The Empty Tomb!

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1552 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

The Empty Tomb!

Post #1

Post by POI »

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #91

Post by TRANSPONDER »

POI wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 1:12 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 1:52 pm post #42
POI wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 3:16 am Allow me to preface my position here, before I begin. I have yet to formulate my position, in regards to the claim "Jesus was placed into a tomb guarded by Romans."? Believe it or not, this topic is one of genuine inquiry. Still formulating... Let's see where this goes? I'm going to play devil's advocate a lot here.... I do not currently hold to any staunch position. But, even if it all pans out, the part in where I do hold to a position, is that it is unlikely that Jesus departed from a grave and spoke to people there-after. Okay, here we go...
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:52 am What this would mean is, we would have those who were going around at the time who made up these things, right in the face of those who would have known exactly what happened to the body of Jesus,
Not necessarily? How many people actually witnessed his death and burial? Where was the first publication written, and when? Maybe it was far away from the scene, and these people never new about this publication? I doubt the 'Gospels' were a "thing" during this time. Did these folks even know about the publication, and read it or have it read to them? If so, would they have done anything about it anyways? It's not like it was deemed 'Gospel' yet. Were they even still alive regardless? Where did "Mark" even get his source information from? Maybe Jesus did not truly become an "Icon" until much later; like legend tends to polarize individuals much after their deaths.
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:52 am these folks go on to continue to proclaim these things they would have had to have known to be false, placing their lives, and the lives of those they were convincing in great danger all for what they know to be a lie. This would go on to mean, these folks are responsible for making this Jesus who may have been "buried alone in the ground" or "was left for the buzzards" the most well-known figure in all of history, on top of causing this Jesus to be the most influential figure in all of history.
I do not find this position compelling. Even if I were to concede virtually all you have stated here, there's another plausible conclusion....

Maybe all the folks, who were deemed Jesus followers, were told upon, later rounded up, and tortured/killed. How do we know they were even given any chance to recant, to save their skin? The 'fact' of the matter is, we cannot know what really happened here? We know, during this era, people were very superstitious; as blasphemy was still considered a capital offense. Anyone who would have been reported to follow this deemed 'blasphemous led cult' could have very well been rounded up, tortured, and left for dead; regardless of what they stated once caught.

And even still, let's play devil's advocate again... Let's say they believed He was the Messiah. They would then simply die for a conviction, which may be false anyways. Thus, still not dying for a lie.

So I ask anew... Do we have GOOD evidence that Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers?
Yes. The point is well taken that Gospel - apologists adopt what I call the 'reporter's notebook' apologetics position. That is, eyewitness report or at least reporting eyewitness testoimony. This supposes that the gospels are read as though a disciple or two are telling the story like it happened last night...well a day or so ago ..oh - Ok, a couple of months, or a few years ago or even as old men, if they hadn't been topped by a Herodian martyring - squad.

This falls foul of what I call 'the camp - fire apologetic'. Because it supplies the excuse for why nobody (for example) knew that Herod Antipas had Jesus bussed over to him to look at before returning him to Pilate. "Nobody saw it other than Luke's informant" But how could they not know about this if they had been reminiscing in their beards about the events while toasting marshmallows of an evening? How could John not know of the nativity? How could Matthew not know of the raising of Lazarus?

While this might work if a report is delivered hours or days after the event when some followers might not have heard about it, how could that be when the stories are all written up long after the events by disciples who had all been hobnobbing in Antioch up to 51 AD? (1)

Matthew says it clear - 'The disciples stole the body' is the story the Jews were telling up to his day. They'd heard about it even though they weren't there, so this was all a lot later than the events. So how could Matthew not know about the raising of Lazarus? Or the messianic announcement in Nazareth and attempt to kill Jesus? or the spear -thrust, for heavens' sake?

The answer is obvious - there is no good reason for him to not know or write of it other than it had never happened. And the same with the raising of Lazarus, the penitent thief, the Tomb -guard and the spear in the side. None of that ever happened and is made -up story -telling.

So where does that leave us with the disciples dying for the resurrection - claim? As I said before, we have NO evidence that the disciples died for any belief, and clearly not for one they had witnessed, because the accounts contradict so much.

