• 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!

What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

  • To record historical events

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • To portray a theological narrative

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • To write a mythological story

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • A combination of history, theology and/or mythology

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • This poll does not reflect my thinking

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something else - please feel free to explain

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Total voters
    33

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Why do you doubt their sincerity? And what about Paul? He had no doubt about the resurrection either.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
I believe the answer to this question will appear someday but not yet.

If I had to guess I think the world broke for a lot of people local to Jerusalem. The actions of the emperor have been recorded, so we know that there were pools of blood everywhere when Titus destroyed the capital city. Even before that there were many deaths and atrocities. Living through such a time would not be something anybody local would want to remember. I feel this may have something to do with it. I do not feel certain about it.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Why do you doubt their sincerity? And what about Paul? He had no doubt about the resurrection either.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the Gospel authors (or Paul). However I don't believe any of the NT authors were writing purely historical documents. Do you?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe the answer to this question will appear someday but not yet.

If I had to guess I think the world broke for a lot of people local to Jerusalem. The actions of the emperor have been recorded, so we know that there were pools of blood everywhere when Titus destroyed the capital city. Even before that there were many deaths and atrocities. Living through such a time would not be something anybody local would want to remember. I feel this may have something to do with it. I do not feel certain about it.

Being uncertain is fine. Clearly the Gospel authors wanted to portray something of the life and teachings of Jesus. However as Jesus used story telling to convey essential spiritual teachings it appears the Gospel authors mythologised and allegorised their biographical accounts of Jesus in a similar manner...unless of course you believe Jesus literally and bodily rose from the dead. Then you have a different set of questions and issues to unravel.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
I don't doubt the sincerity of the Gospel authors (or Paul). However I don't believe any of the NT authors were writing purely historical documents. Do you?

Maybe not, though the question was on the Resurrection. It seems to me that whoever wrote the Gospels really believed it happened.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I voted: To record historical events

Combining a variety of modern psychic sources relevant to the life of Jesus I have to lean to the swoon theory. Jesus spent his final years with his wife Mary Magdalene primarily in France.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe not, though the question was on the Resurrection. It seems to me that whoever wrote the Gospels really believed it happened.

The Gospel accounts can certainly come across that way. However Matthew appears to tell an embellished story in regards the crucifixion and resurrection. For example in Matthew 27:50-54 we have:

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.


Was the temple veil literally torn from top to bottom? Was there a violent earthquake at the time that caused rocks to move? Did graves of deceased and formly saintly individuals literally rise from the grave and travel to Jerusalem? These are extraordinary events.

The resurrection account uses similar imagery:

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.


Should we take all this as a literal account of events or perhaps the story of Jesus is embellished or allegorised to convey hidden spiritual truths?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I voted: To record historical events

Combining a variety of modern psychic sources relevant to the life of Jesus I have to lean to the swoon theory. Jesus spent his final years with his wife Mary Magdalene primarily in France.

That is quite Islamic in some respects in that it denies Jesus was crucified.

How do you account for the acension of Jesus recorded in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The Gospel accounts cetainly portray Jesus as being crucified and having died. Unlike the resurrection of Christ and His ascenion which are extraordinary events, the crucifixion of Christ is consisitent with the way Roman's treated criminals something that most historians of antiquity would agree about.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
I doubt if anyone could reasonably deny the Gospel author's desire to change the world and their effectiveness in doing so.
Without knowing the identities of the authors it's hard to surmise what their true intents were. Each may have had different intents and scholars now believe that some of the gospels--one in the least, John's gospel--was written by several men as indicated by the changes in style from one chapter to the next. The story of the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in any manuscripts until roughly the 8th century. Personally, I think the authors as a collective group were trying to get the new Christianity movement off the ground and as each gospel came along the new authors added more and more flourishes and supernatural events to make it more fantastic than the last. This is why we see Jesus growing from a mighty prophet in Mark to a demi-god in Matthew and Luke to full god in John. This may have been an attempt to attract pagans who didn't want to worship a prophet, they wanted an actual god, so the writers of John gave them them one.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Being uncertain is fine. Clearly the Gospel authors wanted to portray something of the life and teachings of Jesus. However as Jesus used story telling to convey essential spiritual teachings it appears the Gospel authors mythologised and allegorised their biographical accounts of Jesus in a similar manner...unless of course you believe Jesus literally and bodily rose from the dead. Then you have a different set of questions and issues to unravel.
I think rather than conveying essential spiritual teachings the gospels convey messages to the Jewish diaspora in the aftermath of the temple's destruction. The gospels would have the Jews remain faithful to their principles and thus not become violent against Rome. The gospels, to them, probably read like chicken soup for the soul, except for John which was likely written much later.

We perceive it a different way entirely. To us it looks like the transmission of essential teachings, but these are commonly understood principles not just to Jews but universally. To us it looks like a rebuke of the Pharisee. To us it looks like only one man was crucified by the Romans, not 30,000. Of them we know nothing, but we know about Jesus crucifixion.

