The Empty Tomb

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

The only common thread is that Mary Mag was heading to the tomb (alone or with others) and there was a resurrection of Jesus. How that actually happened is all over the place.

http://www.abiblestudy.com/part4.html

On the 1st day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. Mary (Jesus mother) arrived at the tomb when the sun had risen. The angel told the women that Jesus was not here, that he has risen, and to go tell the disciples. [Mar 16: 1-2; Joh 20:1]
The text of John 20, states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. Mark 16 states "they" came when the sun had risen. Unless these are two separate trips to the tomb, they can not both be correct unless it can be assumed Mary Magdalene came while it was still dark and Jesus' mother, the other Mary, arrived when the sun had risen. Makes sense to me.

Mary Magdalene looked into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. She turned around and saw a man standing there whom she did not recognize until He spoke to her, then she knew it was Jesus.

Jesus appeared a second time as the women were going to tell the disciples about Jesus' resurrection.

Peter and John returned to the tomb. Peter looked into the tomb and saw that Jesus was indeed gone. They returned to their homes and mourned Him as they did not yet understand what they had been told of the resurrection.

Two disciples (one named Cleopas) while walking to Emmaus (7 miles from Jerusalem) Jesus appeared to them, but they did not know Him. Jesus walked with them and told them of all the prophecy concerning Himself. Then, while Jesus sat and ate with them, He broke bread and blessed it, and their eyes were opened and they knew who He was. Then Jesus disappeared from their sight. These two returned to Jerusalem to the house where the disciples were and told them of the incident.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Odd as it may seem when putting forward a view on an author I have.

Glad to hear it. Though I am baffled as to how you could suggest his books are without substance. In fact I think he should stick to writing as he does not (for me) come off well in person.

Anyhow - back on topic - and to Wicknights exhaustive (but enjoyable) synopsis. (Loved the story about Steven Roche doing wheelys )

ISAW - that analysis still leaves out lots of pertinent issues, such as angels sitting on rocks and rolling stones.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

On the 1st day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. Mary (Jesus mother) arrived at the tomb when the sun had risen.

John 20:1 - Mary Mag went to the tomb before the sun had risen.

Mark 16:2 - Mary, Mary and Salome went to the tomb after the sunrise. They talked to each other on the way. It would be hard for Mary Mag to talk to Mary and Salome if she had left an hour ealier to arrive at the tomb before sunrise.

The angel talks to both Marys in Matthew. If Mary Mag arrived an hour before the other women what was she doing while the others were waiting for the sunrise to happen.

Also, why were any of them going to the tomb if none of them knew how to open the tomb stone?

ISAW wrote:

The angel told the women that Jesus was not here, that he has risen, and to go tell the disciples. [Mar 16: 1-2; Joh 20:1]

Mathew 28:2-7 - An angel removes the stone and then sits upon it. He tells the women Jesus has rising and to go tell the disciples.

Mark 16:5-7 - As the women enter the tomb they see a man dressed in white sitting in the tomb. They are alarmed at this (why be alarmed, didn't the angel sitting outside just tell you Jesus had rising?). He tells them that Jesus has rising and to go tell the disciples.

Luke 24:2-8 - The women enter the tomb and while in the tomb wonder about how the stone was removed. While they are in the tomb 2 men appear beside them and tell them that Jesus had rising and to go tell the disciples.

John 20:2 - Mary Mag comes to the tomb before sunrise and finds the stone removed. She then runs away to Peter and says that someone has stolen Jesus.

These 4 different accounts all contradict each other. The events in them could not have all happened as descibed. One or more of them are wrong.

ISAW wrote:

The text of John 20, states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. Mark 16 states "they" came when the sun had risen. Unless these are two separate trips to the tomb, they can not both be correct unless it can be assumed Mary Magdalene came while it was still dark and Jesus' mother, the other Mary, arrived when the sun had risen.

So how did Mary Magdalene talk to Mary and Salome on the way to the tomb about who would move the tomb stone?

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

ISAW wrote:

Mary Magdalene looked into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

In Matthew the angel appears to the women, plural. He is also sitting on the tomb stone when he does this. The only two women described going to the tomb are the two Marys, and the angel address them both.

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid"

The women (Mary and Mary) then leave the tomb together

So the women hurried away from the tomb

Mary Mag was with the other women when the angel spoke to them. So why when she met Peter later on did she state "They have taken my lord?" in John when in Luke it says that the women, including Mary, left the tomb and went to the disciples and explained to them that Jesus had rising but Peter did not believe and ran to the tomb.

It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

Peter then runs to the tomb. But in John Mary Mag meets Peter and another disciple on their own and explains someone has stolen the body of Jesus. Did Mary return to the tomb with Peter in John after explaining to the disciples in Luke, then not recongise the two men who appeared in the tomb and cry that they had stolen Jesus' body.

All this happens after the women have seen the angels, including Mary Mag, after they have gone to the desciples, and after Peter has run to the tomb. What, is Mary that dumb that she can tell the disciples that she can see an angel and be told Jesus had rising and forget this fact a few minutes later?

