The Resurrection will always fail the evidential burden of proof

[AchillesHeel]

The resurrection argument requires that witnesses really saw Jesus alive again after his death. This is because there is literally no other way to confirm a resurrection took place. So the evidence needs to indicate this otherwise one should not be persuaded to believe in the resurrection.

When we look at our earliest testimony regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15) the terminology used (ὤφθη) "appeared" is not sufficient to demonstrate a physical/veridical appearance of a person. This is important because aside from being the earliest testimony, Paul is our only source who writes firsthand "Jesus appeared to me" and our only source by someone in the entire New Testament who claims to have met Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). Moreover, scholars are unanimous that Paul actually wrote at least 7 epistles attributed to him whereas most critical scholars do not accept traditional authorship of the gospels. In response to this argument, any appeal to "but the gospels say..." is an admission that the earliest testimony found in Paul's letters is not sufficient evidence that anyone really saw Jesus. Moreover, each account tells an entirely different story which is irreconcilable if one wants to maintain they're all reliably reporting what actually took place. viewtopic.php?t=41563

From these sources, it seems the aorist passive ὤφθη was more commonly used to indicate the subject takes the initiative to "reveal itself" to the viewer rather than indicate a viewer seeing by their normal eyesight. Philo's comment on Abraham's vision is relevant where he contrasts the active form of the verb with the aorist passive ὤφθη and the emphasis is on "comprehension" rather than literal seeing.

“For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him.” – Philo, On Abraham 17.80

Notice how when Paul unambiguously refers to seeing someone or someone's actions in the past tense, he uses the active form εἶδον.

Gal 1:18-19

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see (εἶδον) any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Gal. 2:14

But when I saw (εἶδον) that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

"There are three ways of translating the aorist passive ὤφθη + dative proper noun (v. 5):

Passively: "He was seen". The seer is the active agent. Grammatically this version, in which the seer is in the dative, seems problematic and is consequently ruled out.

As a deponent/middle form: “He made himself seen”, “he showed himself". This translation is possible as a Christological interpretation of "seeing".

Theological passive: “He was made visible by God.” In the style of LXX translations of OT theophany passages (cf. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1, etc.; Ex 3:2.16; 4:1; 6:3) God becomes the active subject who makes the resurrected Christ visible.

In principle both the second and the third ways of translating ὤφθη would be a possibility. The already observed proximity between a theological and a Christological view of the resurrection message makes it seem irrelevant to seek a definitive deciding of this question. Interpretations of the nature of the “seeing" range from the assumption of a sensory, physical seeing to vision theories and finally to an ignoring or excluding of the element of making visible in favour of a - however understood - “manifestation". Despite any reservations, Pannenberg would prefer to retain the term "vision" because when someone sees something that others present are unable to see, this is a “vision”. - Hans Waldenfels, Contextual Fundamental Theology, pp. 336-37

“The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 13:31; 26:16a; 1 Cor. 15:5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3:16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’).

Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe . . . refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation.” – Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5–8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.

This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1 Cor 15:5–8; Luke 24:34 and 1 Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1 Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15

"The word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. 1:16…..they experienced His presence...

When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5, pp. 358-59

"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-six times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people." - Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99.

[RBD]

I think it is quite ridiculous to say Paul has the earliest testimony. If there was no earlier, who did Paul persecute before he turned

I'm referring to the earliest written testimony we have. Paul's letters are the earliest written Christian sources that exist to investigate today. Therefore, 1 Cor 15 is the earliest written source we have that talks about the Resurrection appearances.

Which is meant to falsely imply that no one testified of His resurrection, until 30 years later.

And yet, you don't believe that record, as though it's 'lateness' disqualifies it. How about if written 10, 20, 30 years earlier? Still not believe it. This is why any 'arguments' based upon personal animosity about a record, is self-disqualifying.

What's the earliest written record of the death of Cyrus the Great? About 100 years later. So, according to the 'too late' demand, Herodotus' record is disqualified.

[AchillesHeel]

I notice you selectively ignore the quotes that Mary was at the tomb in dark before dawn, and then after dawn.

How exactly does this get out of the contradiction where the initial appearance to Mary occurs before reaching any disciples as in Matthew versus the initial appearance to Mary occurring after telling two disciples as in John? How does her being at the tomb twice resolve that? You cannot have the initial appearance being both before and after telling disciples.

If you're not going to report what the Book says, or ignore it, then what's the point of pretending to report on the Book? When you begin reporting on what the Book says, then we can talk about any perceived conflicts.

Ignore it? You're ignoring the fact that Luke says the women, including Mary, were informed about the Resurrection while John says Mary had no idea what happened! You're ignoring the part where Luke excludes an appearance to any women at all and does not have "all these things" include the appearance to Mary like John 20:18 says.