As post #42 says, plenty of martyrs die for what they believe, but that doesn't make it true. The apologetic that the disciples would not die for a lie, which argues that they witnessed the risen Christ and were convinced so as to die rather than deny it (convinced like good little Christians that their salvation depended on maintaining their claim of a resurrected Jesus) clearly fails because the 'eyewitness' claim plainly fails and the 'died for their faith' claim also fails, too because they are all later stories (assuming the Bible apologists even bother with any of the stories or anything but the bald claim). As usual, they have NO valid evidence outside the Bible and the claims of the Bible fail because..sorry to push the rocking horse again but it's basic - :D because of terminally destructive contradictions.

(1) cue the 'they didn't think it important' excuse, incorporating 'Jesus did many other things'. This Excuse Falls when there is something really important involved.
Thank you for your response above. I have to wonder... Do theists not really have any answer(s) for this topic? Seems pretty important to the over all story-line? I've addressed my questions directly to "Realworldjack" 2 or 3 times now, via post #42, to no response from him, or any other theist(s) **yet**... Seems as though that if much doubt can be raised, that "Roman guards were assigned to protect a tomb until (His) disappearance", then the entire Gospel accounts loose credibility. Is the fact that the mere claim was made in the "NT", in and of itself, good enough to believe the claim?
I think that Faith (one may call it Preference) comes in here. I saw in the exchange with our Venomous pal that discrepancies were not considered to be significant. Just because nobody but Matthew mentioned the tomb - guard does that make it untrue? Isn't it possible that only he knew about it? After all, the angel might have appeared and chased the tomb -guard away before the women turned up. It doesn't take too much of an appeal to witness error to argue that. As to how Matthew knew....I'll leave that to the theists. And can we excuse that John doesn't mention the angel (or two) and the message for the disciples to go to Galilee? Not really. Because why would Mary go to the disciples and not say anything about it? Never mind having met Jesus on the way, according to Matthew.

And I don't forget that a poster argued that she didn't see Jesus at all, but the other Mary (mother of Jesus) did. By the time she gets back, they have all gone to look at the tomb and Mary is left there to encounter Jesus and the angels and she'll go back and both women will be claiming they'd seen Jesus. What's more, Simon is also saying that he's run into Jesus, too (so Luke says). And while the 10 (Thomas being absent) are wondering about all this, Cleophas comes bursting in and says that he (and the other) have seen Jesus and had lunch with him.

So, if a lively discussion breaks out now, it's stilled when Jesus walks in, peckish again. "Do you have anything to eat?"

"We got a bit of fish."

"How long's that been sitting about?" But he eats it anyway. After showing his war -wounds, he leaves the disciples to pack their bags and set off for Galilee where they will see him (1). And there he tells them to make converts of all nations.

"Couldn't you have told us that back in Jerusalem?"

"It's needful to have a few dubious occurrences, just to enhance the Faith of the True Believers."

So they return to Jerusalem to find Thomas wondering where they'd all gotten to. Jesus turns up and shows his side this time (since he apparently didn't before) and remarks that, since Thomas who doubted him now believes, any other future doubters should believe, too.

But that's not the last appearance of Jesus as he spends over a month with the disciples, no doubt including the 500 all at once that Paul refers to and explains everything to them, including the descending angel and tomb guard that none of them actually would have seen, as well as the the Sanhedrin bribing them to keep quiet about it. But having very poor memories, they forget about that apart from Matthew, who was also the only one to remember the tombs opening and the Jews eagerly accepting the blame for the crucifixion. And if we doubt the two donkeys, they didn't have corrective spectacles in those days.

(1) leaving out the tale of some going back to their old job of fishing and seeing Jesus on the beach.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #92

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #91]

I feel as if I have just read the script for a very funny Monty Python sketch.
Well done. :D
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #93

Post by TRANSPONDER »

brunumb wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:33 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #91]

I feel as if I have just read the script for a very funny Monty Python sketch.
Well done. :D
British humour. Different from (but not better than) American Humor). It lightens the Work involved and I enjoy it. It brings out the absurd side (which may get overlooked) and (hopefully) inclines people to read it, even if the subject doesn't interest them.

The Late Beethoven quartets sketch was a failure but you can't win every time.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1552 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #94

Post by POI »

From post 42 --- (below). I requested a response from the interlocutor a few times, but no luck. Further, I find it odd that Christians did not really try to support this claim?.?.?.? Below is the exchange from post 42, unanswered.....

