The Resurrection

[DavidSMoore]

The belief that the Bible is inerrant is central to Christian dogma. Here’s how the Southern Baptist Convention states it:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.
(https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/)

And the Methodist Church:

We say that God speaks to us through the Bible and that it contains all things necessary for salvation. This authority derives from three sources:
We hold that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God, that they were filled with God’s spirit as they wrote the truth to the best of their knowledge.
We hold that God was at work in the process of canonization, during which only the most faithful and useful books were adopted as Scripture.
We hold that the Holy Spirit works today in our thoughtful study of the Scriptures, especially as we study them together, seeking to relate the old words to life’s present realities.
(https://www.umc.org/en/content/our-christian-roots-the-Bible)

The Catholic Church has this to say about the great truth of the Christian faith:

“We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this day he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus.” The Resurrection of Jesus is the crowning truth of our faith in Christ, a faith believed and lived as the central truth by the first Christian community; handed on as fundamental by Tradition; established by the documents of the New Testament; and preached as an essential part of the Paschal mystery along with the cross:
Christ is risen from the dead!
Dying, he conquered death;
to the dead, he has given life.
(Catholic Catechism, 638; Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Paragraph 2)

Was Jesus actually resurrected? Christian dogma asserts that the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the New Testament Gospels provide the definitive proof that Jesus was indeed resurrected. And who exactly were those eyewitnesses? Were they perhaps the authors of the four Gospels? Here’s what biblical scholarship has to say about the matter:

Mark, usually viewed as the earliest of the canonical Gospels, is dated by most biblical scholars to sometime around the First Revolt against Rome, either immediately before or just after 70 CE. Matthew and Luke, which appear to use Mark as a source, are dated toward the end of the first century.
(The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. By Michael D. Coogan, (c) 1998, pg. 372)

So the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, and therefore the authors of the Gospels could not have been eyewitnesses.

The persons who actually saw that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb where it had been laid were the women and two men who went to the tomb on Sunday morning. So let’s review the details of what those eyewitnesses saw. First, why did the women go to the tomb? Neither Matthew nor John provide an explanation. But:

• Mark says (Mark 16:1-2) that the women who went to the tomb bought spices before they went. They planned to use the spices to anoint the body of Jesus. That explains why they went to the tomb, and also why they had to get inside the tomb.
• Luke says (Luke 23:55-56) that the women who went to the tomb prepared oils and spices before the sabbath.

So according to both Mark and Luke, the reason for going to the tomb was to anoint the body of Jesus with oils and spices. These passages also show that the women who went to the tomb planned the event, and that they went together as a group.

Who actually went to the tomb?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:1) that there were two women who went to the tomb-- Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary.
• Mark says (Mark 16:1) there were three women who went to the tomb-- Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
• Luke says (Luke:23:55-56, 24:1) that all the women who came with Jesus from Galilee went to the tomb, and he specifically names Mary Magdalene, Johanna, and Mary the mother of James.
• John says (John 20:1-3) that only one woman, Mary Magdalene, went to the tomb. But once she saw that the body of Jesus was no longer inside she went to town to tell the disciples, and two men-- Simon Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved-- went to the tomb to see for themselves.

So Matthew says two women went to the tomb, Mark says it was three women, Luke says it was all the women who came from Galilee, and John says it was one woman and two men. And Luke’s statement that the women who went to the tomb were “all” the women who came with Jesus from Galilee means that the women would all have known each other, probably from childhood.

Was the stone rolled back before or after the women arrived at the tomb?

• Matthew says (Matthew 27:62-66) that the tomb was sealed and that guards were posted at the tomb. He further says (Matthew 28:3) that when the two women arrived at the tomb the stone was still in place, but that an angel appeared and rolled back the stone, terrifying the guards and knocking them unconscious.
• Mark says (Mark 16:3-5) that the stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived.
• Luke agrees with Mark (Luke 24:2-4).
• John says (John 20:1) that when Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb, the stone had already been removed.

So three of the four sets of eyewitnesses say that the stone was already rolled back when they arrived; and one set says it was not rolled back until after the women arrived.

How many angels did the women see?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:2-3) that one angel appeared outside the tomb, rolled back the stone, and sat atop it.
• Mark (Mark 16:3-5) mentions nothing about an angel sitting on top of the stone, but he says that when the women went into the tomb they saw an angel sitting down on the right hand side.
• Luke (Luke 24:2-4) also says nothing about an angel outside the tomb. And when the women went into the tomb, Luke doesn’t mention an angel sitting down either. But after the women looked around and puzzled over the fact that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb, two angels appeared standing beside them.
• John mentions (John 20:1-12) nothing about any angels when Mary Magdalene first arrived at the tomb. Later, when the two disciples arrived at the tomb, they went inside and they saw the linens that were used to wrap the body of Jesus lying on the floor of the tomb-- and again there is no mention of any angels, either inside or outside the tomb. The disciples went home, but Mary Magdalene, who must have returned to the tomb with the men, looked inside the tomb a second time-- and then saw to angels sitting where the body of Jesus had been.

