Tomb Visit Contradiction

[JoeMama]

One of the most blatant examples of contradiction between gospels is found in the stories of the resurrection morning.


Matthew’s Mary Magdalene was told at the tomb that Jesus was risen. Running away, she met Jesus, who said he would meet the others in Galilee. (Matthew 28:1-9)

John’s Mary Magdalene found an empty tomb. Running away, she met Simon Peter and told him, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" (John 20:1-2)

Summary

1. Matthew’s Mary knows Jesus is alive and heading to Galilee.

2. John’s Mary believes Jesus’ body was stolen, and she doesn’t have any idea where the body is.

[1213]

...
I see you have tried to argue that Mary Magdalene 'left the tomb' and didn't see the angel and didn't hear the message. That is not what the text says "and said to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him." If she had not gone into the tomb how would she know the body wasn't there? And Mary at least was with her or why say "We"? Clearly this apologetic that Mary and the other split up and took different routes (1) also you ignore that Luke refutes your apologetic Luke 24:10 And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles.

I think it would be best to keep just what is said in the Bible. That way all the scriptures can be fitted to each other. When people begin to add own meanings to the story, it can fail. For example, Bible doesn't tell did Mary look inside the tomb before she left to tell Peter and others. It is possible she looked and then went. It is also possible that she assumed so and left. As long as there is this kind of possibilities, your attempt to prove Bible wrong fails every time.

The saying "And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles." can be true, even if they were not in the same palace all the time. They all told their view of all the matters they said.

...I would love to know - because this is Text identical with a precious posted excuse - where did you get this apologetic from?

Why do you need to know it? I got it from the Bible.

...But they should have felt the earthquake and the angel was there sitting on the rock door.

Sorry, I don't see any reason to think that should be the case.

...and there was only one route...

And why should anyone believe that? I think that would be very unlikely.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I see you have tried to argue that Mary Magdalene 'left the tomb' and didn't see the angel and didn't hear the message. That is not what the text says "and said to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him." If she had not gone into the tomb how would she know the body wasn't there? And Mary at least was with her or why say "We"? Clearly this apologetic that Mary and the other split up and took different routes (1) also you ignore that Luke refutes your apologetic Luke 24:10 And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles.

I think it would be best to keep just what is said in the Bible. That way all the scriptures can be fitted to each other. When people begin to add own meanings to the story, it can fail. For example, Bible doesn't tell did Mary look inside the tomb before she left to tell Peter and others. It is possible she looked and then went. It is also possible that she assumed so and left. As long as there is this kind of possibilities, your attempt to prove Bible wrong fails every time.

The saying "And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles." can be true, even if they were not in the same palace all the time. They all told their view of all the matters they said.

...I would love to know - because this is Text identical with a precious posted excuse - where did you get this apologetic from?

Why do you need to know it? I got it from the Bible.

...But they should have felt the earthquake and the angel was there sitting on the rock door.

Sorry, I don't see any reason to think that should be the case.

...and there was only one route...

And why should anyone believe that? I think that would be very unlikely.

Ok. I'll be fair. I got the impression from reading that there was one route from Bethany down the mount of Olives. That was the one taken on the donkey ride across the bridge into the Temple. No ride through the city. Now, the reason to think that was the site of the crucifixion, is that in Jesus' time all the tombs north of the city wall were being emptied (1) and moved to the mount of Olives, as the site of the present sepulchres and 'Golgotha' was inhabited suburb, and Arimathea's new tomb had to be on Olivet, and that is where the crucifixion in the garden had to be. I strongly suspect that the garden was Gethsemane and the tomb was that used by Lazarus (if that ever occurred).

That is enough, but I think Dominic Crossan argued that the Gospels have the rending of the temple veil observed from the site of crucifixion. The only place to see that (other than inside the Temple or from the east city wall) is from the mount of Olives.

I doubt I shall ever get to visit Israel now, but even if there is more than one route from Gethsemane and the tomb of Arimathea to Bethany, I doubt that affrighted women would have had any reason to split up, even if there were two separate pathways.

No, Mary Magdalene saw and heard everything the other Mary (and any others) did, and she reported back to the the disciples just the same the other women did, except of course that John says she didn't. Real contradiction.

I should have thought the women would have felt the earthquake, but deny that if you must, but you can hardly honestly or credibly deny that ALL the women would have approached the tomb and seen the angel perched on the rock door. I think the burden of proof falls rather on you to show that Mary Magdalene ran away as soon as she aw the angel and before it made its' speech, let alone before then as she simply said in John that the body was gone from the tomb. It makes no sense that she would say that if she hadn't gone inside. Aside that Luke says specifically that she heard and saw what the other did and related that to the disciples. Deny what you like, I don't see that any reasonable person, one the points have been lined up, would agree with your denial.

