Mageth

It is not a minor point. If there was a midweek sabbath day then you must scrub the first question, or at least re-do it. Why do you believe that all sabbaths were sundays?

Doesn't matter. As I pointed out, all of the gospels mention "the first day of the week", which corresponds to what we now call Sunday. Substitute that for Sunday in question 1.

godfry n. glad

Well... Just so you know, I found a Jewish website that allowed me to pose questions that would be answered by a rabbi. I asked about this "midweek sabbath"... They responded (from Jerusalem, no less) by stating that they'd never heard of any such thing. Shabbat is Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, period.

godfry n. glad

TangTsu

1. None of these use exclusive statements, ie. ONLY Mary Magdalene went or ALL three of them went. Some gospels simply neglect to mention one or more of the party. This is a difference but not an inconsistency.

2. Here its easy to get confused due to Greek tenses. Greek authors tended to use present tense as a way to more involve the reader in the story. This being said, it is concievable that they left their home while it was still dark and actually got to the tomb slightly after dawn. The translated term is 'came' which is ambiguous enough to refer to any part of their journey, either their leaving their home or their arrival at the tomb.

3. First, the account in John doesnt list any purpose at all. Matthew lists it as looking at the tomb while Mark and Luke mention spices / annointing. Again, these are not exclusive statements, simply different parts of the same itinerary. It would seem very unlikely that the women would come to honor the body and not spend any time at all 'looking' at the tomb. Again, not an inconsistency.

4. An interesting one. Without checking the actual Greek I would guess one of two things. First, they made two trips to the spice store, unlikely but possible. Second, Luke 23:56 would seem to be in chronological order but that assumption is not supported by anything in the text. There are no chronological indicators such as they bought the spices THEN rested on the Sabbath. Odd but again, entirely possible.

5. Here the man / men being referred to are angels. As for the number of them, again there are no exclusive statements. John simply neglects to mention this part. Furthermore, Mark says the women see a young man while Luke cites two men were there. Given that they are angels it is entirely possible that two were there but only one was seen. Either way, not an inconsistency.

6. Again, watch the chronology carefully. In Matthew the angel appears, rolls away the stone, then sits on it. Then the guards are afraid. Then the women show up. It says nothing about if the angel was still there upon their arrival. In fact in verse 2 it said the earthquake 'had occured' meaning this part had already taken place before they arrived. As for Mark and Luke, yet again there are no exclusive statements. However, clues can be found in the text the angels speak as they do not say the same things to the women in the different accounts. Mark cites that upon entering they found the lone man sitting and had some dialouge. Luke cites that while they were still perplexed about not finding the body two men appeared. Again it is entirely possible that after talking to the first man they were 'perplexed' when the next two showed up with additional instructions. This would fit as in Mark the lone man was already sitting upon their arrival while in Luke the next two appeared after they were inside.

And sadly its time for class. Ill come back and finish the others in a few hours.

God Bless.

TangTsu

Yay, back from gerontology...

7. Another interesting one. The key however lies a couple of verses later in Mark 16:10 where Mary reports 'to those who had been with Him'. Reading this and going back to verse 8 it makes sense that Mary and those with her said nothing to those whom they met while fleeing the tomb. Upon reaching the disciples they then fulfilled their commission and shared the good news. Again, the other gospels merely neglect to mention the period between the women leaving the tomb and arriving at the disciples. Mark on the other hand notes this time and that they said nothing to anyone while fleeing.

8. Again, be careful of assuming exclusive statements. There are only two absolutes in these passages. Mark 16:9 says Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene but it does not say who else might have been with her. 1st Corinthians 15:4-5 only says that He appeared to Cephas (at some point, we dont know when) and THEN to the twelve. Those are the only indicators we are given. Thus an order of Mary & Co. --> Cephas --> the twelve would not be in contrast to any of those statements.

9. Keeping with the last question we can scratch choice D right off. We also know that He first appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the least so we at least have a starting point. Matthew tells of Mary seeing Jesus somewhere between the tomb and Jerusalem immediately after she discovered the tomb was empty. John's account speaks of Mary seeing Jesus after she returned to the tomb. Thus it seems that Mary saw Jesus twice. The Mark account does not record Mary as actually seeing Jesus, just the angel telling her that she would see Him later in Galilee. This is in keeping with Matthew 28:10 where Jesus says that the disciples will see Him in Galilee. So the answer is A unless there is some unrecorded incident that we do not know about in which case it would be E.

Hope this was of help. The gospel accounts can be confusing at times if care isnt taken in their reading and Ill admit I certainly had to read through each of these a couple of times to get the answer. It was a good exercise though.

God Bless!

SLD

Except of course we have already discussed recently on this board that Mark really ended at 16:8 with the women running away and that the other sections are later additions by other Christians. I think you will find the thread here:

Mark's Ending

SLD

aikido7

Is your point that since the Easter accounts are contradictory and cannot be harmonized, then they must be myths?

