Empty Tomb Puzzle

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Disciples pinched the tomb

That was a joke.My own view is that the entire New Testament is myth,due to the lack or credible evidence of to the contrary.


I Googled
"inconsistencies of the resurrection" and got 4.5MILLION hits; below are bits from just two. The second is especially interesting ,as you asked for chapter and verse.,easier to read f you click the link

The Empty Tomb

There are good reasons to doubt the empty tomb story. First, early Christian writers like Paul do not even presuppose or imply the empty tomb story. Had there actually been an empty tomb, Paul would have likely mentioned it in 1 Corinthians 15 because he was trying to convince the people at Corinth that there was a resurrection from the dead. The empty tomb would have been excellent evidence for him to make his case. "Moreover," writers Marcus J. Borg, "the first reference to the empty tomb story is rather odd: Mark, writing around 70 CE, tells us that some women found the tomb empty but told no one about it. Some scholars think this indicates that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that the way Mark tells it explains why it was not widely (or previously) known" (15).

Second, another argument against the empty tomb is the fact that none of the disciples or later Christian preachers bothered to point to it. If the empty tomb had actually existed, it would have been a powerful piece of evidence for the resurrection claim. We would expect the early Christian preachers to have said, "You don't believe us? Go look in the tomb yourselves! It's at the corner of 5th and Main, in the Golgotha Garden Memorial Cemetery, third sepulcher on the right." This is exactly what happened in Luke 24:24: two of the disciples ran to the tomb to verify the women's reports. Yet Peter doesn't mention the empty tomb in his preaching in Acts 2, nor does Paul mention it in his letters, nor do the gospels give a location. If even the disciples didn't think the empty tomb tradition was any good, why should we?

Finally, neither Jewish nor Pagan sources confirm the empty tomb. This objection does not in itself constitute grounds for rejecting the empty tomb story, but taken together these three objections suggest that the empty tomb tradition is not a reliable one.



The Guard

McDowell argues that the resurrection is the best explanation for the experience of the Roman guard sent by Pontius Pilate. (Pilate allegedly sent a Roman guard to Jesus' tomb.) However, there are good reasons to doubt the alleged fact of the Roman guard. First, McDowell relies heavily upon a literal reading of Matthew as his only source of evidence. This may be an apologetic legend. Second, it is unlikely the Roman soldiers would have gone to the Jewish authorities (as Matthew 28:11-15 reports) instead of the Roman governor, Pilate, to whom they were responsible. The Gospel of Peter (11:43-49) has the guard reporting to Pilate.

Third, Matthew's story about the guard is also unlikely because it states that the guard accepted a bribe from the Jews. However, given what we know about Roman soldiers, this is extremely unlikely. As Mattill (p. 273) writes:

It also seems most unlikely that soldiers could be persuaded by any amount of money to take the risk of death for falling asleep on guard. If they admitted their sleep they were as good as pronouncing their own death sentences. Besides that, if they had fallen asleep, they would not have known that the disciples had stolen the body. Thus it is an insult to the intelligence of the priests to attribute such a proposal to them.

Next, the phrase "to this very day" which appears in Matthew 28:15 suggests that the author was writing many years after the events he was describing. Thus there was sufficient time for the origin and growth of the legend of the guard (Mattill 273).

Finally, and perhaps the most serious objection that can be raised against the guard story is that if the disciples did not grasp the importance of the resurrection predictions, then the Jews, who had much less contact with Jesus, would not have grasped them either (Craig 1984, 277).

Even the conservative William Lane Craig was forced to admit (Ibid., 279) that "there are reasons to doubt the existence of the guard at the tomb." In fairness, I should mention that in that same article Craig gives some strong arguments in defense of the guard story which lead him to conclude that "it seems best to leave it [the guard story] an open question" (Ibid.). However, I think that these four objections have a cumulative nature which are compelling and sufficient grounds for rejecting the guard story.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...chap4.html

Matthew


Mark


Luke


John

Who carried the cross?


Simon of Cyrene (Mw. 27:32)


Simon of Cyrene (Mk. 15:21)


Simon of Cyrene (Lk. 23:26)


Only Jesus himself carried the cross! (Jo. 19:17)

At what time was Jesus crucified?


Not discussed


9:00 am – “It was the THIRD HOUR when they crucified him.” (Mk. 15:25)


Not discussed


12:00 noon – Jesus was not crucified until after the SIXTH HOUR! (Jo. 19:14-15)

On which day was Jesus crucified?


On the first day of Passover* (Mw. 26:1-19)


The first day of Passover* (Mk. 14:12-23)


The first day of Passover* (Lk. 22:7-20)


The day BEFORE Passover (Passover-eve) (Jo. 19:14)

Did Jesus drink? What was in the drink?


Yes, wine mixed with gall (Mw. 27:34)


No, Jesus was offered wine mixed with myrrh (Mk. 15:23)


Don’t know, Vinegar (sour wine) (Lk. 23:36)


Yes, Vinegar (sour wine)

(Jo. 19:29-30)

Did either one of the two thieves believe in Jesus?