Which is meant to falsely imply that no one testified of His resurrection, until 30 years later.

I never said that. The comparison is in regards to when Paul's letters were written versus when the gospels were written. The gospels all post date Paul's letters. Earlier sources have less time for legends to develop. This is just a statement of fact when evaluating historical claims especially when the later accounts involve touching a revived corpse that is witnessed floating off to heaven when the earlier accounts don't mention any of that stuff despite supposedly coming from eyewitnesses.

[1213]

I'm referring to the earliest written testimony we have. Paul's letters are the earliest written Christian sources that exist to investigate today. Therefore, 1 Cor 15 is the earliest written source we have that talks about the Resurrection appearances.

I don't believe Paul's writings are the earliest written. But, in this case I don't think it matters, if you admit that there was oral testimonies before that.

[1213]

...These two accounts are mutually exclusive. Did Jesus appear to two women on their way to the disciples, or did he appear to one woman after she had already reported the empty tomb? This is a clear contradiction in the narrative sequence of the very first appearance.

It seems to me that you don't understand fully what happened that day. Here is how they are reconciled without any contradictions:

Mark. 16:1 And the sabbath passing, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, bought spices, so that coming they might anoint Him.
Note! There was two Shabbat days. The Shabbat day of feast of unleavened bread and weekly Shabbat. Apparently after first Shabbat, Friday, spices were prepared and after second Shabbat they were brought to the tomb.
Mark. 16:2 And very early on the first of the week, the sun having risen, they came upon the tomb.
Matt.28:1 But after the sabbaths, at the dawning of the first of the sabbaths, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the grave.
(Mark. 16:3 And they said to themselves, Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?)
(Luke 24:1 But on the first of the sabbaths, while still very early, they came on the tomb, carrying spices which they prepared; and some were with them.)
Matt.28:2 And, behold! A great earthquake occurred! For descending from Heaven and coming near, an angel of the Lord rolled away the stone from the door and was sitting on it.
Matt.28:3 And his face was as lightning and his clothing white as snow.
Matt.28:4 And those keeping guard were shaken from the fear of him, and they became as dead.
Note! Apparently, the earthquake and rolling of the stone was seen only by the guards, not the women that vent to the tomb.
Mark. 16:4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; for it was very large.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb.
John:20:1 But on the first of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, darkness yet being on it . And she saw the stone had been removed from the tomb.
John:20:2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him.
Luke 24:3 And going in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
Note! Apparently, Mary left the tomb, while other women stayed at the tomb.
Mark. 16:5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, having been clothed in a white robe. And they were much amazed.
Luke 24:4 And it happened, as they were perplexed about this, even behold, two men in shining clothing stood by them.
Luke 24:5 And they becoming terrified, and bowing their faces to the earth, they said to them, Why do you seek the living with the dead?
Matt.28:5 But answering, the angel said to the women, You must not fear, for I know that you seek Jesus who has been crucified.
Matt.28:6 He is not here, for He was raised, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying.
(Mark. 16:6 But He said to them, Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who has been crucified. He was raised. He is not here. See the place where they put Him?)
(Luke 24:6 He is not here, but was raised. Remember how He spoke to you, yet being in Galilee,)
Luke 24:7 saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and to be crucified, and the third day to rise again.
Luke 24:8 And they remembered His words.
7 And going quickly say to His disciples that He was raised from the dead. And behold! He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there. Behold! I told you.
Mark. 16:7 But go, say to the disciples and to Peter, He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there, even as He told you.
Matt.28:8 And going away from the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, they ran to report to His disciples.
Mark. 16:8 And going out quickly, they fled from the tomb. And trembling and ecstasy took hold of them. And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid.
Note!, some think that this means they never told about the matter to anyone ever. If that would be the case, we would not have this story. That is why it is reasonable to think they only didn’t tell on their way about it.
John:20:3 Then Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.
John:20:4 And the two ran together, and the other disciple ran in front more quickly than Peter and came first to the tomb.
John:20:5 And stooping down, he saw the linens lying; however, he did not go in.
John:20:6 Then Simon Peter came following him, and went into the tomb and saw the linens lying.
John:20:7 And the grave cloth which was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
John:20:8 Therefore, then the other disciple also entered, he having come first to the tomb, even he saw and believed.
John:20:9 For they did not yet know the Scripture, that it was necessary for Him to rise from the dead.
John:20:10 Then the disciples went away again to themselves.
John:20:11 But Mary stood outside at the tomb, weeping. Then as she wept, she stooped down into the tomb.
John:20:12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
John:20:13 And they said to her, Woman, why do you weep? She said to them, Because they took away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.
John:20:14 And saying these things, she turned backward and saw Jesus standing, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Note! Apparently, the other women had left some other route from the tomb, because didn’t see Peter and May on their way. Also, the disciples that came with Mary, left and Mary stayed alone there for a while.
(Mark. 16:9 And rising early on the first of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.)
John:20:15 Jesus said to her, Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek? Thinking that it was the gardener, she said to Him, Sir, if you carried Him away, tell me where you put Him, and I will take Him away.
John:20:16 Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around, she said to Him, Rabboni! (that is to say, Teacher).
John:20:17 Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God, and your God.
John:20:18 Mary Magdalene came bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He told her these things.
(Mark. 16:10 That one had gone and reported to those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping.)
Mark. 16:11 And those hearing that He lives, and was seen by her, they did not believe.
Mark. 16:12 And after these things, He was revealed in a different form to two of them walking and going into the country.
Matt.28:9 But as they were going to report to His disciples, behold, Jesus also met them, saying, Hail! And coming near, they seized His feet and worshiped Him.
Note! Worship = to kiss the hand, or to kneel and show homage to superior rank, for example high priest.
Matt.28:10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not fear. Go tell your brothers that they may go into Galilee, and there they will see Me.
Luke 24:9 And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven, and to all the rest.
Mark. 16:13 And going, those reported to the rest. Neither did they believe those.
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.
Luke 24:11 And their words seemed like foolishness to them, and they did not believe them.