So Matthew says there was one angel outside the tomb, Mark says there was one angel sitting down inside the tomb when the women went in, Luke says that two angels appeared standing beside them after they went inside and pondered the fact that the body of Jesus was no longer inside, and John says that two angels were sitting down inside the tomb the second time that Mary Magdalene looked inside.

Who were the first persons to see the risen Jesus?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:5-9) that the two women who went to the tomb ran to Galilee to tell his disciples, and that they encountered the risen Jesus as they were on their way.
• Mark says (Mark 16:9) that the first person to see the risen Jesus was Mary Magdalene, but that she didn’t see him until the day after she returned home from the tomb.
• Luke says (Luke 24:13) that two men, Cleopas and another unnamed man, saw the risen Jesus on the day that the women went to the tomb as they were on their way to a village named Emmaus.
• John says (John 20:13-16) that after Mary Magdalene had looked into the tomb the second time, she turned around and saw Jesus.

So all four narratives disagree about when and where the risen Jesus was first seen.

These are supposed to be the eyewitness accounts that definitively prove that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. But as we have seen, there are discrepancies between the four Gospel narratives on every significant point.

What does all this mean? As I read these accounts I think they add up to just one thing: reasonable doubt.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What does all this mean? As I read these accounts I think they add up to just one thing: reasonable doubt.

They seem to discredit biblical innerancy. I don't know how important innerancy is to all Christians but certainly to many it is.

Here’s how the Southern Baptist Convention states it:

Innerancy may not be as central as it appears in that large group of churches. It may, however it may not.

About 2 or 3 weeks ago I attended a bible study at an Southern Baptist Convention affiliated congregation, and the topic was divergences discovered and translation errors discovered since the printing of the KJV. The minister led and went through divergences discovered since the writing of the KJV. Everyone seemed to take it in stride. I kept the notes, but essentially what he went over were some of the most important parts of scripture that did not appear in the earliest texts.

I got the sense that the Southern Baptists knew more about this than biblical innerancy and might have a more flexible view or could be preparing for one. Not being a member or affiliated I do not know.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I got the sense that the Southern Baptists knew more about this than biblical innerancy and might have a more flexible view or could be preparing for one. Not being a member or affiliated I do not know.

Thanks for the insights. I appreciate it.

 

[John D. Brey]

What does all this mean? As I read these accounts I think they add up to just one thing: reasonable doubt.

Questions like this, though legitimate, typically come from those who already have serious doubts about the veracity of the scripture. Such person might at least wonder to themselves why so many admittedly brilliant men, say Isaac Newton, or Martin Luther, are able to side-step seeming contradictions to their strongly held belief in the veracity of scripture? The heretic's answer is simple: they want to believe and so they ignore contradiction.

The truth is simpler. Textual reference to events such as are found in the Tanakh, the Gospels and Apostolic writings, although inerrant in what they document, are nevertheless written within the scope and realities of human communication; which, human communication, though used by God to communicate his truths, functions in a manner far different, far more complex, than the doubter is likely to understand.

Neither the Tanakh, nor the New Testament, were originally written in English, nor according to the rules and sensibilities of English writers and speakers. The original texts, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, have no punctuation in the original manuscripts. There are no periods, no commas, no way to know, outside of context and flow, where one idea stops, and another starts, or where one idea is interjected (anacoluthon) right in the middle of another.

Furthermore, because of the nature of written communication at the time, the text is filled chock-a-block with brachylogy, asyndeton, zeugma, syllepsis, synecdoche, etc.. More importantly, because the spoken word was considered wholly superior to the profane written word at the time (see Derrida's, Of Grammatology), in spiritual matters the written word is often written as though it were spoken. It's filled to the brim with anacoluthon whereby one idea is injected in the middle of another without any punctuation or other indication that this has occurred.

