• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus Empty tomb narratives

Why each author of Gospel had a different story to tell, about what was seen at the empty tomb

  • Because Bible texts became somewhat corrupted

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Because this event was not physical. It was a vision, each saw a different vision.

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Because authors of Bible failed to come up with a consistent story.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • Other... please explain.

    Votes: 8 42.1%

  • Total voters
    19

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Why each author of Gospel had a different story to tell, about what was seen at the empty tomb of Jesus?

"Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot." John 20:11 and 12

"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed." Mark 16:5

"While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them." Luke 24:5
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Because none of the authors was at the tomb and each got the story from a different person who may or may not have been at the tomb. One thing the few stories all have in common is that Jesus was not still in the tomb AND dead. And the other thing that the few stories all have in common is that Jesus died involuntarily, at the hands of Roman soldiers, and was put in a tomb.

My brothers and I were together in the same place when something happened years ago, but if you ask us about different events that we all witnessed first-hand, ... surprise! surprise! you'll never get exactly the same story from all of us. And God forbid that you ask my brother's kids or friends to tell you what happened when the four of us were present at different events. Quite a few will be surprised that we were present, others may know that some of us brothers were present, and maybe even one person will remember who they heard was present. Texts didn't "get" corrupted, one or more or all were faulty to begin with. Is that still really great mystery??? Neither God the Father nor Jesus nor the Holy Spirit appeared to each of the authors and said: "Pay attention, now, and write this down" and anybody who thinks one of them did is a knucklehead.

Sheesh.
 
Last edited:

izzy88

Active Member
The accounts differ slightly because the Gospels are not police reports or a mere record of facts; they are ancient Greco-Roman biographies. You need to read each book with its genre in mind, otherwise you'll have a tough time making sense of it.

Why Are the Bible’s Easter Accounts Different?

"Scholars like Michael Licona have noted that the genre of ancient literature that the Gospels most closely resemble is that of Greco-Roman biography. In reporting the speeches and activities of famous figures, writers utilized techniques in recording history that were perfectly acceptable at the time, such as compression (truncating longer speeches for the sake of brevity). The Gospel writers did this as well: they report that Jesus held crowds spellbound for hours with his preaching, yet his recorded sermons can be read in minutes.

Also, events were moved around in a narrative for thematic reasons. For example, did Jesus “cleanse” the temple at the beginning of his public ministry (John 2:13-22), or toward the end, as in the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)? Or did he do it twice? In all likelihood, Jesus’ action at the temple occurred toward the end of his life, enraging the authorities and precipitating his arrest, but John places it at the beginning of his Gospel for symbolic reasons.

A culture of storytelling by memory
We also need to consider the way students (disciples) were taught in the Jewish tradition. Theirs was a culture of memorization. Scholar Craig Keener reports that students in Jesus’ day were capable of memorizing prodigious amounts of speeches and sacred texts. Even so, Jesus’ disciples were not expected to “parrot” his teachings, repeating them verbatim. In fact, if they had, they would have been considered poor students. Jesus himself probably gave different versions of the same basic “talk” as he preached in various settings. One example could be the similarities between the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5-7 and the “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6:17-49.

Having a proper understanding of Jesus’ message was the key, which was proven by an ability to accurately re-present the essence—or the “gist”—of Jesus’ teachings in a way that would be relevant to one’s audience and its particular needs. The one thing disciples were most assuredly not allowed to do was to invent sayings or deeds of Jesus.

Evaluating the differences
Now let’s apply all of this to the synoptic Gospel accounts of the first Easter. Even though there is variance in secondary details (how many angels were at the tomb, for example), the basic message is the same: Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty of him early on Sunday morning, and the resurrected Christ later appeared to various disciples over a period of time.

What might be some reasons for these varying secondary details?

Ironically, the fact that these accounts are not in verbatim agreement actually enhances the probability that they are historical. Each Evangelist is making use of different sources of eyewitness testimony when composing his Gospel. The Evangelists didn’t “cut and paste” a prefabricated Easter account into their respective Gospels.

There are also literary or thematic reasons for the differences. In Mark’s Gospel, as noted above, the women react fearfully. Fear —even terror—in the presence of the divine is a constant Markan motif. When it comes to describing the most stupendous of all miracles—Jesus’ resurrection—Mark’s not about to change his style.

