dorsk188
One-Eyed in Blindsville
If you read the gospels, they all have a variety of answers to several questions. (1) Who visited Jesus Tomb? (2) Who met them there? (3) How did they learn of the resurrection? Let's look at the New International Version, but I think this will hold up regardless of which version is used. Reading the last chapter of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the second to last chapter in John, we find that:
Matthew 28:
My position is very logical and plausible. If we are to consider this to be the literal history of an occurrance, then the eye-witness accounts presented are unreliable (as are many eye-witness accounts) and second-hand. Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John make claims to having even been there. Moreover, the accounts were not written down until decades after they occurred. Odds are that they were written when the authors were either senile or already dead. John wasn't written down until perhaps 70 years after it occurred...
Doesn't this discount claims to biblical inerrency? Discuss.
Matthew 28:
- Mary Magdalane and the "Other Mary".
- One Angel sitting ON the rock that covered the tomb.
- The Angel told them (apparently outside the tomb, as there is no mention of going inside the tomb at all.)
- Mary Magdalane, Mary (Mother of James), and Salome.
- A Young Man sitting INSIDE the tomb.
- The young man told them inside the tomb.
- "The Women" (No Names Given)
- Two men who suddenly appear beside them, INSIDE the tomb.
- "The Men" (Apparently Both Men Spoke, Or It Was Deemed Unimportant Which)
- Mary Magdalane is the only one mentioned. All pronouns are singular. (In this version alone, Mary M. leaves the tomb to get two disciples before exploring.)
- Two Angels sitting INSIDE the tomb.
- The Angels (Both Talking as One, and Individually.)
- Depending on the version you read, a different picture is painted. It is possible that each version only wrote what they saw as important. The omission of some women in some version may be an omission to save space, but why mention Salome if it wasn't important? Why omit her if she was?
- Assuming they are all referring to Angelic figures, the question remains how many and where? Were they sitting or did they appear? Matthew is strikingly different account than the others. John alone refers to leaving and coming back.
- Consistently, the Angels tell where Jesus went, but they tell different people at different times and in different circumstances.
My position is very logical and plausible. If we are to consider this to be the literal history of an occurrance, then the eye-witness accounts presented are unreliable (as are many eye-witness accounts) and second-hand. Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John make claims to having even been there. Moreover, the accounts were not written down until decades after they occurred. Odds are that they were written when the authors were either senile or already dead. John wasn't written down until perhaps 70 years after it occurred...
Doesn't this discount claims to biblical inerrency? Discuss.