Going back to the catholic.com list, I would say that, from a literary perspective, the last two points are the most significant:
"Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just “Peter and the twelve. "
Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together.”

Those two suggest that the NT authors attached considerable importance to Peter, over and above the other apostles, and even a heretic such as myself can see that.

Ooooo good, are you really a Heritic or self styled. It really means nothing to me either way. Usually in many of these threads that’s a lable given to me. OK wager you can’t beat this one I was called, Gnostic/Femiinism. I may have taken it to heart if the person knew how to spell Gnostic, somehow omiting the initial ‘G’ caused it to fall flat. Also your nom d’ plume, brilliant. I only encountered that once, in a novel by von Goethe. Of course the spelling was different. This post means nothing except I’m in a silly mood. Hang in Dan