************************************************

POI wrote -- Allow me to preface my position here, before I begin. I have yet to formulate my position, in regards to the claim "Jesus was placed into a tomb guarded by Romans."? Believe it or not, this topic is one of genuine inquiry. Still formulating... Let's see where this goes? I'm going to play devil's advocate a lot here.... I do not currently hold to any staunch position. But, even if it all pans out, the part in where I do hold to a position, is that it is unlikely that Jesus departed from a grave and spoke to people there-after. Okay, here we go...

Realworldjack wrote -- What this would mean is, we would have those who were going around at the time who made up these things, right in the face of those who would have known exactly what happened to the body of Jesus,

POI wrote -- Not necessarily? How many people actually witnessed his death and burial? Where was the first publication written, and when? Maybe it was far away from the scene, and these people never knew about this publication? I doubt the 'Gospels' were a "thing" during this time. Did these folks even know about the publication, and read it or have it read to them? If so, would they have done anything about it anyways? It's not like it was deemed 'Gospel' yet. Were they even still alive regardless? Where did "Mark" even get his source information from? Maybe Jesus did not truly become an "Icon" until much later; like legend tends to polarize individuals much after their deaths.

Realworldjack wrote -- these folks go on to continue to proclaim these things they would have had to have known to be false, placing their lives, and the lives of those they were convincing in great danger all for what they know to be a lie. This would go on to mean, these folks are responsible for making this Jesus who may have been "buried alone in the ground" or "was left for the buzzards" the most well-known figure in all of history, on top of causing this Jesus to be the most influential figure in all of history.

POI wrote -- I do not find this position compelling. Even if I were to concede virtually all you have stated here, there's another plausible conclusion....

Maybe all the folks, who were deemed Jesus followers, were told upon, later rounded up, and tortured/killed. How do we know they were even given any chance to recant, to save their skin? The 'fact' of the matter is, we cannot know what really happened here? We know, during this era, people were very superstitious; as blasphemy was still considered a capital offense. Anyone who would have been reported to follow this deemed 'blasphemous led cult' could have very well been rounded up, tortured, and left for dead; regardless of what they stated once caught.

And even still, let's play devil's advocate again... Let's say they believed He was the Messiah. They would then simply die for a conviction, which may be false anyways. Thus, still not dying for a lie.

So I ask anew... Do we have GOOD evidence that Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #95

Post by TRANSPONDER »

There's the thing, or at least, where i stand. Initially I was tending to credit the resurrection accounts. I even went along with the idea that the account in Mark had gone missing, even though it was pretty clear that the women running away and saying nothing to anyone was All She Wrote. And plenty of apologist saw that too and tried to excuse it on the dramatic rightness of it or everyone knew the ending anyway. Dudes....Mark was supposedly one of the first. Nobody knew the ending. Mark was written to tell them.

But anyway, I had it put to me that there never was a resurrection story - just an inference from the empty tomb. So the synoptic version popped in an angel to explain everything. Not in John. John is a handy debunk to the synoptics, showing what was added and was not part of the original story - like pretty much everything between the calling of the disciples and the feeding of the 5,000. Yep - all that Galilee healing and teaching is all fabricated by the Greek Christian writers. As is all of John's sermons, if the lack of any hint of them in the synoptics means anything.

But anyway, I still accepted the empty tomb as credible as part of the basic story. There were all sorts of questions about it, but that it was pointed out as Jesus' actual tomb and he wasn't there was hive factual weight.

But not too long after parachuting in here, I began to notice Problems with the tomb story. Notably, why didn't the women think about getting into the tomb? Our Venom pal argued they were distraught, but, after obtaining the stuff to make the spices, grind, mix and bottle them with the label 'do not imbibe - for funeral purposes only' stuck on them, they never considered who'd open up? Worse is the problem of why they went there at all. The explanation is to anoint the body, but John implies that had already been done, and there was no discussion with Arimathea who said 'already done'? (1) Then where on Passover sabbath would they be getting the doins for the burial gunk, not to mention they can't do preparation on the Saturday. That's why Friday is called preparation day. Sure they could have done it from Saturday twilight onto dawn. But where did they get all the hyssop and marjoram anyway? Shops are closed on the Sabbath.

Matthew seems to see the problem as he says they just went to look at the tomb. Not very clever, but would explain why Mark and Luke both have this anointing mission but Matthew (uncommonly) disagrees with both. John simply ignores the point. The women went there and never mind why.