Let me give you an example of just how badly people misunderstand the gospels. Why is it important and significant that Jesus rise on the third day? Why not the 4th or the 2nd? Why is it such a huge deal? Why would Jesus have to rise within 3 days? This makes no sense to anyone who is not Torah educated and more. All of my life no one on any forum or in any Christian assembly has been able to explain to me why Jesus had to rise within 3 days; yet in the gospels it says this is part of scripture that he must rise on the third day. Nobody can find a prophecy saying such. Nobody can conjure one up. Only in the past year have I gotten a good grasp. That means almost nobody understands the gospels, and I also have difficulty with them.

I am sorry for my tone. This subject is sensitive.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I think rather than conveying essential spiritual teachings the gospels convey messages to the Jewish diaspora in the aftermath of the temple's destruction. The gospels would have the Jews remain faithful to their principles and thus not become violent against Rome. The gospels, to them, probably read like chicken soup for the soul, except for John which was likely written much later.

We perceive it a different way entirely. To us it looks like the transmission of essential teachings, but these are commonly understood principles not just to Jews but universally. To us it looks like a rebuke of the Pharisee. To us it looks like only one man was crucified by the Romans, not 30,000. Of them we know nothing, but we know about Jesus crucifixion.

Let me give you an example of just how badly people misunderstand the gospels. Why is it important and significant that Jesus rise on the third day? Why not the 4th or the 2nd? Why is it such a huge deal? Why would Jesus have to rise within 3 days? This makes no sense to anyone who is not Torah educated and more. All of my life no one on any forum or in any Christian assembly has been able to explain to me why Jesus had to rise within 3 days; yet in the gospels it says this is part of scripture that he must rise on the third day. Nobody can find a prophecy saying such. Nobody can conjure one up. Only in the past year have I gotten a good grasp. That means almost nobody understands the gospels, and I also have difficulty with them.

I am sorry for my tone. This subject is sensitive.

The Bible is the most read and studied book on the planet. We are on a religious forum that has its mission statement about providing a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another. Do you think the resurrection of Christ is a sensitive and delicate topic?

I have a friend who after converting to Christianity studied the book of Leviticus. It isn’t the book I would expect a new Christian to study in the first instance. However the approach has given her the foundation to understand the NT. She is one of the most knowledgeable and dedicated Christians I have come across.

So I agree that to understand the Gospel accounts we need to understand Judaism and the milieu and exigencies of the Christian communities in the first century.
 

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
... if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I don't believe in the ressurrection either as I used to be a fan of those "science-focused" crime series involving coroners and autopsies.

As for your question, however, I recall the story of the ressurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1-45) as well as other people who came back to life when Jesus called or touched them. I thing this incidents are supposed to "prove" a theological narrative that Jesus has the power to ressurrect the dead as well as himself.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I believe the Gospels are documents of faith, and the intent was not to write a biography nor a chronological history, but the Christian 'story'. The doctrine of the resurrection, literally understood, is an absurdity. That a man, three days dead, might be revived, to mingle again with the living, talk to them, and move about much as if nothing had happened to him, violates the most basic certainties of reason and common knowledge. Truths that are perfectly clear and unambiguous to reason are not the truths of religion, while myth and mystery, which are never clear and unambiguous, are.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
FYI: the original version of Mark doesn't include the Resurrection; it ends with Apostles discovering the empty tomb.

The Resurrection account in Mark is in the longer ending, which was added later.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Being uncertain is fine. Clearly the Gospel authors wanted to portray something of the life and teachings of Jesus. However as Jesus used story telling to convey essential spiritual teachings it appears the Gospel authors mythologised and allegorised their biographical accounts of Jesus in a similar manner...unless of course you believe Jesus literally and bodily rose from the dead. Then you have a different set of questions and issues to unravel.

Maybe it is you who is allegorising a purely historical narrative. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then the gospels are fictional. Why apart from your faith would you need to doubt that God did raise Jesus up from the dead. God could do it surely. The prophecies say that the Messiah would rise again. The story tells us that Jesus rose again.
There would be questions and issues to unravel if Jesus had not risen from the dead.
I guess there would not be a gospel if Jesus had not risen from the dead.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
I think rather than conveying essential spiritual teachings the gospels convey messages to the Jewish diaspora in the aftermath of the temple's destruction. The gospels would have the Jews remain faithful to their principles and thus not become violent against Rome. The gospels, to them, probably read like chicken soup for the soul, except for John which was likely written much later.

We perceive it a different way entirely. To us it looks like the transmission of essential teachings, but these are commonly understood principles not just to Jews but universally. To us it looks like a rebuke of the Pharisee. To us it looks like only one man was crucified by the Romans, not 30,000. Of them we know nothing, but we know about Jesus crucifixion.