Case in point. We read in Matthew 27:62-28:6:

Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.​

​

28 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. 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. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.​

In the text above, the statement found in 28:2-5 is anacoluthon. It describes the earlier events that explain why the tomb was open when the women arrived. The angel who moved the stone speaks to the woman although he moved the stone long before they arrived. We know this from the Greek word "τηρέω" translated "keepers" as in "the keepers did shake, and became as dead men." The word means "guards" and not necessarily "keepers." Throughout the scripture we find all kinds of textual gymnastics since the writers weren't professors of language but true purveyors of the written word as they attempted to use it in a manner that best makes textual revelation bow to the higher revelatory power of the spoken word:

​

. . . languages are naturally bound to undergo changes of character, and to lose in power what they gain in clarity . . . the more stress on perfecting of grammar and logic, the faster these changes occur. All that is needed for quickly rendering a language cold and monotonous, is to establish academies among the people who speak it. . . The ancient Hebrews had neither punctuation nor accent marks; they did not even have vowels.​

​

Rousseau, On the Origin of Language, p. 27.​

​

Take the so-called divine, the first language, Hebrew, of which the greater part of the world has inherited its letters: That in its beginnings it was so full of living sounds that it could be written only most imperfectly, is made quite evident by the entire structure of its grammar, its frequent confusion of similar letters, and especially the total lack of vowels in it.​

​

Herder, Essay On the Origin of Language.​

​

The view that the precision of science and of scientific language depends upon the precision of its terms is certainly very plausible, but it is none the less, I believe, a mere prejudice. The precision of a language depends, rather, just upon the fact that it takes care not to burden its terms with the task of being precise.​

​

Karl Popper.​

​

Thus the purpose of initiatory texts is far less a logical one than it is to provoke shocks, emotional reactions, or to grate against the cerebral need for sequential logic. Paradox, improbable images, the juxtaposition of unconnected phrases are freely employed. The texts appeal to sensation, to a feeling of emotive sensitivity . . . Intelligence-of-the-heart is knowing how to translate this noise.​

​

Rene Schwaller de Lubicz.​

​

If a man does not feel what the numinous is, when he reads the sixth chapter of Isaiah, then no “preaching, singing, telling” in Luther’s phrase, can avail him . . . the mere word, even when it comes as a living voice, is powerless without the “spirit in the heart” of the hearer to move him to apprehension.​

​

Rudolf Otto.​

John

 

[DavidSMoore]

Textual reference to events such as are found in the Tanakh, the Gospels and Apostolic writings, although inerrant in what they document, are nevertheless written within the scope and realities of human communication; which, human communication, though used by God to communicate his truths, functions in a manner far different, far more complex, than the doubter is likely to understand.

Huh. So you think the Gospels specifically are inerrant. You might want to consider the following:

DSM on contradictions

 

[Kathryn]

The belief that the Bible is inerrant is central to Christian dogma. Here’s how the Southern Baptist Convention states it:



And the Methodist Church:



The Catholic Church has this to say about the great truth of the Christian faith:



Was Jesus actually resurrected? Christian dogma asserts that the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the New Testament Gospels provide the definitive proof that Jesus was indeed resurrected. And who exactly were those eyewitnesses? Were they perhaps the authors of the four Gospels? Here’s what biblical scholarship has to say about the matter:



So the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, and therefore the authors of the Gospels could not have been eyewitnesses.

The persons who actually saw that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb where it had been laid were the women and two men who went to the tomb on Sunday morning. So let’s review the details of what those eyewitnesses saw. First, why did the women go to the tomb? Neither Matthew nor John provide an explanation. But:

• Mark says (Mark 16:1-2) that the women who went to the tomb bought spices before they went. They planned to use the spices to anoint the body of Jesus. That explains why they went to the tomb, and also why they had to get inside the tomb.
• Luke says (Luke 23:55-56) that the women who went to the tomb prepared oils and spices before the sabbath.

So according to both Mark and Luke, the reason for going to the tomb was to anoint the body of Jesus with oils and spices. These passages also show that the women who went to the tomb planned the event, and that they went together as a group.

Who actually went to the tomb?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:1) that there were two women who went to the tomb-- Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary.
• Mark says (Mark 16:1) there were three women who went to the tomb-- Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
• Luke says (Luke:23:55-56, 24:1) that all the women who came with Jesus from Galilee went to the tomb, and he specifically names Mary Magdalene, Johanna, and Mary the mother of James.
• John says (John 20:1-3) that only one woman, Mary Magdalene, went to the tomb. But once she saw that the body of Jesus was no longer inside she went to town to tell the disciples, and two men-- Simon Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved-- went to the tomb to see for themselves.

So Matthew says two women went to the tomb, Mark says it was three women, Luke says it was all the women who came from Galilee, and John says it was one woman and two men. And Luke’s statement that the women who went to the tomb were “all” the women who came with Jesus from Galilee means that the women would all have known each other, probably from childhood.

Was the stone rolled back before or after the women arrived at the tomb?

