Empty Tomb Puzzle

[Neo-Scholastic]

Each of the Gospel accounts report events from the perscpective of the four writers. Where one writer glosses over certain happenings, the other writers supply the details. The four Gospel accounts compliment each other, and taken together, give us a more comprehensive picture of what happened. No Gospel account directly contradicts any of the others. I made a side-by-side comparision of all four and assembled for you the followings narrative.

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. The youth also tells them that Jesus will meet them in Galelie.Some or all of the women then enter the tomb. Two men suddenly appear. The men say, "He is not here...". The women bow to the ground in reverence. Then they go back to some the disciples reporting what the youth and the two men had said. Mary Magdalene appears to remember what was said but still believes someone carted away the body.

None of the disciples present believe the women. Mary Magdalene leads Peter and John back to the tomb so they could see for themselves..John rushes ahead but doesn't enter. He watches from the outside as Peter goes into the tomb and examines the burial wrappings. While John and Peter are examining the tomb, the two men appear to Mary again. This time Jesus is with them although she doesn't recognize him until he says her name.

Matt 28:7 records what the youth said then skips all the intervining details and goes direct to the appearence in the upper room.
Mark 16:7 also records the encounter with the youth, but omits the details of the two men. Mark also skips over Peter, John's and Mary's visit.
Luke 24:12 focuses on Peter as the central character to the exclusion of John and Mary.
John 20:8-18 adds all the details relating John and Mary Magdalene.

Meanwhile, two of the disciples, one named Cleopas, are walking to Emmas, They meet a man on the road and have dinner with him and discuss the events of the Passion. Suddenly the two disciples finally recognize the man as the risen Christ.

Mark 16 and John 20 do not record this particualar visitation.

Finally, everyone is united for dinner. Peter and John report to the rest that the tomb was empty. The two disciples returning from Emmau chime in and report their encounter with Jesus. And the reports of Mary Magdalene and the other women are fresh in their minds. Everyone is confused. The remaining disciples, including Thomas, don't believe any of it until finally Jesus appears within their midst to clear up the events of the day.

And that is how it happened...

Those who say that the four Gospel accounts conflict have not taken the time to complete the puzzle. I have done so for you, so that you may understand the story in its entirety.

[downbeatplumb]

Can you do the same with Harry Potter? I havent had time to read them all.

[Minimalist]

You have just given a graphic description of what Bart Ehrman calls the gospel of Markmatthewlukejohn. This is what happens when you try to cram all 4 of these horseshit stories into one.

The result is a compilation of stupidity which should make a xtian blush...except they are immune to embarrassment.

[oxymoron]

Given that the gospels were probably written decades after the alleged event by people who did not know Jesus, one would kinda hope that whoever the authors really were (because apart from Paul we really don't know for sure), they would at least get their stories straight. Any eejit can write a story to fit a prophecy, after all. But of course, the gospels are so ridiculously inconsistent in so many other places, one has to wonder why anyone with half a brain would take the rest seriously.

[Neo-Scholastic]

None of you have shown any conflict between the narrative, as I presented it, and any of the Gospel accounts. I take that to me that acknowledge the consistency of the four Gospel accounts. If you want to continue in your disbelief because of other apparent contradictions in the bible, go ahead. But stop whining about contradictions between the four resurrection accounts becuase there are none. It makes not one whit of difference it the stories are true or not, they are still consistent.

I anticipated that some of you would repeat your same-old tired and lame objections to the Gospels. For the sake of arguement, I will accept both claims that 1) the four books were written a long time after the resurrection and 2) the four books reflect edited versions of a single source. First, objection 1. If the gospel records were written many years after the fact, then one would expect the inclusion of fabrications and/or direct conflicts with the other accounts. The lack of any conflicts suggests that each of the writers was refering to a common source of material, objection 2. If indeed there was a single source then there are two options: a written record of all the events in a single document or a common set of events.

There is no direct evidence for the existence of a master document like Q. Even if Q did exist, the John's Gospel would still be an independent tradition. Thus leaving open the possibility for obvious after the fact fabrications. The consistency of the four, in spite of the production date actually supports their authenticity.

Moreover positing the existence of Q or similar source adds an unnecessary step in the making of the four. Using Occam's razor the simplest explanation is that each of the four refer to a common set of events.

[Minimalist]

I take that to me that acknowledge the consistency of the four Gospel accounts.

WTF are you smoking today?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I take that to me that acknowledge the consistency of the four Gospel accounts.

WTF are you smoking today?

Ridicule is not a refutation. But if you want everyone to see what an assclown you're being, but all mean proceed.

[Minimalist]

You make an idiotic statement and then demand it be refuted?

Go fuck yourself, Chad.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Peripheral questions:

Who was Joseph of Arimathea,really? Where was Arimathea and why was that CITY not documented outside of the gospels?

This rich bloke gives Jesus his own tomb, cut out of the rock.That's very posh,most people just a got a hole,and still do. Seems awefully convenient. I think the disciples pinched the tomb.

. Are we also expected to believe TWO Roman soldiers fell asleep (a capital crime) and that they did not witness resurrection?

The lack of any conflicts suggests that each of the writers was referring to a common source of material, objection

Really? Try this: get hold of four bibles (same version) Read the separate accounts of the resurrection side by side.THEN tell me there is non conflict of reported fasts,,with a straight face.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Peripheral questions:Who was Joseph of Arimathea,really? Where was Arimathea and why was that CITY not documented outside of the gospels?

I do not know. Suppose JoA was complete fiction, it doesn't effect the consistency of the accounts. No refutation of the OP.

This rich bloke gives Jesus his own tomb, cut out of the rock.That's very posh,most people just a got a hole,and still do. Seems awefully convenient. I think the disciples pinched the tomb.

That's the story. Disciples pinched the tomb? That's speculation on your part...no refutation of the OP here either.

Are we also expected to believe TWO Roman soldiers fell asleep (a capital crime) and that they did not witness resurrection?

The security guard at my building always naps. It's more plausible than the ressurection itself. Once again, not a refutation of the OP.

...Try this: get hold of four bibles (same version) Read the separate accounts of the resurrection side by side.THEN tell me there is non conflict of reported fasts,,with a straight face.

Actually that is what I did and the result was the OP. You say there is a conflict, but do not offer any example. I even made it easy for you by citing chapter and verse. Try reading the OP and showing me where the conflict is.