Neither one believed in Jesus (Mw. 27:44)


Neither one believed in Jesus (Mk. 15:32)


Only one does not believe, but ONE DOES! (Lk. 23:39-41)


Not discussed

What were the Jesus’s last dying words on the cross?


“My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mw. 27:46)


“My G-d, my G-d, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mk. 15:43)


“Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” (Lk. 23:46)


“It is finished.” (Jo. 19:30)

When did Mary prepare the spices?


Not discussed


After the Sabbath was over (Mk. 16:1)


Before the Sabbath started (Lk. 23:56)


Nicodemus, NOT Mary, prepared the spices BEFORE the Sabbath. (Jo. 19:39)

Had the sun yet risen when the women came to the tomb?


It was toward dawn of the first day of the week. (Mw. 28:1)


YES – “They came to the tomb when the sun had risen.” (Mk. 16:2)


At early dawn they went to the tomb. (Lk. 24:1)


NO – “Mary came early to the tomb, WHILE IT WAS STILL DARK.” (Jo. 20:1)

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/jews4juda...ection.php

[FallentoReason]

The guards watch dumbfounded as an angel uses an earthquake to roll away the stone that had sealed the tomb. The guards flee in terror. Mary Magdelalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and other unnamed women go to visit the grave.

Matt 28:2-4 is the only Gospel account to supply details about the guards and the earthquake.
John 20:1 focuses on Mary Magdelalene to the exclusion of the other woment in the party.
Matt 28:1 also focuses on Mary Magdelaene, incidentally mentions Mary mother of James, but not the other women.
Luke 24:10 identifies Joanna as one of the women in the party.

When they arrive they see that the tomb has been opened and they see a youth sitting on the stone. The child tells them that Jesus isn't there because he had risen and that they should tell the disciples.

Well this just isn't true. You would know if you had included Mark, whose account mirrors that of Matthew exactly, except without any supernatural content. Here's what Mark and Matthew say:

Mark 16:1-6 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. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed" he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

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. There 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. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified".

You made it sound like the angel did its work before the women came and then the women saw the young man. Clearly from Matthew we see the women were in contact with the angel. Not only that but according to scripture, strangely enough the angel and young man are one and the same. They are described as wearing the same thing and they even said the same thing.

It's undeniable that Matthew took Mark's account and made it more amazing by turning the young man into an angel and on top of that adding an earthquake. I can say this with confidence because Mark was written before Matthew, even though in the NT Matthew has deceivingly been put first. So they are in fact describing the same character. Contradiction.

Luke and John have their contradicting similarities as well, but I don't have time right now to discuss that. Let me know if there's some sort of solution to Mark and Matthew.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In point of fact I started with Mark and showed which details the others had either omitted or added.

Well this just isn't true.
Mark 16:1-6 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. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed" he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.

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. There 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. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified".

You made it sound like the angel did its work before the women came and then the women saw the young man.

Yes I did, because that resolves the apparent contradiction and makes Mark and Matt align.

In the quotes you provided from Matthew, is says that MaryM and Mary go to the tomb. It does not say "When they they arrived at the tomb." It says they left to go. The earthquake and guard event happened before the Mary's arrived. The guards see the angle when it is outside the tomb and they are the witnesses of the earthquake, not the women. By the time the ladies arrive the angel has moved to the inside of the tomb. I assume angels can travel and don't have to stay in one place.

Clearly from Matthew we see the women were in contact with the angel. Not only that but according to scripture, strangely enough the angel and young man are one and the same...They are described as wearing the same thing and they even said the same thing..

And why is that a problem? The angel assumes a terrifying aspect to the soldiers and appears as a youth to the women.

It's undeniable that Matthew took Mark's account and made it more amazing by turning the young man into an angel and on top of that adding an earthquake. I can say this with confidence because Mark was written before Matthew, even though in the NT Matthew has deceivingly been put first. So they are in fact describing the same character. Contradiction.

There does appear to be much cross-fertilization among the Synoptic Gospels. Maybe its from Q, maybe not. Your idea that Matthew intentionally embellished Mark's account is conceivable, yet speculative. I could just as easily speculate that by the time Mathew was written details about the guard's experience had come to light and were added to make his account more complete. But the order of placement within the canon hardly qualifies as a contradiction. Each Gospel record stands on its own.

---

...My own view is that the entire New Testament is myth,due to the lack or credible evidence of to the contrary.

As I said above, if you want other contradictions to support your disbelief, by all means do so. I have seen the list of contradictions you cut and pasted. Have you taken the time to investigate the veracity of the claims made by your biased sources? Is that what you are asking me to do?

I don't deny that the bible overall contains contradictory statements, which often signal the symbolic import of those passages. As a practical matter, I have to address each challenge one at a time. To the greatest extent possible I do my own research and use my own judgement. I discuss things from what I have learned and not from what I can find using a search engine. I'm not accusing you of doing that. I just want to make clear to you that I confirm these things for myself before I bring them up for discussion.

I like to believe I'm an open minded and reasonable person. Please show me a bit of respect by not trying to drown me out with a barrage of things you cut and paste. Referring me to the infidels website is just rude. How do like it when theists give you a link to the discovery institute?