• Matthew says (Matthew 27:62-66) that the tomb was sealed and that guards were posted at the tomb. He further says (Matthew 28:3) that when the two women arrived at the tomb the stone was still in place, but that an angel appeared and rolled back the stone, terrifying the guards and knocking them unconscious.
• Mark says (Mark 16:3-5) that the stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived.
• Luke agrees with Mark (Luke 24:2-4).
• John says (John 20:1) that when Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb, the stone had already been removed.

So three of the four sets of eyewitnesses say that the stone was already rolled back when they arrived; and one set says it was not rolled back until after the women arrived.

How many angels did the women see?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:2-3) that one angel appeared outside the tomb, rolled back the stone, and sat atop it.
• Mark (Mark 16:3-5) mentions nothing about an angel sitting on top of the stone, but he says that when the women went into the tomb they saw an angel sitting down on the right hand side.
• Luke (Luke 24:2-4) also says nothing about an angel outside the tomb. And when the women went into the tomb, Luke doesn’t mention an angel sitting down either. But after the women looked around and puzzled over the fact that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb, two angels appeared standing beside them.
• John mentions (John 20:1-12) nothing about any angels when Mary Magdalene first arrived at the tomb. Later, when the two disciples arrived at the tomb, they went inside and they saw the linens that were used to wrap the body of Jesus lying on the floor of the tomb-- and again there is no mention of any angels, either inside or outside the tomb. The disciples went home, but Mary Magdalene, who must have returned to the tomb with the men, looked inside the tomb a second time-- and then saw to angels sitting where the body of Jesus had been.

So Matthew says there was one angel outside the tomb, Mark says there was one angel sitting down inside the tomb when the women went in, Luke says that two angels appeared standing beside them after they went inside and pondered the fact that the body of Jesus was no longer inside, and John says that two angels were sitting down inside the tomb the second time that Mary Magdalene looked inside.

Who were the first persons to see the risen Jesus?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:5-9) that the two women who went to the tomb ran to Galilee to tell his disciples, and that they encountered the risen Jesus as they were on their way.
• Mark says (Mark 16:9) that the first person to see the risen Jesus was Mary Magdalene, but that she didn’t see him until the day after she returned home from the tomb.
• Luke says (Luke 24:13) that two men, Cleopas and another unnamed man, saw the risen Jesus on the day that the women went to the tomb as they were on their way to a village named Emmaus.
• John says (John 20:13-16) that after Mary Magdalene had looked into the tomb the second time, she turned around and saw Jesus.

So all four narratives disagree about when and where the risen Jesus was first seen.

These are supposed to be the eyewitness accounts that definitively prove that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. But as we have seen, there are discrepancies between the four Gospel narratives on every significant point.

What does all this mean? As I read these accounts I think they add up to just one thing: reasonable doubt.

Sigh. I will answer this again. because why not?

1st of all,. there's no contradiction regarding the women = all accounts mention Mary Magdalene for instance. Adding or subtracting women doesn't mean that there's a contradiction - it simply means that one woman was the most important one. Same with the accounts of the angel or two angels at the tomb - maybe He moved from atop the stone to inside the tomb, who knows?

As for when Jesus was seen, same thing really. Some accounts add more detail than others. Not a one of them says "This is the only way it happened" for instance.

 

[John D. Brey]

Huh. So you think the Gospels specifically are inerrant. You might want to consider the following:

DSM on contradictions

I hesitated to dip my toe into these waters. Now I remember why.

I will grant you that you're being logical, rational, and true, to the context you're using to examine these things (including the lineage stuff at your link). So I would in no way criticize your logic or reasons for considering these things contradictions. For you they no doubt are. And within the context you're using to judge these things you're correct.

Context is everything. Every one of your contradictions is easily answered (and has been in the past) by expanding the context so that the proper theological and historical information informs the interpretation. Nevertheless, the Rudolf Otto quotation at the end of my last message says what's important to my exit from this discussion. If someone is seeking the truth, whatever is required will be provided for them. But those who are contrary to the truth, and who rely on logic and reason circumscribed by their personal advocacy for contrariness, nothing but an infinite regression of argumentation and quarrels will result.

If a man does not feel what the numinous is, when he reads the sixth chapter of Isaiah, then no “preaching, singing, telling” in Luther’s phrase, can avail him . . . the mere word, even when it comes as a living voice, is powerless without the “spirit in the heart” of the hearer to move him to apprehension.​

Rudolf Otto.​

John

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The Catholic Church has this to say about the great truth of the Christian faith:

The treatment of Holy Week in Catholicism here in America is a very complicated story, with lots of twists and turns in the last five centuries.