Luke 24:12 But rising up, Peter ran to the tomb, and stooping down he saw the linen lying alone. And he went away wondering to himself at what had happened.
Matt.28:11 And they, having gone, behold, some of the guard coming into the city reported to the chief priests all things that occurred.
Matt.28:12 And being assembled with the elders, and taking counsel, they gave enough silver to the soldiers,
Matt.28:13 saying, Say that his disciples came and stole him by night, we being asleep.
Matt.28:14 And if this is heard by the governor, we will persuade him and will make you free from anxiety.
Matt.28:15 And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this report was spread by the Jews until today.
Note! Matt. 28:11-15 is a separate story line that seems to have happened as the same time with other events. Apparently guards told what they had witnessed in the city, while many disciples did other things.
Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them were going on the same day to a village being sixty stadia distant from Jerusalem, which was named Emmaus.
Luke 24:14 And they talked to each other about all these things taking place.
Luke 24:15 And it happened, as they talked and reasoned, coming near, Jesus Himself traveled with them.
Luke 24:16 But their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him.
Luke 24:17 And He said to them, What words are these which you exchange with each other while walking, and are sad of face?
Luke 24:18 And answering, one of them whose name was Cleopas, said to Him, Are you only one who resides in Jerusalem and do not know the things happening in it in these days?
Luke 24:19 And He said to them, What things? And they said to Him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a man, a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
Luke 24:20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the judgment of death, and crucified Him .
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that He is the One going to redeem Israel. But then with all these things, this third day comes today since these things happened.
Luke 24:22 And also some of our women astounded us, having been early at the tomb,
Luke 24:23 and not finding His body, they came saying to have seen a vision of angels also, who say Him to be alive.
Luke 24:24 And some of those with us went to the tomb, and found it so , even as the women also said; but they did not see Him.
Luke 24:25 And He said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe on all things which the prophets spoke!
Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?
Luke 24:27 And beginning from Moses, and from all the prophets, He explained to them the things about Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:28 And they drew near to the village where they were going, and He seemed to be going further.
Luke 24:29 And they constrained Him, saying, Stay with us, for it is toward evening, and the day has declined. And He went in to stay with them.
Luke 24:30 And it happened as He reclined with them, taking the loaf, He blessed, and breaking He gave to them.
Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him. And He became invisible from them.
Luke 24:32 And they said to one another, Was not our heart burning in us as He spoke to us in the highway, and as He opened up to us the Scriptures?
Luke 24:33 And rising up in the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem, and they found the Eleven, and those with them, having been gathered,
Luke 24:34 saying, The Lord really was raised and appeared to Simon.
Luke 24:35 And they related the things in the highway, and how He was known to them in the breaking of the loaf.
Matt.28:16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them.
Mark. 16:14 Afterward, as they reclined, He was revealed to the Eleven. And He reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him, having been raised.
(Luke 24:36 And as they were telling these things, Jesus Himself stood in their midst, and said to them, Peace to you!)
(John:20:19 Then it being evening on that day, the first of the sabbaths, and the doors having been locked where the disciples were assembled, because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace to you.)
Luke 24:37 But being terrified and filled with fear, they thought they saw a spirit.
Matt.28:17 And seeing Him, they worshiped Him. But they doubted.
Luke 24:38 And He said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do reasonings come up in your hearts.
Luke 24:39 See My hands and My feet, that I am He? Feel Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me having.
Luke 24:40 And saying this, He showed them His hands and feet
(John:20:20 And saying this, He showed them His hands and side. Then seeing the Lord, the disciples rejoiced.)
Luke 24:41 But yet they not believing from the joy, and marveling, He said to them, Have you any food here?
Luke 24:42 And they handed a broiled part of a fish to Him, and from a honeycomb.
Luke 24:43 And taking these before them, He ate.
Luke 24:44 And He said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you yet being with you, that must be fulfilled all the things having been written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, concerning Me.
Luke 24:45 Then He opened up their mind to understand the Scriptures,
Luke 24:46 and said to them, So it is written, and so the Christ must suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. No OT passage
Luke 24:47 And repentance and remission of sins must be preached on His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:48 And you are witnesses of th48 And you are witnesses of these things.
Matt.28:18 And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
Mark. 16:15 And He said to them, Going into all the world, preach the gospel to all the creation.
Matt.28:19 Going, then, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matt.28:20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.
Mark. 16:16 The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.
Mark. 16:17 And signs will follow to those believing these things: they will cast out demons in My name; they will speak new languages;
Mark. 16:18 they will take up snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will be well.
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send forth the promise of My Father on you. But you sit in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.
Luke 24:50 He led them out as far as to Bethany. And lifting up His hands, He blessed them.
John:20:21 Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.
John:20:22 And saying this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.
John:20:23 Of whomever you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to them. Or whomever you may retain, they are retained.
Luke 24:51 And it happened as He blessed them, He withdrew from them and was carried into Heaven.
Mark. 16:19 Then indeed, after speaking to them, the Lord was taken up into Heaven, and sat off the right of God. Psa. 110:1
Luke 24:52 And worshiping Him, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Mark. 16:20 And going out, they preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs following. Amen.
Luke 24:53 and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
John:20:24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
John:20:25 Then the other disciples said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands, and thrust my finger into the mark of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, in no way will I believe.
John:20:26 And after eight days, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. The door having been locked, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said, Peace to you.
John:20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and thrust into My side, and be not unbelieving, but believing.
John:20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
John:20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed are the ones not seeing and believing.
John:20:30 Then truly Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John:20:31 But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