ISAW wrote:

She turned around and saw a man standing there whom she did not recognize until He spoke to her, then she knew it was Jesus.

According to John this happens after Peter has visited the tomb. Which according to Luke happens after the disciples have been told by the women that Jesus had rising (unless Peter ran to the tomb twice ignoring the crowd of women and angels there?), which according to Matthew happens after the women meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples.

So why did Mary not know Jesus had rising, and still believed he had been stolen, after an angel and Jesus himself had explained it to her?

ISAW wrote:

Jesus appeared a second time as the women were going to tell the disciples about Jesus' resurrection.

No, that is the first time he appears, because he appears a second time to Mary Mag after Peter has left the tomb. According to Luke this happens after the women, including Mary Mag, explain to the disciples that Jesus had rising. And according to Matthew they met Jesus on the way to find the disciples.

If you take the 4 accounts as all discribing actual events then Mary Mag meets Jesus the first time on the way to tell the disciples Jesus has rising, she then returns to the tomb with Peter and mets Jesus a second time after Peter has left.

John 20:18 - Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

But she has already seen the lord, she saw him in Matthew 28:9 on her way to tell the disciples that Jesus had rising, before Peter ran to the tomb.

Medina

Well Wicknight, I never thought I'd see the day when we agreed on something

Brian, I really tried to see your point of view, and I did understand it, and maybe started to wonder if you were right after all, but Wicknight has totally and accurately (in my view) explained that they cannot all be right.

Wibbs

Yep and wicknight or others could equally point out inconsistencies in every other holy book's passages you care to mention. So why do people believe their particular angle above others?

As I said before it "fits" them better, whether due to an accident of birth or later realisation. This goes for every belief system. Now if you take this on board and feel that a God does exist, do you not think said God is well aware of these difficulties/contradictions and vagueness and gives believers of every hue some leeway? If not, with respect He seems a nasty, capricious piece of work and no mistake.

While debate on the minutiae of individual faith is interesting even to an outsider, such debate existing in a vacuum is hardly helpful. Does it bring any more truth to the table? Possibly or possibly not as people will continue to hold to the faith they strongly believe, regardless of any perceived evidence to the contrary. Check out the evolution thread here or the scientific miracle thread(s) in Islam. The former largely disbelieves science and the latter tries to squeeze the texts to agree with science.

I mean if one is to search for spirituality all one's life often to the exclusion of other things is that not a strange way to "serve" any God? Seems selfish to me.

Hey I'm an agnostic here so maybe I'm missing something. Answers on a postcard please...:D

mountainyman

Christianity does not have to be absolutely consistent to be essentially true.
These points you raise are irrelevant, so what if the accounts differ my understanding is that the new testament was transcribed between 70 and 130 AD, it is only natural that there would be differences.

Do you truly Medina have so little faith that these minor matters obscure for you the reality that Jesus Christ is your saviour, God made man who was tortured and died for you? (not much to ask of God I know but alot to ask of a provincial carpenter).

What is the point of this discussion we have the religion shoppers and the atheists slapping each other on the back and failing completely to understand the nature of Christianity.

MM

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

I thought the whole point is that the Bible is the literal infallible account of God?.

No that is not the whole point. What does literal mean, what does infallible mean?
Is the letter of St Paul to the Galatians the literal infallible word of God?

Wicknight wrote:

...Stephen Roche (a famous Irish rider) passed us all, which was cool. We went running back to tell the teacher and are home work was to write about it. Needless to say we all got the basic details right until we started adding our own "flare" to the story. One guy wrote that Roche hi-fived him as he passed. Another wrote that Roche did a wheely as he went buy. Another even wrote that Roche stopped and walked over to us to ask us how we were.

That happened to me with McGuigan; anyway Stephen Roche did go by, Just like Jesus Christ was crucified!
PS Wicknight check legal issues


MM

maitri

Medina, are you by any chance the Medina from islam.no?

I also read thise stories when I was a Christian and didn't dare to ask about the contradictions I found in them... Now I think it's important to be able to discuss such things openly and honestly.

Though, I'll add: Even though these stories (IMO) contradict eachother on several points (as several of you have pointed out) and that they don't seem to be written by the eyewitnesses themselves (as somebody also pointed out), but probably by people who have heard the story from somebody - this of course does not in itself prove Christianity to be wrong. It only means that there are contradictions in the Bible about what actually happened after the death of Jesus.

JimiTime

I was just pondering on this thread. It raises a question that I originally raised of my 'seperating the dogma from the truth' thread. My question was 'Is the bible 'The Word of God?'. I believe Jesus was Gods Son and we got saved through him. I have faith, i also use the bible as testimony. However, I never feel comfortable with the term 'the word of God'. That title was bestowed on Christ. Personally, I don't think the bible is 'The Word of God', but I do trust that the writers had holy spirit. I think its obvious also that the concept of, 'it was written by men, but authored by God' is also a bit mis-leading. I hope those of you who disagree with this point have a look at the points raised and realise that its obviously, not one author. The books of the bible have different personalities, which shows that while they were inspired, they put their own personailty into the writing. If this hinders one from trusting it, then your Faith is placed in the wrong things. At the end of the day, the message rings through. he point being made is that if one morsel says something different than another, it can't be authentic. I would agree, if it was actually 'The word of God'. I look upon it the same way Timothy described it, 'All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.' He stops short of saying it is Gods literal word.