Holy Week processions in Popayán​

UNESCO

UNESCO: Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity - 2009
URL: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/RL/...

Description: The Holy Week processions in Popayán are one of the oldest traditions in Colombia, practised since the colonial period. From the Tuesday to the Saturday before Easter, between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m., a series of processions take place. The five processions, devoted to Mary, Jesus, the Cross, the Laying in the Tomb, and the Resurrection respectively, follow a two-kilometre route through the town centre. Each procession is set around reliquary floats, or ''pasos,'' which are created and assembled according to complex rules. The reliquary floats are adorned with ornate, flower-decked wooden statues, most of which date from the late eighteenth century and depict the Easter story. The route is flanked on either side by worshippers carrying candles and wearing special clothing. The processions are remarkable for their artistic quality (gilding, cabinetwork), sounds and smells (incense). Preparations, which last for a whole year, follow instructions passed down to children from age five, and from generation to generation. The processions have their own vocabulary and expertise, and the roles and responsibilities of each individual are precisely allocated. Some inhabitants of the town, who have formed a general assembly to protect the tradition, act as the organizers and work with the authorities and various bodies. The processions, which attract many visitors from around the world, are a major factor contributing to social cohesion and the local collective psyche.

Country(ies): Colombia
© 2006 Hugo Armando Rodriguez

 

[InChrist]

The belief that the Bible is inerrant is central to Christian dogma. Here’s how the Southern Baptist Convention states it:



And the Methodist Church:



The Catholic Church has this to say about the great truth of the Christian faith:



Was Jesus actually resurrected? Christian dogma asserts that the eyewitness testimonies recorded in the New Testament Gospels provide the definitive proof that Jesus was indeed resurrected. And who exactly were those eyewitnesses? Were they perhaps the authors of the four Gospels? Here’s what biblical scholarship has to say about the matter:



So the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, and therefore the authors of the Gospels could not have been eyewitnesses.

The persons who actually saw that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb where it had been laid were the women and two men who went to the tomb on Sunday morning. So let’s review the details of what those eyewitnesses saw. First, why did the women go to the tomb? Neither Matthew nor John provide an explanation. But:

• Mark says (Mark 16:1-2) that the women who went to the tomb bought spices before they went. They planned to use the spices to anoint the body of Jesus. That explains why they went to the tomb, and also why they had to get inside the tomb.
• Luke says (Luke 23:55-56) that the women who went to the tomb prepared oils and spices before the sabbath.

So according to both Mark and Luke, the reason for going to the tomb was to anoint the body of Jesus with oils and spices. These passages also show that the women who went to the tomb planned the event, and that they went together as a group.

Who actually went to the tomb?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:1) that there were two women who went to the tomb-- Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary.
• Mark says (Mark 16:1) there were three women who went to the tomb-- Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
• Luke says (Luke:23:55-56, 24:1) that all the women who came with Jesus from Galilee went to the tomb, and he specifically names Mary Magdalene, Johanna, and Mary the mother of James.
• John says (John 20:1-3) that only one woman, Mary Magdalene, went to the tomb. But once she saw that the body of Jesus was no longer inside she went to town to tell the disciples, and two men-- Simon Peter and the disciple that Jesus loved-- went to the tomb to see for themselves.

So Matthew says two women went to the tomb, Mark says it was three women, Luke says it was all the women who came from Galilee, and John says it was one woman and two men. And Luke’s statement that the women who went to the tomb were “all” the women who came with Jesus from Galilee means that the women would all have known each other, probably from childhood.

Was the stone rolled back before or after the women arrived at the tomb?

• Matthew says (Matthew 27:62-66) that the tomb was sealed and that guards were posted at the tomb. He further says (Matthew 28:3) that when the two women arrived at the tomb the stone was still in place, but that an angel appeared and rolled back the stone, terrifying the guards and knocking them unconscious.
• Mark says (Mark 16:3-5) that the stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived.
• Luke agrees with Mark (Luke 24:2-4).
• John says (John 20:1) that when Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb, the stone had already been removed.

So three of the four sets of eyewitnesses say that the stone was already rolled back when they arrived; and one set says it was not rolled back until after the women arrived.

