RE: Empty Tomb Puzzle
April 1, 2012 at 11:53 pm
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2012 at 12:24 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
In point of fact I started with Mark and showed which details the others had either omitted or added.
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.
And why is that a problem? The angel assumes a terrifying aspect to the soldiers and appears as a youth to the women.
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.
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?
(April 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Well this just isn't true.Yes I did, because that resolves the apparent contradiction and makes Mark and Matt align.
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.
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.
(April 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: 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.
(April 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: 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.
(April 1, 2012 at 9:46 pm)padraic Wrote: ...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?