[AchillesHeel]

I don't believe Paul's writings are the earliest written. But, in this case I don't think it matters, if you admit that there was oral testimonies before that.

I don't care what you "believe." I care about what evidence you have. Paul makes no mention of any previous written gospels so you've got your work cut out for you. If he was aware of the empty tomb and people touching Jesus, it's strange that none of that stuff gets any mention in 1 Cor 15 because those details would have greatly helped his argument in convincing the doubting Corinthians he was addressing.

In 1 Cor 15, Paul equates the appearance to him (which was a revelation according to Gal. 1:16) with the "appearances" to the others. He does this by using the same verb for each one, indicating they were understood to be the same type of post-ascension vision that he had. This is the earliest recorded testimony. All the "physical" stuff develops in later anonymous third person stories which contradict one another.

It seems to me that you don't understand fully what happened that day. Here is how they are reconciled without any contradictions:

This detailed attempt at harmonization does not resolve the contradictions previously discussed. In fact, it fails precisely because it must repeatedly invent scenarios and character actions that no Gospel account supports in order to force the four distinct narratives into a single, complex timeline. It smooths over inconsistencies by creating new fictions.

Let's start with how it fails to solve the Matthew 28:2 contradiction. The attempt "solves" this with the following note:

"Note! Apparently, the earthquake and rolling of the stone was seen only by the guards, not the women that vent to the tomb."

This is a complete fabrication. It is an assumption inserted into the text that directly contradicts the narrative flow, the Greek text of Matthew 28:1-6 and standard Matthean narrative patterns. The text strongly indicates that the women witnessed the angel descend from heaven, roll back the stone, and terrify the guards.

Here is why it fails:

1. The Sequence of Verbs & Narrative Flow:
- ἦλθεν (aorist): The women came to the tomb.
- καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας (aorist): "And behold, there was a great earthquake." The particle ἰδοὺ ("behold!") is Matthew's primary device for introducing a dramatic, immediate, and visually significant event into the current narrative moment. It consistently marks something happening next in the sequence, witnessed by the subjects.
- ἄγγελος γὰρ κυρίου καταβὰς (aorist participle) ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ προσελθὼν (aorist participle) ἀπεκύλισεν (aorist indicative) τὸν λίθον καὶ ἐκάθητο (imperfect indicative) ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ: "For an angel of the Lord, having descended from heaven and approached, rolled away the stone and was sitting on it." The γὰρ ("for") explains the cause of the earthquake they just experienced: it was because the angel was descending and acting at that moment. The aorist participles ("having descended," "having approached") describe actions preceding the main verb ("rolled away"), but all occur within the immediate sequence triggered by the earthquake introduced by ἰδοὺ.
- ἐσείσθησαν (aorist) οἱ τηροῦντες καὶ ἐγενήθησαν (aorist) ὡς νεκροί: The guards were shaken and became like dead men. This is the immediate consequence of seeing the angel's descent and action, witnessed by the women.
- ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ (aorist participle) ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν (aorist indicative): "But answering, the angel said..." The angel then speaks directly to the women who are present and have witnessed these events.