How many angels did the women see?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:2-3) that one angel appeared outside the tomb, rolled back the stone, and sat atop it.
• Mark (Mark 16:3-5) mentions nothing about an angel sitting on top of the stone, but he says that when the women went into the tomb they saw an angel sitting down on the right hand side.
• Luke (Luke 24:2-4) also says nothing about an angel outside the tomb. And when the women went into the tomb, Luke doesn’t mention an angel sitting down either. But after the women looked around and puzzled over the fact that the body of Jesus was no longer in the tomb, two angels appeared standing beside them.
• John mentions (John 20:1-12) nothing about any angels when Mary Magdalene first arrived at the tomb. Later, when the two disciples arrived at the tomb, they went inside and they saw the linens that were used to wrap the body of Jesus lying on the floor of the tomb-- and again there is no mention of any angels, either inside or outside the tomb. The disciples went home, but Mary Magdalene, who must have returned to the tomb with the men, looked inside the tomb a second time-- and then saw to angels sitting where the body of Jesus had been.

So Matthew says there was one angel outside the tomb, Mark says there was one angel sitting down inside the tomb when the women went in, Luke says that two angels appeared standing beside them after they went inside and pondered the fact that the body of Jesus was no longer inside, and John says that two angels were sitting down inside the tomb the second time that Mary Magdalene looked inside.

Who were the first persons to see the risen Jesus?

• Matthew says (Matthew 28:5-9) that the two women who went to the tomb ran to Galilee to tell his disciples, and that they encountered the risen Jesus as they were on their way.
• Mark says (Mark 16:9) that the first person to see the risen Jesus was Mary Magdalene, but that she didn’t see him until the day after she returned home from the tomb.
• Luke says (Luke 24:13) that two men, Cleopas and another unnamed man, saw the risen Jesus on the day that the women went to the tomb as they were on their way to a village named Emmaus.
• John says (John 20:13-16) that after Mary Magdalene had looked into the tomb the second time, she turned around and saw Jesus.

So all four narratives disagree about when and where the risen Jesus was first seen.

These are supposed to be the eyewitness accounts that definitively prove that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. But as we have seen, there are discrepancies between the four Gospel narratives on every significant point.

What does all this mean? As I read these accounts I think they add up to just one thing: reasonable doubt.

I disagree. I don’t see discrepancies in the accounts of the resurrection, only different details highlighted, as there naturally would be concerning any event witnessed or recalled by different observers. Yet, the main point remains consistent.

 

[DavidSMoore]

1st of all,. there's no contradiction regarding the women = all accounts mention Mary Magdalene for instance. Adding or subtracting women doesn't mean that there's a contradiction - it simply means that one woman was the most important one. Same with the accounts of the angel or two angels at the tomb - maybe He moved from atop the stone to inside the tomb, who knows?

As for when Jesus was seen, same thing really. Some accounts add more detail than others. Not a one of them says "This is the only way it happened" for instance.

Yup, I've heard all of those explanations before-- and many others as well. Not to nitpick, but I called them discrepancies, not contradictions. When I read these narratives, giving them each a naive reading without assuming that they should all fit perfectly together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, I see multiple discrepancies. To me, that adds up to reasonable doubt. I'm not calling it definitive proof that Jesus was not resurrected-- just reasonable doubt. If you choose to believe that Jesus really was resurrected, despite these discrepancies, okay-- that's your prerogative. I only ask that you not call me demented, or morally bankrupt, or evil if I choose to disagree.

As I see these stories in the broader context of the Bible as a whole, my view is that the story of the creation is wrong in every significant respect, as I spelled out in this thread: The creation

The story of the flood seems absurd to me. Consider what would have happened at the moment that Noah released all the animals from the ark. According to the Bible, the flood lasted more than a full year. So the animals that were killed by the flood would have been dead for a full year, and their bodies would have long since rotted and decomposed. Question: What would the carnivores that were on board the ark have had to eat when Noah released them into the wild to repopulate the planet? As I see it, there's only one possible answer: the other animals on board the ark. I'm guessing that within 60 to 90 days the majority of the herbivores that were on board the ark would have been eaten by the carnivores. And remember-- the carnivores only have to kill one herbivore before it has a chance to reproduce to end that animal's lineage forever. And then what happens after the majority of the herbivores have been killed? What would the carnivores have had to eat then? I can only think of one possibility: each other.

BTW, earlier versions of the story of the flood say that the flood only lasted 7 days. So in that instance you could imagine that maybe the carnivores were able to scavenge the corpses of the animals that had been killed by the floodwaters. But that's just not possible in the biblical version.

These are two of the most important stories in the Bible, and in my view they are patently ridiculous. So when I consider the numerous discrepancies in the stories of the resurrection of Jesus, I'm inclined to believe that the story of the passion is just that-- a story.

 

[Trailblazer]

So all four narratives disagree about when and where the risen Jesus was first seen.

These are supposed to be the eyewitness accounts that definitively prove that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. But as we have seen, there are discrepancies between the four Gospel narratives on every significant point.

What does all this mean? As I read these accounts I think they add up to just one thing: reasonable doubt.