What of the variances in the lists of women who may or may not have been present? It’s reasonable that they all were present but that each evangelist is highlighting the names of those who may have been personally known or particularly important to his readers. The fact that some women were the first to encounter the empty tomb and the risen Jesus is what’s important here —and this is not something that the Gospel writers would have been eager to admit were it not the case.

The testimony of women in the first-century Jewish world was not considered reliable in a court of law. If one’s goal at this time was to convince readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and one made up a story about his being raised from the dead, one certainly wouldn’t present women as the first to discover the empty tomb and meet the resurrected Jesus —unless that’s what actually happened, as embarrassing as this might be in that particular cultural context.

All in all, when the Gospels are held up to the standards of first-century Greco-Roman historical writing, and to the standards of Jewish transmission of rabbinical teaching common to the period, they hold up quite well indeed."
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Because none of the authors was at the tomb and each got the story from a different person who may or may not have been at the tomb. One thing the few stories all have in common is that Jesus was not still in the tomb AND dead. And the other thing that the few stories all have in common is that Jesus died involuntarily, at the hands of Roman soldiers, and was put in a tomb.

My brothers and I were together in the same place when something happened years ago, but if you ask us about different events that we all witnessed first-hand, ... surprise! surprise! you'll never get exactly the same story from all of us. And God forbid that you ask my brother's kids or friends to tell you what happened when the four of us were present at different events. Quite a few will be surprised that we were present, others may know that some of us brothers were present, and maybe even one person will remember who they heard was present. Texts didn't "get" corrupted, one or more or all were faulty to begin with. Is that still really great mystery??? Neither God the Father nor Jesus nor the Holy Spirit appeared to each of the authors and said: "Pay attention, now, and write this down" and anybody who thinks one of them did is a knucklehead.

Sheesh.
Thus, in your view, Bible is not inspired by God, for if it was, God had power to ensure His Holy Book will be written and preserved without errors or contrediction. Why wouldn't God write His holy Book though second hand stories passing from one person to another, with allowing mistakes to happen?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
The accounts differ slightly because the Gospels are not police reports or a mere record of facts; they are ancient Greco-Roman biographies. You need to read each book with its genre in mind, otherwise you'll have a tough time making sense of it.

Why Are the Bible’s Easter Accounts Different?

"Scholars like Michael Licona have noted that the genre of ancient literature that the Gospels most closely resemble is that of Greco-Roman biography. In reporting the speeches and activities of famous figures, writers utilized techniques in recording history that were perfectly acceptable at the time, such as compression (truncating longer speeches for the sake of brevity). The Gospel writers did this as well: they report that Jesus held crowds spellbound for hours with his preaching, yet his recorded sermons can be read in minutes.

Also, events were moved around in a narrative for thematic reasons. For example, did Jesus “cleanse” the temple at the beginning of his public ministry (John 2:13-22), or toward the end, as in the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)? Or did he do it twice? In all likelihood, Jesus’ action at the temple occurred toward the end of his life, enraging the authorities and precipitating his arrest, but John places it at the beginning of his Gospel for symbolic reasons.

A culture of storytelling by memory
We also need to consider the way students (disciples) were taught in the Jewish tradition. Theirs was a culture of memorization. Scholar Craig Keener reports that students in Jesus’ day were capable of memorizing prodigious amounts of speeches and sacred texts. Even so, Jesus’ disciples were not expected to “parrot” his teachings, repeating them verbatim. In fact, if they had, they would have been considered poor students. Jesus himself probably gave different versions of the same basic “talk” as he preached in various settings. One example could be the similarities between the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5-7 and the “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6:17-49.

Having a proper understanding of Jesus’ message was the key, which was proven by an ability to accurately re-present the essence—or the “gist”—of Jesus’ teachings in a way that would be relevant to one’s audience and its particular needs. The one thing disciples were most assuredly not allowed to do was to invent sayings or deeds of Jesus.

Evaluating the differences
Now let’s apply all of this to the synoptic Gospel accounts of the first Easter. Even though there is variance in secondary details (how many angels were at the tomb, for example), the basic message is the same: Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty of him early on Sunday morning, and the resurrected Christ later appeared to various disciples over a period of time.

What might be some reasons for these varying secondary details?

Ironically, the fact that these accounts are not in verbatim agreement actually enhances the probability that they are historical. Each Evangelist is making use of different sources of eyewitness testimony when composing his Gospel. The Evangelists didn’t “cut and paste” a prefabricated Easter account into their respective Gospels.