2. Matthean Usage of καὶ ἰδοὺ:

As demonstrated by the examples (Matt 2:9; 3:16; 4:11; 8:1-2; 8:23), καὶ ἰδοὺ + aorist verb always introduces an event that happens immediately after and witnessed subsequent to the preceding action. The parallel with Matt 8:24 (καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ) is particularly striking. Just as the storm arose as they were in the boat, the earthquake and accompanying angelic events happened as the women were at the tomb. To assign a pluperfect sense to σεισμὸς ἐγένετο in 28:2 would be inconsistent with Matthew's established narrative technique.

3. The Guards' Reaction:

The guards' terror and collapse (ἐσείσθησαν... ἐγενήθησαν ὡς νεκροί) happen after the angel rolls the stone and sits on it. If the stone were already rolled away and the angel sitting before the women arrived, the guards would likely have already reacted and been incapacitated (or fled). Their reaction occurring during the women's presence strongly implies the women witnessed the cause of that reaction – the angel's dramatic appearance and action.

4. The Angel's Address:

The angel speaks directly and reassuringly to the women ("μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς" - "Do you be afraid"). This implies they are currently afraid, a fear most naturally explained by them having just witnessed the earthquake, the angel's descent, the stone rolling, and the guards collapsing. The angel identifies why they are there ("I know you seek Jesus"), confirming their presence during these events.

5. The Pluperfect Argument:
- While the aorist can sometimes have pluperfect force (as in Matt 14:3), this requires strong contextual clues, typically involving explanatory background information introduced by particles like γὰρ or δέ where the main action is set further in the past.
- The context in Matt 28:2-4 is not background explanation for a past main action. The γὰρ in verse 2 explains the immediate cause of the earthquake (σεισμὸς ἐγένετο) which is itself introduced by καὶ ἰδοὺ as the next event witnessed after the women's arrival. The entire sequence from σεισμὸς ἐγένετο through the guards' reaction is presented as the dramatic, witnessed events of the present narrative moment.
- Matthew does use the pluperfect explicitly elsewhere (e.g., 28:11 - "ἰδοὺ" is absent; the guards report events already narrated). If he intended a pluperfect sense here, clearer phrasing or a different structure was available.

The most probable interpretation, based on the Greek syntax, the consistent Matthean use of καὶ ἰδοὺ to introduce immediate sequential events, the narrative flow, the guards' reaction occurring within the women's presence, and the angel's direct address to their current state of fear, is that Matthew depicts the women arriving at the tomb and then witnessing in sequence: a great earthquake, the descent of the angel from heaven, the rolling away of the stone by the angel, the angel sitting on the stone, and the terror and collapse of the guards. The text strongly supports the view that they were eyewitnesses to these dramatic events marking the resurrection. The pluperfect interpretation, while grammatically conceivable in isolation, creates significant tension with Matthew's established narrative style and the internal logic of the scene.

Invention of a Time Gap: To make this harmonization work, one has to invent an unseen time gap. It requires that the earthquake happened, the stone was rolled, the guards fainted and recovered, all before the women arrived, even though Matthew presents it as happening as they arrive. No account says this took place.

This harmonization doesn't resolve the contradiction; it dismisses Matthew's unique account by claiming the main characters present (the women) didn't actually see what Matthew describes.

Now, here are the other key failures and invented scenarios.

1. The "Split-Party" Theory

"Note! Apparently, Mary left the tomb, while other women stayed at the tomb."

This is the central pillar of the harmonization, and it is entirely invented. No single Gospel describes this.

In John, Mary is presented as acting alone from the start.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the women act as a cohesive group. They arrive together, they receive the angelic message together, and they leave together.

The idea that a group arrived, and one of them (Mary) immediately ran off in a panic without investigating or hearing the angels, while the rest stayed behind for the full angelic encounter, is a scenario created out of thin air to reconcile John with the Synoptics.

2. The Contradiction of Mary's Message
This "Split-Party" theory creates an even deeper contradiction that the harmonization ignores: Mary's state of mind.

John's Mary: Is ignorant and distressed. Her message is, "They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him." (John 20:2).