I think these discrepancies mean that the resurrection stories were just stories than different people wrote, not anything that ever really happened.
After all, a story is no proof that anything in the story is true.
But Christians are going to believe in the resurrection because they want to believe it.

 

[McBell]

I disagree. I don’t see discrepancies in the accounts of the resurrection, only different details highlighted, as there naturally would be concerning any event witnessed or recalled by different observers. Yet, the main point remains consistent.

So the devil is NOT in the details....

 

[Kathryn]

Yup, I've heard all of those explanations before-- and many others as well. Not to nitpick, but I called them discrepancies, not contradictions. When I read these narratives, giving them each a naive reading without assuming that they should all fit perfectly together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, I see multiple discrepancies. To me, that adds up to reasonable doubt. I'm not calling it definitive proof that Jesus was not resurrected-- just reasonable doubt. If you choose to believe that Jesus really was resurrected, despite these discrepancies, okay-- that's your prerogative. I only ask that you not call me demented, or morally bankrupt, or evil if I choose to disagree.

As I see these stories in the broader context of the Bible as a whole, my view is that the story of the creation is wrong in every significant respect, as I spelled out in this thread: The creation

The story of the flood seems absurd to me. Consider what would have happened at the moment that Noah released all the animals from the ark. According to the Bible, the flood lasted more than a full year. So the animals that were killed by the flood would have been dead for a full year, and their bodies would have long since rotted and decomposed. Question: What would the carnivores that were on board the ark have had to eat when Noah released them into the wild to repopulate the planet? As I see it, there's only one possible answer: the other animals on board the ark. I'm guessing that within 60 to 90 days the majority of the herbivores that were on board the ark would have been eaten by the carnivores. And remember-- the carnivores only have to kill one herbivore before it has a chance to reproduce to end that animal's lineage forever. And then what happens after the majority of the herbivores have been killed? What would the carnivores have had to eat then? I can only think of one possibility: each other.

BTW, earlier versions of the story of the flood say that the flood only lasted 7 days. So in that instance you could imagine that maybe the carnivores were able to scavenge the corpses of the animals that had been killed by the floodwaters. But that's just not possible in the biblical version.

These are two of the most important stories in the Bible, and in my view they are patently ridiculous. So when I consider the numerous discrepancies in the stories of the resurrection of Jesus, I'm inclined to believe that the story of the passion is just that-- a story.

First of all, I'm not calling you anything.

Secondly, there's a huge time difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

 

[jimb]

Yup, I've heard all of those explanations before-- and many others as well. Not to nitpick, but I called them discrepancies, not contradictions. When I read these narratives, giving them each a naive reading without assuming that they should all fit perfectly together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, I see multiple discrepancies. To me, that adds up to reasonable doubt. I'm not calling it definitive proof that Jesus was not resurrected-- just reasonable doubt. If you choose to believe that Jesus really was resurrected, despite these discrepancies, okay-- that's your prerogative. I only ask that you not call me demented, or morally bankrupt, or evil if I choose to disagree.

As I see these stories in the broader context of the Bible as a whole, my view is that the story of the creation is wrong in every significant respect, as I spelled out in this thread: The creation

The story of the flood seems absurd to me. Consider what would have happened at the moment that Noah released all the animals from the ark. According to the Bible, the flood lasted more than a full year. So the animals that were killed by the flood would have been dead for a full year, and their bodies would have long since rotted and decomposed. Question: What would the carnivores that were on board the ark have had to eat when Noah released them into the wild to repopulate the planet? As I see it, there's only one possible answer: the other animals on board the ark. I'm guessing that within 60 to 90 days the majority of the herbivores that were on board the ark would have been eaten by the carnivores. And remember-- the carnivores only have to kill one herbivore before it has a chance to reproduce to end that animal's lineage forever. And then what happens after the majority of the herbivores have been killed? What would the carnivores have had to eat then? I can only think of one possibility: each other.

BTW, earlier versions of the story of the flood say that the flood only lasted 7 days. So in that instance you could imagine that maybe the carnivores were able to scavenge the corpses of the animals that had been killed by the floodwaters. But that's just not possible in the biblical version.

These are two of the most important stories in the Bible, and in my view they are patently ridiculous. So when I consider the numerous discrepancies in the stories of the resurrection of Jesus, I'm inclined to believe that the story of the passion is just that-- a story.

It's unfortunate that you get so little from the Bible. It is not meant to be a textbook. It is meant to teach spiritual truths. If you want to learn, I suggest that you read it to understand the meanings contained therein. Then you might not continue to call its contents ridiculous.