Let me give you an example of just how badly people misunderstand the gospels. Why is it important and significant that Jesus rise on the third day? Why not the 4th or the 2nd? Why is it such a huge deal? Why would Jesus have to rise within 3 days? This makes no sense to anyone who is not Torah educated and more. All of my life no one on any forum or in any Christian assembly has been able to explain to me why Jesus had to rise within 3 days; yet in the gospels it says this is part of scripture that he must rise on the third day. Nobody can find a prophecy saying such. Nobody can conjure one up. Only in the past year have I gotten a good grasp. That means almost nobody understands the gospels, and I also have difficulty with them.

I am sorry for my tone. This subject is sensitive.

There are some 3rd day prophecies that have regularly been seen as referring to Jesus.
Jesus used the Jonah analogy (3 days and night in the fish)
Hosea 6:2 is also used and it can be seen as a possible source.
Recently I found a couple more, which seem likely suspects also.
When Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, his firstborn, they left the servant and travelled 3 days to the place of sacrifice before it was revealed that Isaac was not the sacrifice and that the Lord would provide a sacrifice. Thus Isaac was dead in Abraham's eyes for 3 days and sort of came back to life after that.
There is another one with Noah. We know that Baptism is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Also Peter compares the water of baptism to the flood.
1Peter 3:19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ............
Anyway I have heard from some that that the day the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat was the same date that Jesus rose, the 17th day of the 7th month (which it seems was changed to the fist month during the Exodus and Passover was on the 14th day of the first month and so Jesus rose on the 17th day of the first month)
Below is what I found at this site: Genesis Chapter 8 Bible Study: The Mystery of the 17th!
It gives a couple more examples. I'm not really sure about their accuracy but they are interesting.
The Mystery of the 17th

Genesis 8:1-4 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down , and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat .

Now I want to draw your attention to the day that the ark first touched ground again. We read above that after the waters had receded, the ark touched down on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th of the 7th month. That is pretty amazing don't you think? It's the 17th! Not with me? Ok, let's explore this a bit further.

We said at the start of the study that the ark is a picture of baptism. In going down through the waters and coming back out it is a picture of death and resurrection. With that in mind it makes it extraordinary that the day that the ark touched the earth again is on the 17th of the 7th. You see, in Exodus 12:1 the Lord changed the Israelite's calendar. What had been the 7th month since creation was now to become their 1st month. To this day the Jews have these two calendars (usually known as the civil and religious calendars). So the 17th of the 7th month (when the ark came to rest and a new life dawned for Noah and his family) is exactly the same day as the 17th of the 1st month (called Nisan) in the religious calendar. So what is significant about this day then?

New birth and the feast of first fruits

There are a surprising number of key events in Israel's history that occurred on this exact date. The 17th of Nisan (the first month in the religious calendar) is a very key date associated with resurrection! Here is a list of the events that occurred on this day:

  • Noah's ark comes through the waters and rests on the earth for the first time bringing new life to Noah and his family on the 17th of Nisan.
  • The feast of firstfruits (symbolising new life) would occur on the first Sunday after Passover (Passover was on the 14th of Nisan (Ex 12) so any time this falls on a Thursday, the feast of firstfruits was on the 17th of this month).
  • Israel came through the Red Sea on the 17th of Nisan having left at Passover on the 14th. For them this was death to their old life (with the drowning of the Egyptians) and resurrection to a new life in God on the 17th!
  • The manna which had fed the nation of Israel for the 40 years in the wilderness stopped on the 16th of Nisan and from the 17th onwards Israel feasted on the new grain of the promised land (Josh 5:10-12). This again is a picture of the new life that came on the 17th!
  • The death sentence hung over the entire Israelite nation as their sworn enemy, Haman, had convinced the king to sign a decree to destroy them (Esther 3:1-12). The decree went out on the 13th Nisan (Esther 3:12). Esther then proclaimed a three day fast (Esther 4:16) for the 14th, 15th and 16th. On the 3rd day (5:1) Esther approached the king saying to herself 'If I perish, I perish!' (an attitude of death or resurrection... it's in God's hands!) On the 17th Nisan, the tables were turned on the enemy Haman and instead of the Jews being destroyed, his own life was taken!
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Hi Adrian. I personally apply the ‘Tabor’ formula to the resurrection. It makes complete sense of it all to me.

Thou didst ask as to the transfiguration of Jesus, with Moses and Elias and the Heavenly Father on Mount Tabor, as referred to in the Bible. This occurrence was perceived by the disciples with their inner eye, wherefore it was a secret hidden away, and was a spiritual discovery of theirs. Otherwise, if the intent be that they witnessed physical forms, that is, witnessed that transfiguration with their outward eyes, then there were many others at hand on that plain and mountain, and why did they fail to behold it? And why did the Lord charge them that they should tell no man? It is clear that this was a spiritual vision and a scene of the Kingdom. Wherefore did the Messiah bid them to keep this hidden, ‘till the Son of Man were risen from the dead,’ 1 —that is, until the Cause of God should be exalted, and the Word of God prevail, and the reality of Christ rise up.
1. Matthew 17:1–19; Mark 9:2–9; Luke 9:28–36. (Abdul-Baha)
 
Top