The Other Women (in Luke/Matthew): Are informed messengers. Their message is, "He is not here, for He was raised, as He said." (Matt 28:6).

The harmonization requires you to believe that Mary was part of a group but somehow missed the most important news in human history that the rest of her party received, and instead ran off with a completely contradictory message of despair. This is not a harmonization; it is a narrative collision.

3. The Unsolvable Emmaus Report
The timeline presented places the appearance to Mary Magdalene (John 20) and the other women (Matthew 28:9) before the Emmaus Road story. This makes the report of the Emmaus disciples completely nonsensical. They tell Jesus:

"...some of our women astounded us... they came saying to have seen a vision of angels also, who say Him to be alive... but they did not see Him." (Luke 24:22-24)

If Mary Magdalene and the other women had already seen the risen Jesus and reported it, this summary is inexplicable. The disciples would be omitting the most crucial fact—that Jesus had actually been seen! The harmonization simply lays the contradictory texts side-by-side and fails to recognize that Luke's account can only make sense if no one had yet claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

4. The "Different Route" Theory

"Note! Apparently, the other women had left some other route from the tomb, because didn’t see Peter and Mary on their way."

This is another fabrication designed to solve a logistical problem created by the harmonization itself. In its timeline, the other women are leaving as Mary, Peter, and John are running to the tomb. To prevent them from meeting and exchanging their contradictory information, the note invents "some other route." No Gospel mentions or implies this. It's a detail added solely to keep the contradictory stories from colliding.

This desperate attempt does not resolve the contradictions. It is an exercise in creating a new, more complicated story that is not found in any of the Gospels. It consistently fails because it must:

Invent events: A split party of women, different travel routes.

Contradict the text: Claiming the women in Matthew did not see the angel descend.

Ignore narrative logic: Overlooking the fact that the Emmaus report makes no sense if Jesus had already appeared to the women.

The contradictions between the four Gospel accounts remain because they are four theologically distinct and narratively independent traditions about the resurrection. They cannot be seamlessly woven into a single, minute-by-minute timeline without making things up.

[RBD]

I notice you selectively ignore the quotes that Mary was at the tomb in dark before dawn, and then after dawn.

How exactly does this get out of the contradiction where the initial appearance to Mary occurs before reaching any disciples as in Matthew versus the initial appearance to Mary occurring after telling two disciples as in John? How does her being at the tomb twice resolve that? You cannot have the initial appearance being both before and after telling disciples.

How exactly is there a contradiction between records of 2 different visits? How exactly can there be an accurate argument about the records, without first acknowledging they record 2 different visits? Finally, how can Magdalen's two different visits before and after dawn, be referred to as one initial

If you're not going to report what the Book says, or ignore it, then what's the point of pretending to report on the Book? When you begin reporting on what the Book says, then we can talk about any perceived conflicts.

Ignore it? You're ignoring the fact that Luke says the women, including Mary, were informed about the Resurrection while John says Mary had no idea what happened!

You're still talking like Mary Magdalene only visited the tomb once? Also, you're now making an assumption in Luke, that is not verified by the record. So, we need to back up and agree on the written basics, in order to then accurately debate whether the record conflicts with itself:


Luk 24:1
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.


Likely, these were the same women, who prepared spices and ointments for the Lord's body, who had followed Joseph, and seen the tomb where He was laid.

Luk 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.


Nothing is said of Magdalene at any time. Correct?

Mar 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Here is a record of Magdalen coming with bought spices to the tomb. Correct?

Jhn 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Mat 28:1
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.

Mary Magdalene is recorded coming twice to the tomb. Initially before dawn, and secondly after dawn. Correct?

Therefore, Mary Magdalene is only specifically mentioned in Mark, Matthew, and John, not in Luke. Correct?

Conclusion: John records Magdalen initially coming to the tomb in the dark before dawn. Alone, since no one else is mentioned. Correct?

We can say Mark and Matthew records the same event, where Magdalen comes to the tomb a second time after dawn, with the other Mary mother of James. Correct?

And so, from John, Mark, and Matthew, how does the record conflict in the two visits of Magdalen?

I'll begin: it could be said that Luke is including Magdalene without name. Which is reasonable, in that she would follow the Lord's body to the tomb. However, it's not verifiable. And especially since the other women brought their own prepared spices and ointments, while Magdalen only brought bought spices, not ointments. It's also more than reasonable, that there were more than only 2 women followers of Jesus, that came to His tomb to anoint His body. Correct?

If we agree so far, then we can fairly argue any apparent conflicts between Magdalen's record in John, Mark, and Matthew. If you disagree with anything so far, then we'll need to hash that out first.

[RBD]

Which is meant to falsely imply that no one testified of His resurrection, until 30 years later.