There are also literary or thematic reasons for the differences. In Mark’s Gospel, as noted above, the women react fearfully. Fear —even terror—in the presence of the divine is a constant Markan motif. When it comes to describing the most stupendous of all miracles—Jesus’ resurrection—Mark’s not about to change his style.

What of the variances in the lists of women who may or may not have been present? It’s reasonable that they all were present but that each evangelist is highlighting the names of those who may have been personally known or particularly important to his readers. The fact that some women were the first to encounter the empty tomb and the risen Jesus is what’s important here —and this is not something that the Gospel writers would have been eager to admit were it not the case.

The testimony of women in the first-century Jewish world was not considered reliable in a court of law. If one’s goal at this time was to convince readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and one made up a story about his being raised from the dead, one certainly wouldn’t present women as the first to discover the empty tomb and meet the resurrected Jesus —unless that’s what actually happened, as embarrassing as this might be in that particular cultural context.

All in all, when the Gospels are held up to the standards of first-century Greco-Roman historical writing, and to the standards of Jewish transmission of rabbinical teaching common to the period, they hold up quite well indeed."
But, aren't the Gospels inspired by God? After all, it has stories regarding the Inly Son of God begotten.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Why each author of Gospel had a different story to tell, about what was seen at the empty tomb of Jesus?

"Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot." John 20:11 and 12

"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed." Mark 16:5

"While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them." Luke 24:5
Are you assuming there was only one visit by the same people?

One of Ayn Rand's favorite saying in Atlas Shrugged was, "check your premise." Perhaps the two accounts are not speaking about one event, but two similar events. Actually there is not "perhaps" involved here. There were actually several visits to the tomb, different times, different people.
 

izzy88

Active Member
But, aren't the Gospels inspired by God? After all, it has stories regarding the Inly Son of God begotten.
What do you think that means, for God to have inspired the Gospel writers? Do you think it means they were possessed? That they weren't in control of themselves? Or maybe that God acted as their editor and proofreader, making them revise each draft until they even had every irrelevant secondary detail correct?

What do you believe it means, practically, for God to have inspired the Gospels?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
What do you think that means, for God to have inspired the Gospel writers? Do you think it means they were possessed? That they weren't in control of themselves? Or maybe that God acted as their editor and proofreader, making them revise each draft until they even had every irrelevant secondary detail correct?

What do you believe it means, practically, for God to have inspired the Gospels?
It means, God gave them the knowledge, with regards to what they were supposed to write in Gospels. No, it does not mean possessed, but, God gave them the knowledge, and the ability to write Gospels in truth without mistakes.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Are you assuming there was only one visit by the same people?

One of Ayn Rand's favorite saying in Atlas Shrugged was, "check your premise." Perhaps the two accounts are not speaking about one event, but two similar events. Actually there is not "perhaps" involved here. There were actually several visits to the tomb, different times, different people.
Then, how many trips, each apostle (Mark, John and Luke) made to the Tomb, base on the Gospels?
 

izzy88

Active Member
It means, God gave them the knowledge, with regards to what they were supposed to write in Gospels. No, it does not mean possessed, but, God gave them the knowledge, and the ability to write Gospels in truth without mistakes.
Well, I'm afraid you're still mistaken. The writers of the Gospels didn't have knowledge divinely implanted in their brains; they wrote these stories based on their own experiences as well as the experiences of other eyewitnesses.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Thus, in your view, Bible is not inspired by God, for if it was, God had power to ensure His Holy Book will be written and preserved without errors or contrediction. Why wouldn't God write His holy Book though second hand stories passing from one person to another, with allowing mistakes to happen?
You have a very odd idea of what "inspiration from God" is, no matter how common your idea is. You seem to assume that everyone who is "inspired by God" will perform what they are inspired to do perfectly regardless what they are inspired to do, and that a group of people who are "inspired by God" will perform what they are all inspired to do, if they are inspired to do the same thing, in precisely the same way, like robots operating under "the same inspiration" of the same software program or of identical software programs. Personally, I find that very funny ... and odd.

If God wanted a perfect book, why wouldn't He command an angel to write it, after all angels have hands and arms don't they? and all but the rebel angels obey his commands perfectly, don't they? Why would He let humans write it? anybody who knows what humans are like knows that humans tend to screw things up.