If so, welcome to modern biblical scholarship!

Is your definition of myth "fable" or is it defined as "the closest human beings can come to absolute truth'?

If the former, there may be safety in numbers: you a part of the overwhelming majority. If the latter, you--along with mythologists and most anthropologists--see myth as that which legitimizes culture, highlights the conflict among differing ideologies and provides a soceity with a point of view (view from a point).

If you insist on seeing facts in these faith stories, you can try substituting the word "resuscitation" in place of the word "resurrection."

gilly54

The closest human beings can come to absolute truth is through science.

My point is that these contradictions add to the ever building scientific repudiations that the Bible is myth, (fable), and grossly embellished heresay. But, as we all know, the Bible is widely regarded by believers to be historical fact and the word of God. For example, in TsengTsu's post explaining of these contradictions, he/she offers:

Angels?! Being angels explains away the inconsistency? LOL!
Why not imps or fairies or the Messenger-god Mercury?

Here are nine more to explain since you enjoyed the others.

10. The disciples were to see Jesus first a. in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matt. 28:7,10,16) b. in Jerusalem (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33,36; John 20:19; Acts 1:4)

11. The disciples were told that they would meet the risen Jesus in Galilee a. by the women, who had been told by an angel of the Lord, then by Jesus himself after the resurrection (Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:7) b. by Jesus himself, before the crucifiction (Mark 26:32)

12. The risen Jesus a. wanted to be touched (John 20:27) b. did not want to be touched (John 20:17) c. did not mind being touched (Matt. 28:9-10)

13. Jesus ascended to Heaven a. the same day that he was resurrected (Mark 16:9,19; Luke24:13,28-36,50-51) b. forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9) c. we are not told that he ascended to Heaven at all (Matt. 28:10, 16-20; John 21:25; the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8)

14. The disciples received the Holy Spirit a. 50 days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3,9) b. in the evening of the same day as the resurrection (John 20:19-22)

15. The risen Jesus a. was recognized by those who saw him (Matt. 28:9; Mark 16:9-10) b. was not always recognizable (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John20:14-15)

16. The risen Jesus a. was physical (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:41-43; John 20:27) b. was not physical (Mark 16:9,12,14; Luke 24:15-16,31,36-37; John20:19,26; 1 Cor. 15:5-8)

17. The risen Jesus was seen by the disciples a. presumably only once (Matt. 28:16-17) b. first by two of them, later by all eleven (Mark 16:12-14; Luke24:13-15,33,36-51) c. three times (John 20:19,26; 21:1,14) d. many times (Acts 1:3)

18. When Jesus appeared to the disciples a. there were eleven of them (Matt. 28:16-17; Luke 24:33,36) b. twelve of them (1 Cor. 15:5)

aikido7

Again, my point is that calling the resurrection accounts myth, fable or "grossly embellished heresay" is not enough. You seem to be fitting your humanity into a Procrustean fundamentalist bed in order to address the fundamentalist view. Both sides covet scientism and rationalism. Your pot is calling their kettle black. In any case, the meal inside is going to waste.

"We began to think that ancient peoples ("other" peoples) told dumb, literal stories that we were now smart enough to recognize as such. Not quite. those ancient people told smart, metaphorical stroies that we were now dumb enough to take literally." --J.D. Crossan

It is too easy when all one can say when it comes to the Christmas holiday is that there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

TangTsu

The thread regarding Mark's ending was inconclusive at best. Regardless, the point still stands even with out verse 10; verse 8 could only apply to the time between the women finding the tomb and the women telling the disciples.

As far as the men being angels, I doubt this is much of a stretch. In the first instance in Mark the young man is wearing white and upon seeing him the women 'were amazed'. The Greek for the garmet he is wearing clearly indicates the clothing of angels, dazzling and brilliant from whiteness. The instance in Luke uses a different term but also denotes this 'dazzling apparel'. Also the women 'were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground'. Not something most women would do for two ordinary men.

Homework beckons so Ill have to get to the other nine some other time, perhaps tomorrow or Friday. However, you might enjoy digging a little and seeing if you can come up with a solution yourself. Try and beat me to it, or something to that effect.

God Bless.

gilly54

So now the Bible doesn't really mean what it says? So, Jesus didn't really rise from the dead then, and he simply rotted which is what happens to all organic material on this planet. Now THAT I will agree with! So, if the Bible isn't to be taken literally, then why should we regard it as anything more than a Hebrew version of Aesop's fables,which also contain parables and moralistic messages, or fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm? How about the stories told through Egyptian hieroglyphs of the lives of their gods? Or the gods of the aboriginies of Australia or of the native Americans? ( I like the Ntive American story that the Earth is really the back of a huge snapping turtle.)

As for Procrustes and his beds, it seems to me that this is exactly what the Christian apologeticists, such as Crossan, do in order to justify their beliefs when confronted by scientific evidence that dispells Bible say-so.