I never said that. The comparison is in regards to when Paul's letters were written versus when the gospels were written. The gospels all post date Paul's letters.

Yes, I saw that elsewhere. A record published after the event, does not necessarily disprove veracity. Nor is it disproven by order of publishing.

And how it was presented, certainly implies that no one testified of Jesus' resurrection, until about 30 years later. Are you denying that? Are you saying that there were testimonies and preachings of His resurrection, before Paul's first published letters? Paul was not the first person to offer eyewitness testimony of Jesus rising from the dead?

Earlier sources have less time for legends to develop.

Here is a biased supposition to begin with. Where in the NT, does any writer expressly say, that they wrote based upon 'developed legends', as though they had to sort it all out and come up with their own version...

Paul is the only apostle writing, that did not witness the beginning events of Jesus' resurrection, and he never says anything about gathering together old legends to sift through for himself. In fact, the opposite:

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Once again, you're not making a factual book report, of what and how it's written, but only giving a personally biased opinion about it. Whether anyone believes what the Book says, and about itself, is irrelevant to what it says, and about itself.

This is just a statement of fact when evaluating historical claims especially when the later accounts involve touching a revived corpse that is witnessed floating off to heaven

It's a statement of unbelief with mockery, not literary analysis and grammatical fact. i.e. floating rather than ascending. Now, you've shown your own negative bias, without any pretense of objective reporting.

when the earlier accounts don't mention any of that stuff despite supposedly coming from eyewitnesses.

What 'earlier' accounts?

Are you now saying that Paul's first writings, means that no one testified nor preached of Jesus' resurrection and ascension to heaven, until 30 years later? They were only whispered legends floating upon the ears of gullible minds?

[Difflugia]

And how it was presented, certainly implies that no one testified of Jesus' resurrection, until about 30 years later. Are you denying that?

Nobody that has ever studied history would read it that way. Historians discuss the relative dating and order of sources in order to discuss ways that the stories likely spread and evolved as well as the dependency of later narratives on earlier ones.

Are you saying that there were testimonies and preachings of His resurrection, before Paul's first published letters?

Probably, but we don't know. Paul says that he preached "Christ crucified" and the resurrection as part of his gospel. He mentioned it in his epistle to the Roman church as though it would be understood by its recipients. Since the church at Rome isn't one of the ones that Paul founded, then it's reasonable to conclude that somebody other than Paul preached a resurrection. We don't know any other details of that resurrection, though, either on its own or how similar to Paul's it was.

Paul was not the first person to offer eyewitness testimony of Jesus rising from the dead?

Others presumably did, but Paul's epistles are the only documentation that we have that could be called "eyewitness testimony" by any reasonable standard. Paul's rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 9:1 ("Have I not seen the risen Lord?") and his declaration that Jesus "appeared" to him in 15:8 are the only details that we get in eyewitness testimony anywhere about the resurrection.

Paul claims that other people saw Jesus, but that's no longer eyewitness testimony. Maybe Paul heard the stories from the people he named, but maybe he just knew the tradition from other Christians. Maybe he "received" it from Jesus himself as part of his gospel. We don't know. He didn't tell us.

The Gospel stories and Acts claim that people saw the risen Jesus. Those weren't written by eyewitnesses, though, so even if every impossible detail is true, they still aren't eyewitness testimony. Whether they're reliable is still an open question, but they aren't eyewitness testimony by definition. Some of the characters might have been real people, but we no longer have access to their statements. We know what later authors wrote about them, but we don't know how those authors came by their information.

Where in the NT, does any writer expressly say, that they wrote based upon 'developed legends', as though they had to sort it all out and come up with their own version...

Paul is the only apostle writing

Full stop. Paul is likely the only apostle whose writings we have.

I like to think that the epistle of James was written by the real James, a diaspora Jew, rather than the Gospel character, a Galilean fisherman. If so, then we probably have the writings of two legitimate apostles.

Whether anyone believes what the Book says, and about itself, is irrelevant to what it says, and about itself.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Are you now saying that Paul's first writings, means that no one testified nor preached of Jesus' resurrection and ascension to heaven, until 30 years later? They were only whispered legends floating upon the ears of gullible minds?

Not necessarily, but maybe. We don't know. No evidence is no evidence.

[AchillesHeel]

[Replying to RBD in post #16]

Your entire argument rests on a single, foundational premise: that we are reading accounts of two different visits by Mary Magdalene. You ask, "How exactly is there a contradiction between records of 2 different visits?" This is a classic case of assuming your conclusion. The more pertinent question, which you conveniently ignore, is this: On what textual basis do you justify inventing two different visits?