Also as I was again reading this passage in Timothy I came accross another scripture he wrote which I think is apt for us in this Forum. It reads as follows:
'But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.'

Draw your own conclusions:D

maitri

JimiTime wrote:

Also as I was again reading this passage in Timothy I came accross another scripture he wrote which I think is apt for us in this Forum. It reads as follows:
'But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.'

Draw your own conclusions:D

My conclusions would be that you think that people who don't share your opinions on metaphysic theories (religion) are all these horrible things. Would this be the right conclusion?

Or do you, when you say "us in this forum", actually include yourself in these very sad, negative and unflattering definitions?

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Christianity does not have to be absolutely consistent to be essentially true.

I would agree and say it doesn't (even though I'm an atheist, but that is another matter), and a lot of my Christian friends do not accept that the Bible is consistently true in all parts and describes everything as it actually happened, while still believing the over all message is true.

The issue is when people claim the Bible is actually absolutely consistently true and free from error, not just essentially true, and use this argument as a basis for saying that the faith is therefore "confirmed by the Bible".

mountainyman wrote:

These points you raise are irrelevant, so what if the accounts differ my understanding is that the new testament was transcribed between 70 and 130 AD, it is only natural that there would be differences.

It goes to the heart of the issue of if the Bible, above all other religous documents, was influenced directly by God Himself.

mountainyman wrote:

No that is not the whole point. What does literal mean, what does infallible mean?

Literal means as described and infallible means cannot be wrong.

The New Testement is often claimed to be the literal infallible word of God, which means things happened as described in it and it cannot be wrong.

If you think that is silly don't direct that to me, direct it to those who make that claim in the first place. I know Christians who do not take the Bible as being the literal infallible word of God, they take it as simply being a book written by fallible men that try to describe events that happened years before they were written. But I was informed, if that is the right word, by various posters on this forum that my Christian friends aren't proper Christians, because to be a proper Christian you must accept the New Testement is completely correct, and contains no errors. As someone said if any of it is wrong the whole thing could be wrong.

Dades

Surely if it can be argued that the bible is not the exact word of God and instead is the "take" on Gods word by humans - you have to wonder how much is true and how much is simply the product of the writers own opinion/bias?

JimiTime

maitri wrote:

My conclusions would be that you think that people who don't share your opinions on metaphysic theories (religion) are all these horrible things. Would this be the right conclusion?

Or do you, when you say "us in this forum", actually include yourself in these very sad, negative and unflattering definitions?

Oh Lighten up! It was banter, thus the big smiley face. Maybe some people are represented by what was written, I don't know, because i don't know the people on the forum, only what they write.

Schuhart

The Atheist wrote:

Surely if it can be argued that the bible is not the exact word of God and instead is the "take" on Gods word by humans - you have to wonder how much is true and how much is simply the product of the writers own opinion/bias?

The context seems to be the validity of the kind of things Muslims say about the Bible, where someone is being invited to convert from Christianity to Islam. Islam has a vested interest in undermining the Bible, because if Jesus was the Messiah carrying the final message then there’s no space for Mohammed, with his you-better-believe-it final message. Clearly, committed Christians could say much the same kind of thing about inconsistencies right back at them. Some already have. But I don’t think we’re interested in getting into the middle of an interfaith **** throwing competition.

Given the context, I think your point (being presumptious and putting words in your mouth) is really if we can recognise inconsistencies between and within them, this means Quran and Bible are not literal. Therefore, they are not dictated in every detail by God. So how much is just the product of human minds?

I’ll admit there’s something strange about essentially quoting someone saying ‘don’t quote me on anything, ever’. But something that Buddha guy said seems to fit the situation.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

That agrees with my reason and common sense.

Asiaprod

Schuhart wrote:

I’ll admit there’s something strange about essentially quoting someone saying ‘don’t quote me on anything, ever’. But something that Buddha guy said seems to fit the situation.That agrees with my reason and common sense.

Prefer this quote myself

On life's journey faith is nourishment, virtuous deeds are a shelter, wisdom is the light by day and right mindfulness is the protection by night. If a man lives a pure life, nothing can destroy him.

<thanks for the link>

Schuhart

Asiaprod wrote:

Prefer this quote myself

On life's journey faith is nourishment, virtuous deeds are a shelter, wisdom is the light by day and right mindfulness is the protection by night. If a man lives a pure life, nothing can destroy him.

It's a good quote. I'm subjecting it to the reason and common sense test and I think most of it will survive.

I'm not sure about the 'faith is nourishment' bit. Faith in the wrong thing could be a barrier, which I suppose to an extent is what this thread is about.