BTW, is that the way that you read poetry also?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

It's unfortunate that you get so little from the Bible. It is not meant to be a textbook. It is meant to teach spiritual truths. If you want to learn, I suggest that you read it to understand the meanings contained therein. Then you might not continue to call its contents ridiculous.

BTW, is that the way that you read poetry also?

“I have my books, and my poetry to protect me” - Simon and Garfunkel

Simon & Garfunkel - I Am A Rock (Live Canadian TV, 1966)​

 

[jimb]

“I have my books, and my poetry to protect me” - Simon and Garfunkel

Simon & Garfunkel - I Am A Rock (Live Canadian TV, 1966)​

That is an absurd response!

How about responding to my statement in a meaningful manner? (Or are you unable to do so?)

 

[Spice]

That is an absurd response!

How about responding to my statement in a meaningful manner? (Or are you unable to do so?)

Yes, unable to do so. "Banned"

 

[Spice]

Yup, I've heard all of those explanations before-- and many others as well. Not to nitpick, but I called them discrepancies, not contradictions. When I read these narratives, giving them each a naive reading without assuming that they should all fit perfectly together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, I see multiple discrepancies. To me, that adds up to reasonable doubt. I'm not calling it definitive proof that Jesus was not resurrected-- just reasonable doubt. If you choose to believe that Jesus really was resurrected, despite these discrepancies, okay-- that's your prerogative. I only ask that you not call me demented, or morally bankrupt, or evil if I choose to disagree.

As I see these stories in the broader context of the Bible as a whole, my view is that the story of the creation is wrong in every significant respect, as I spelled out in this thread: The creation

The story of the flood seems absurd to me. Consider what would have happened at the moment that Noah released all the animals from the ark. According to the Bible, the flood lasted more than a full year. So the animals that were killed by the flood would have been dead for a full year, and their bodies would have long since rotted and decomposed. Question: What would the carnivores that were on board the ark have had to eat when Noah released them into the wild to repopulate the planet? As I see it, there's only one possible answer: the other animals on board the ark. I'm guessing that within 60 to 90 days the majority of the herbivores that were on board the ark would have been eaten by the carnivores. And remember-- the carnivores only have to kill one herbivore before it has a chance to reproduce to end that animal's lineage forever. And then what happens after the majority of the herbivores have been killed? What would the carnivores have had to eat then? I can only think of one possibility: each other.

BTW, earlier versions of the story of the flood say that the flood only lasted 7 days. So in that instance you could imagine that maybe the carnivores were able to scavenge the corpses of the animals that had been killed by the floodwaters. But that's just not possible in the biblical version.

These are two of the most important stories in the Bible, and in my view they are patently ridiculous. So when I consider the numerous discrepancies in the stories of the resurrection of Jesus, I'm inclined to believe that the story of the passion is just that-- a story.

It is my opinion that Jesus was very wrongly abused beyond the crucifixion. I read of a very devout Jewish man who spent the last three years of his life trying to prevent what still occurred in 70 CE.

By the time our current "scriptures" were written his heroic tale had been blended into Hellenistic mythology and over the centuries was polished and waxed to a lovely, addictive political weapon.

I still feel a great deal of the Gospels are true to the factual, historical Jesus, and over the years of looking into the history, politics, and sociology of the first 2 centuries, have come to the conclusion that had it not been exaggerated and shaped so it would have been completely lost to time.

I think we now are living in a time where we are called to look back at the analogous nature of the Gospels and pick out the interwoven mythology for the lasting message that was the life's mission of the man we call Jesus of Nazareth. I think the "enlightenment" of our age has already begun the process.

 

[jimb]

Yes, unable to do so. "Banned"

Then how did you respond to my post if you're banned?

 

[jimb]

It is my opinion that Jesus was very wrongly abused beyond the crucifixion. I read of a very devout Jewish man who spent the last three years of his life trying to prevent what still occurred in 70 CE.

By the time our current "scriptures" were written his heroic tale had been blended into Hellenistic mythology and over the centuries was polished and waxed to a lovely, addictive political weapon.

I still feel a great deal of the Gospels are true to the factual, historical Jesus, and over the years of looking into the history, politics, and sociology of the first 2 centuries, have come to the conclusion that had it not been exaggerated and shaped so it would have been completely lost to time.

I think we now are living in a time where we are called to look back at the analogous nature of the Gospels and pick out the interwoven mythology for the lasting message that was the life's mission of the man we call Jesus of Nazareth. I think the "enlightenment" of our age has already begun the process.

I have said many times and will say again...

The gospels are not the equivalent of Western journalism. They are reports to teach us spiritual truths.