You are not deriving this "two visits" theory from the texts themselves; you are imposing it upon them as an ad hoc rescue device to resolve the very contradictions you claim don't exist. This is a textbook example of circular reasoning. You see contradictions, assume they can't exist, invent a scenario to explain them away, and then use that invented scenario to prove there was no contradiction to begin with.

Let's use an analogy. Imagine four witnesses to a single car accident.

Witness 1 (John) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign early in the morning, when it was still dark."

Witness 2 (Matthew) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign as it began to dawn."

Witness 3 (Mark) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign just after the sun had risen."

Witness 4 (Luke) says: "I saw the red car run the stop sign very early in the morning."

No rational investigator would conclude there were three or four separate but identical accidents involving identical red cars. They would conclude they have four accounts of the same event with minor, and entirely expected, variations in their perception of the time. Your method, however, insists that since "dark" is not "dawn" and "dawn" is not "sunrise," we must be dealing with three separate events. This is not logical rigor; it is an absurd refusal to acknowledge that different authors can describe the same moment with slightly different language.

You are treating the Gospels not as historical sources to be compared, but as a logic puzzle where any slight variation in wording must signify an entirely different event in your complex timeline.

Now, let's address your specific points using this flawed logic against you.

Even if we momentarily entertain your fantasy of a "two-visit" timeline, it does nothing to solve the core logical problem I raised. The contradiction remains:

Matthew's initial appearance: Happens to Mary and "the other Mary" before they report to any disciples.

John's initial appearance: Happens to Mary alone after she has already run to Peter and John and they have come and gone.

The word "initial" means "first." An event cannot be "first" both before telling the disciples and after telling the disciples. Your two-visit solution doesn't fix this. It just relocates the contradiction into a more convoluted and unsupported narrative of your own making. Which "first" was the actual "first"? Your model provides no answer.

You attempt to neutralize the contradiction between Luke's informed women and John's ignorant Mary by suggesting Mary Magdalene isn't even in Luke's account. You ask me to agree: "Nothing is said of Magdalene at any time. Correct?"

This is demonstrably false and a shockingly dishonest reading of the text. You conveniently stop your analysis before Luke 24:10, where the author explicitly names the women who delivered the report:

"And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles."

Your entire argument that Luke's account can be separated from the others hinges on you ignoring verse 10. Luke himself identifies Mary Magdalene as being part of the group that was inside the tomb, saw the two angels, and was told "He is not here, but was raised." Therefore, Luke's Mary is fully informed. This directly and irreconcilably contradicts John's Mary, who is standing outside the tomb weeping because she thinks the body has been stolen. You cannot be both an informed messenger of the resurrection and an ignorant witness to a presumed grave robbery at the same time.

Your attempt to differentiate the groups of women based on Luke's use of "prepared" and Mark's use of "bought" is scholastic absurdity. Are we to believe that buying spices precludes one from preparing them for use? This is a distinction without a difference, a semantic game played to manufacture support for your theory. It is the very definition of grasping at straws.

I will not engage with your series of "Correct?" questions because your foundational premises are built on sand. You are not interpreting the Gospels; you are rewriting them into a fifth, harmonized version that exists only in your imagination. You then demand we debate your fan-fiction instead of the actual source documents.

The contradictions are real, they are substantial, and they remain unresolved by your methods. You have not shown the accounts to be consistent; you have only demonstrated the lengths one must go to inventing new events, ignoring explicit verses, and creating absurd distinctions - to pretend that they are.

[SimpleLayman]

It defies our understanding of the laws of nature. It's ancient, as it happened over 2,000 years ago. Today we don't accept anecdotal evidence for something that's considered so extreme. So you are correct, without even getting into details. What is your point, just that? If so, your point is moot if the word of God is living with the power to transform lives and the course of human history. You can believe in the resurrection without having the ability to observe it and reproduce data and peer reviewed research. This is how it has always been. If those who choose to believe in this are all the better for it, this is the test. Just as any other philosophical point in history, you do test it. If in the end it did not stop you from doing science, from using reason, from seeking objective truth any more than it stopped any of the famous Christian scientists, perhaps it was of no negative consequence. If it was of positive consequence, what then?

So I began this debate by saying you are correct, and I'm ending it by saying there are other ways to test the validity of a belief, and these ways are just as valid. Maybe even more valid if the entire objective of it is to achieve transformation and growth through the salvation of Christ. Suppose it is true, if it never happened it's all worthless as they say. That makes the belief in the literal resurrection that much more consequential. It is currently impossible through our current scientific understanding, but we only just recently learned how to prove quantum entanglement. We've literally scratched the surface. If our knowledge were quantified, it'd be a drop of water out of an entire ocean. So I end by asking sincerely, so what? Of what consequence is it for those who believe and continue seeking truth to objectively and quantifiably better themselves?