You say you're a Baha'i. Was Bahuallah a robot prophet?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Well, I'm afraid you're still mistaken. The writers of the Gospels didn't have knowledge divinely implanted in their brains; they wrote these stories based on their own experiences as well as the experiences of other eyewitnesses.
Ok ،in your view, thus, the Gospel is not inspired by God. It is just based on their own experiences and information they got from others, which then means it could all be wrong, or false. Maybe what others told them was invented even. Maybe the story of empty tomb is an invented story, in your view. Maybe the apostles invented stories, or other wrote Gospels claiming apostles wrote them. All possible, when you remove the Will of God from this.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
You have a very odd idea of what "inspiration from God" is, no matter how common your idea is. You seem to assume that everyone who is "inspired by God" will perform what they are inspired to do perfectly regardless what they are inspired to do, and that a group of people who are "inspired by God" will perform what they are all inspired to do, if they are inspired to do the same thing, in precisely the same way, like robots operating under "the same inspiration" of the same software program or of identical software programs. Personally, I find that very funny ... and odd.

If God wanted a perfect book, why wouldn't He command an angel to write it, after all angels have hands and arms don't they? and all but the rebel angels obey his commands perfectly, don't they? Why would He let humans write it? anybody who knows what humans are like knows that humans tend to screw things up.

You say you're a Baha'i. Was Bahuallah a robot prophet?
As a Bahai, I believe by angels is mean, certain human beings, who have become pure. Apostles were Angel's. We don't believe in angels as two wing people. Those are symbolic to us.
Bahaullah to Bahais is a Manifestation of God. It means, His presence was presence of God Himself.
 

izzy88

Active Member
Ok ،in your view, thus, the Gospel is not inspired by God.

No, in your view the Gospels are not inspired by God because you don't understand what "inspired by God" means and are evidently ignoring my attempt to help correct your understanding.

which then means it could all be wrong, or false. Maybe what others told them was invented even. Maybe the story of empty tomb is an invented story, in your view. Maybe the apostles invented stories, or other wrote Gospels claiming apostles wrote them.

Certainly, and if you actually knew anything about subject you'd know this happened several times - we have many other written accounts about Jesus from around the same time period (though a bit later) which are full of invented stories. The four Gospels we have now were simply the only ones determined by the Church to be truthful, but that's a whole different topic.

All possible, when you remove the Will of God from this.

Nothing is possible when you remove the Will of God, and literally everything that has ever and will ever occur is a result of the Will of God.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
As a Bahai, I believe by angels is mean, certain human beings, who have become pure. Apostles were Angel's. We don't believe in angels as two wing people. Those are symbolic to us.
That's news to me. So, Bahai's believe that the Angel Gabriel was a human who became pure and told Muhammad what to recite and to tell others to recite before the Qur'an was written. Interesting.

Bahaullah to Bahais is a Manifestation of God. It means, His presence was presence of God Himself.
So errors and contradictions in the Bible are Bahaullah's fault? Interesting.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
That's news to me. So, Bahai's believe that the Angel Gabriel was a human who became pure and told Muhammad what to recite and to tell others to recite before the Qur'an was written. Interesting.

Interesting.
Angel gabriel is the inner reality of Muhammad. He presented His revelations as receiving from an angel, according to the wisdom of God.

So errors and contradictions in the Bible are Bahaullah's fault? Interesting.
Bahais don't believe there are errors or contredictions in the Bible. It is the truth from God, and was a sufficient guidence to humanity.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
No, in your view the Gospels are not inspired by God because you don't understand what "inspired by God" means and are evidently ignoring my attempt to help correct your understanding.



Certainly, and if you actually knew anything about subject you'd know this happened several times - we have many other written accounts about Jesus from around the same time period (though a bit later) which are full of invented stories. The four Gospels we have now were simply the only ones determined by the Church to be truthful, but that's a whole different topic.



Nothing is possible when you remove the Will of God, and literally everything that has ever and will ever occur is a result of the Will of God.
Ok, so, you believe the Bible is inspired by God, but God did not make it free from errors and contredictions. Is this now your view? How do we know the church made the right choice in putting aside other Gospels and choosing the true Gospels?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Why each author of Gospel had a different story to tell, about what was seen at the empty tomb of Jesus?

"Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot." John 20:11 and 12

"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed." Mark 16:5

"While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them." Luke 24:5

The stories were written by different authors at different times decades apart and they were not eye witness to any of it, with one possible exception. We have no copies of the original stories, and it probably wouldn't matter if we did, as they were most likely passed around orally for decades first.
 
Top