So I suspect we have the women going there because the story needed it. Sure, it is striking that Mary Magdalene has the tradition of finding the tomb open and empty. So there could be a Story there, but that the women went to the tomb for any reason other than the story required it doesn't convince me.

(1) the old 'campfire stories' apoletics problem. To explain why a writer knew something he normally wouldn't, it is proposed that eveyone (including converted former enemies with inside info) shared stories about Jesus. But then, when one person relates a story known only to the Sanhedrin, this is dropped fo nobody talking to anyone else. Like the penitent thief. Nobody else knew about that but Luke, even though mark and Matthew had been near enout to hear the crucified robbers abusing Jesus. Nn. No, pals and palesses, Luke made it up. Nobody but a Bible believing denialist can credit any other explanation.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1552 times
Been thanked: 1051 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #96

Post by POI »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #95]

For the life of me, I'm still scratching my head.... I've been around Christian apologetics for quite some time now, and this seems to be one of their go-to (or) bread-and-butter arguments. And yet, CRICKETS from the Christian side?.?.?.?.?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #97

Post by TRANSPONDER »

POI wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 6:29 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #95]

For the life of me, I'm still scratching my head.... I've been around Christian apologetics for quite some time now, and this seems to be one of their go-to (or) bread-and-butter arguments. And yet, CRICKETS from the Christian side?.?.?.?.?
Our pal Venom at least had a crack at these matters like 'Maty did not go into the tiomb' (the Bible [Luke] says she did) John's angels at the tomb were the same as the synoptics ( :) no, they aren't) and the women were so distraught that getting into the tomb never occurred to tme.

I appreciate that he had a go, though they are more dismissal than demurral. Really the upset and confused excuse is the only one. And people must decide. As I thought on it less and less seemed to stack up. The differences (which in fact I shrugged off myself :D ) like why the women went anyway took on more import when the empty tomb claim looked questionable at all.

*Crickets* makes me wonder they are thinking about it, or logging onto 'The atheist stumper apologetic website' or a bool '"!50 smart answers that will strike atheists dumb". Ot failing that, the best option is just ignore it and hope it will go away ;)

But I gotta dream terday... That som eBiblecritics out there will hear someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone heard someone say that he hard someone ask some online questions about the empty tomb. Can't recall the name.

I don't mind, just so long as the idea gets picked up and discussed, not sink without trace as the Believer 11 crickets side may be hoping.



Very Silly indeed. And like the Bible it is impossible to understand without divine revelation.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #98

Post by 1213 »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 am ...I had it put to me that there never was a resurrection story - just an inference from the empty tomb. So the synoptic version popped in an angel to explain everything. Not in John. John is a handy debunk to the synoptics, showing what was added and was not part of the original story - like pretty much everything between the calling of the disciples and the feeding of the 5,000. Yep - all that Galilee healing and teaching is all fabricated by the Greek Christian writers. As is all of John's sermons...
Why do you think something was added, if it is not in other Gospels? Is there some good reason to require them to be identical? And, if they would be identical, wouldn't you think they are just copies of the same?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 am...The explanation is to anoint the body, but John implies that had already been done, and there was no discussion with Arimathea who said 'already done'?
Where it is said it was already done? By what I see, they didn't have enough time to do it right after Jesus died, that is why they went later to the tomb.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 am...Then where on Passover sabbath would they be getting the doins for the burial gunk, not to mention they can't do preparation on the Saturday. That's why Friday is called preparation day. Sure they could have done it from Saturday twilight onto dawn. But where did they get all the hyssop and marjoram anyway? Shops are closed on the Sabbath.
There was the Shabbat day of the feast of unleavened bread, Thursday, after that they prepared the stuff and waited over weekly Shabbat, Saturday, before went to the tomb.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 amSo I suspect we have the women going there because the story needed it. ...
Why do you think the story needs it? I don't think there would have been any reason to make up it, if it didn't really happen.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #99

Post by TRANSPONDER »