P.s Ok, you worked out the apologetic yourself. I'm just curious as it sounds like one or two I have heard recently and never before then - nor the 'Mary did not go into the tomb'apolgetic. I just wondered whether this apologetic had appeared in a book or apologetic website. It makes no difference to the merits (or not) of the apologetic.

(1) the present 'sepulchres' are likely old Hasmonean tombs, cleared and abandoned in Jesus' day. The 'place of a skull' was in an old quarry of the time and the 'skull' only weathered to look like that later on (19 th c I believe) and is now weathering away. It was never Golgotha. And of course Jesus never dragged his cross through the city.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #5]

JW,

You're cheating yourself out of the chance to show what you believe by responding with links to 36 posts, rather than composing a MUCH shorter, well-reasoned, well-written answer, something you've proven you're capable of. Nobody is likely to read all those posts, and then try to divine what argument you believe you can advance in support of your beliefs. Anyone would find that exhausting, and then just give up. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

Can you not condense your rebuttals down to say, one-tenth? I get the feeling that you have a library of multiple-dozens of "canned" rebuttals for almost ANY skeptical argument. Perhaps you can publish an indexed link to all of them all on a personal website, and then all you would have to do is place the URL on all of your posts, and save yourself a lot of work.

Check out this website to see the type of site I have in mind: http://skepticalviewsofchristianity.com/

[JehovahsWitness]

Check out this website to see the type of site I have in mind: http://skepticalviewsofchristianity.com/

Thank you for the link.

If you have a counter-argument to make in response to what I have written (other than your response is too long) feel free to make it in your own words or summarise what the person whose site you source from, thinks relevant to this thread.

This is a serious site with very learned posters (both believers and non- believers alike) who have studied scripture for many years , so in depth (and sometimes lengthy analysis) of an in depth and sometime complex issue is not at all unusual in this particularly hot kitchen.

If you do not understand something I have written, feel free to ask.

Have an excellent day,

JW

[1213]

...It makes no sense that she would say that if she hadn't gone inside. ....

Thanks for your answer. Interesting points. And actually, even though I disagree in some points, in a way this can help people to see the story in more detailed way. However, if only things that "makes sense" would be possible or true, world would look very different. For example, it doesn't make sense that Biden is the president of US.

[TRANSPONDER]

...It makes no sense that she would say that if she hadn't gone inside. ....

Thanks for your answer. Interesting points. And actually, even though I disagree in some points, in a way this can help people to see the story in more detailed way. However, if only things that "makes sense" would be possible or true, world would look very different. For example, it doesn't make sense that Biden is the president of US.

In a way that is a good analogy. The US (indeed we -yall) have to trust the electoral process and have independent investigation (like for example the Rhodesia/Zimbabe elections where ZANU got in (1) and the challenges to the election all failed beyond even where plausible denial was gone and it was just time - wasting. Similarly, we have to trust science and have verification (like for instance the Dover trial that declared that IC was creationism and not science) and thus, that Deep - time geology is true and evolution is true an Genesis -type YE creationism is not. Deny that and one has no valid claim to scientific or logical credibility.

Now, the Bible is what it is, and the Gospels are what they are, and I am well aware that there is broad acceptance that they are factual, give or take a stretched claim or mythical story or misinterpretation. There has to be darn good reason to reject any or all of it and all relevant evidence and evaluation (as would be done in a crime case and subsequent court case) must be done using all valid evidence and rason and we have to trust it or dismiss logic and evidence and not rely on on far -fetched and hypothetical explanations, let alone on denialist Faith.

This is why the Biggies count and why there seems to have been a 'Thing' of arguing on triia like one or two angels or what 'worship' means, with the result that real huge contradictions get missed. Or at least I never hear them.

It's why I'm curious to know whether the 'Mary did not go in the tomb and split up from the others' is from some apologetic book. Just curious. it makes no difference to the claim or apologetic, but of course the apologist takes alarm because they would use that argument 'you got it from a Book by Dawkins or Dennett' to debunk the argument. There is the ''wangle Galilee into the month plus staying in Jerusalem as ordered' argument. Not to mention Luke refutes Thomas, Luke refutes Matthew's appearance of Jesus, John refutes Matthew saying the women with Mary had seen Jesus, which her not being with the women is supposed to explain, but Luke says she was there, and saw and heard what the women heard and related it to the disciples, and Cleophas must have heard that and also heard that the disciples confirmed the tomb was empty.

In fact in all the broad outlines of the story the resurrections refute each other, as is the case with the two nativities and death of Judas as an apparent contradiction. So it comes down to the third person, doubter in the street or religious debate website owner who needs to learn a few more contradictions than apparently they do. It is not down to what you or I would place our bets on.


(1) after declaring that they would not accept the election results as they would be faked. When they won because the election was fair in a way they would never have made it fair, they accepted the result.