[BoyWonder]

Suppose JoA was complete fiction, it doesn't effect the consistency of the accounts.

Who the fuck cares about consistency when it's a load of bullcrap either way?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is that what you are asking me to do?

I'm not asking you to do anything. You asked for chapter and verse,which I provided. Yes, I cut and pasted arguments with which I agree. That does not in any way invalidate my position as far as I'm concerned. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the sources I cited.

This topic is of academic interest only to me,as a study of mythology. My position about the contradictions about the resurrection in the Gospels is neither new nor at all unusual among scholars.


I have no interests in arguing the point with you further. I really don't care if you agree or not.

[FallentoReason]

In the quotes you provided from Matthew, is says that MaryM and Mary go to the tomb. It does not say "When they they arrived at the tomb." It says they left to go. The earthquake and guard event happened before the Mary's arrived. The guards see the angle when it is outside the tomb and they are the witnesses of the earthquake, not the women. By the time the ladies arrive the angel has moved to the inside of the tomb. I assume angels can travel and don't have to stay in one place.

So essentially what you're saying is that Mark and Matthew complement each other? As in, what Mark didn't say about the boulder and guards Matthew said?

Considering Matthew came after Mark I just don't know how reliable the author is. His style of writing seems to be exaggerated with supernatural content that Mark doesn't mention. Take the crucifixion for example. Matthew chucks in another earthquake that Mark doesn't mention, or even Luke and John. I would have thought that something like an earthquake would be hard to forget. This makes me think that the author of Matthew never witnessed anything but instead took what was already there and made it sound fantastic. So based on his style of writing I am still inclined to see the angel at the tomb as the young man who talked to the Marys, as opposed to the angel moving the boulder and then becoming a young man who then spoke to the women. In other words I think Matthew and Mark don't complement each other but contradict when it comes to who talked to the women. Angel or young man?

But the order of placement within the canon hardly qualifies as a contradiction.

I didn't mean that the order is the contradiction. It's the angel/young man. Like I said above, Matthew comes across as describing the same event as Mark but with a supernatural twist. I doubt Matthew described what the angel did outside and then Mark talks about the same angel but now a young man inside. The fact that the angel/young man are described as saying the same thing to the women implies they are one and the same event. So what's it going to be? Angel or young man? Matthew's writing style just doesn't make him reliable.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So essentially what you're saying is that Mark and Matthew complement each other? As in, what Mark didn't say about the boulder and guards Matthew said?

Correct. Each of the gospel accounts describes what each believed was essential to convey the same message. Each based their message on the same set of circumstances filtered through the lens of each writers understanding. I can accept the ideas that 1) the gospels were not actually written by apostles after which they are named and 2) they were written many years after the fact.

I don’t image each woman speaking in turn before a quiet audience of disciples. Most likely, the events of the resurrection day were frantic and confused. Mary Magdalene could have excitedly spoken directly only to Peter and John. The other women simultaneously told their frantic accounts to anyone that would listen. I sure there were lots of questions, back and forth, etc. The disciples may have compared notes. They might not have. Either way they didn’t feel compelled to write it all down for posterity at that exact moment. As the original disciples approached the end of their days, some of the followers decided it was a good idea to write down the disciple’s stories. At that point the selective memory of the disciples took over and each skipped various details. But no one included something wildly different from any of the others. Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I find such a scenario plausible.

So what's it going to be? Angel or young man? Matthew's writing style just doesn't make him reliable.

In most biblical accounts angels appear as humans.You consider Matthew’s writing style unreliable because he writes about a miraculous event and feels comfortable calling an angel that appeared as a youth, an angel. Mark writes a more restrained account and describes only the way the angel appeared. I don’t see that as a clear and obvious contradiction, but then again I am inclined in that direction.

I acknowledge that scholars can and do vigorously debate all this. If you require every particular to match exactly, then you will find the gospel accounts inadequate. As for myself, I am satisfied that the accounts are sufficiently consistent.

[Godscreated]

The Gospels do complement each other by filling in what some left out, there are word differences within the stories (angel/young man) but none of this disputes an empty tomb. I will say this, the Jewish priest wanted Jesus dead and to stay dead, this is made clear in scripture, yet they never took the opportunity to open up the tomb to prove Jesus body was still there. If they had taken the opportunity they could have sealed the deal on christianity, they had the intelligence to do this, so why didn't they. Nothing was stopping them from opening up the tomb to prove Christ was still there. Why would these men who tried for three years to discount Christ, then when they could not they did everything they could to have Him killed and He was, did they miss such an open opportunity to prove He was still in the tomb. Everyone can throw out all their ideas to disprove the resurrection, but how do you get past the simple solution that the priest had to put away Jesus once and for all by opening the tomb.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

I can sum up the empty tomb proof of Jesus more succinctly:

LOOK! NOTHING!

[oxymoron]

but how do you get past the simple solution that the priest had to put away Jesus once and for all by opening the tomb.

You get past it by remembering (duh) that the whole thing is not a historical treatise but a synthesised, copied, edited story with absolutely no external validation from legitimate, contemporary sources?