1213 wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 2:23 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 am ...I had it put to me that there never was a resurrection story - just an inference from the empty tomb. So the synoptic version popped in an angel to explain everything. Not in John. John is a handy debunk to the synoptics, showing what was added and was not part of the original story - like pretty much everything between the calling of the disciples and the feeding of the 5,000. Yep - all that Galilee healing and teaching is all fabricated by the Greek Christian writers. As is all of John's sermons...
Why do you think something was added, if it is not in other Gospels? Is there some good reason to require them to be identical? And, if they would be identical, wouldn't you think they are just copies of the same?
This is why 'biggies' count. It is inconceivable that John did not know of the Transformation, thatt the synoptics did not know of the raising of Lazarus, that only John knew of the spear -stab, only Luke knew of the penitent thief or the attempted murder (and messianic declaration) in Nazareth, that John did not know of the birth in Bethlehem, that only Matthew knew about the tomb guard or the women meeting Jesus - but he didn't know about Jesus appearing that evening. Ot if they did, they didn't mention it. That's what you ask us to believe. That striking events like this were left out.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 am...The explanation is to anoint the body, but John implies that had already been done, and there was no discussion with Arimathea who said 'already done'?
Where it is said it was already done? By what I see, they didn't have enough time to do it right after Jesus died, that is why they went later to the tomb.
Ah, well John says a lot of spices were put in the tomb, so why would the women need to bring some? Once down off the cross there was no hurry. A proper burial could be done. Since they were all together over the sabbath, you erxpect us to believe they didn't talk about the funerary arrangements and what had been done and what not and that they'd need help to get into the tomb? No, Plot requirement explains all these problems.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 am...Then where on Passover sabbath would they be getting the doins for the burial gunk, not to mention they can't do preparation on the Saturday. That's why Friday is called preparation day. Sure they could have done it from Saturday twilight onto dawn. But where did they get all the hyssop and marjoram anyway? Shops are closed on the Sabbath.
There was the Shabbat day of the feast of unleavened bread, Thursday, after that they prepared the stuff and waited over weekly Shabbat, Saturday, before went to the tomb.
Aside the Passover hadn't been eaten according to John (our pal JW argues that the priests had a different Passover feast day - not that I ever heard of) but when would they prepare the stuffs? Sabbath the hops were closed. Friday they spent the trial buying stuff his burial? Would you like to have them shouting for his crucifixion, too?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:28 amSo I suspect we have the women going there because the story needed it. ...
Why do you think the story needs it? I don't think there would have been any reason to make up it, if it didn't really happen.
Because the whole 'empty tomb' claim makes no sense unless someone sees it open. Now, I know the particular women going there at dawn is circumstantial, but the problem the writers had with Why they went there suggests to me that it was needed, whether there was a good reason or not. As I say, I skipped over the contradictions, but there are there, nonetheless, not least that John has no angel explaining everything in a rather 'The plot of the programme is thick, convoluted to make you feel sick. Ten minutes to go, to the end of the show, so let's wrap the story up quick'.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: The Empty Tomb!

Post #100

Post by 1213 »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:42 pm This is why 'biggies' count. It is inconceivable that John did not know of the Transformation, thatt the synoptics did not know of the raising of Lazarus, that only John knew of the spear -stab, only Luke knew of the penitent thief or the attempted murder (and messianic declaration) in Nazareth, that John did not know of the birth in Bethlehem, that only Matthew knew about the tomb guard or the women meeting Jesus - but he didn't know about Jesus appearing that evening. Ot if they did, they didn't mention it. That's what you ask us to believe. That striking events like this were left out.
So, your argument is, it can't be so, because it is in your opinion not probable, or it is inconceivable. I don't think there is any good reason to think John wrote everything he knew, because he says:

And there are also many things, whatever Jesus did, which if they were written singly, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books having been written.
John. 21:25

It is possible John knew everything the other disciples knew, he just didn't write everything down.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:42 pmAh, well John says a lot of spices were put in the tomb, so why would the women need to bring some?...
Maybe the spices were put in hastily and they wanted to put them in nicer way. I don't think that is improbable, even today many people go to tombs/graves and put candles and flowers next to a tomb, even though the person in the tomb may have dead many years.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:42 pmAside the Passover hadn't been eaten according to John (our pal JW argues that the priests had a different Passover feast day - not that I ever heard of) but when would they prepare the stuffs? Sabbath the hops were closed. Friday they spent the trial buying stuff his burial? Would you like to have them shouting for his crucifixion, too?
Passover meal can be eaten at the beginning of that day, which in Jewish system begins at 21:00. Disciples and Jesus ate it about that time and the priests later that day. I don't think there is anything in the scriptures that supports your claims.

Post Reply