Female witnesses lend credibility to the Resurrection.

[robnixxo]

The fact that all four Gospels, written in an extremely patriarchal environment point to women as the primary witnesses of the resurrection, can be viewed as quite radical. This makes the Resurrection story true. Any rebuttals?

[Mae von H]

The fact that all four Gospels, written in an extremely patriarchal environment point to women as the primary witnesses of the resurrection, can be viewed as quite radical. This makes the Resurrection story true. Any rebuttals?

Does this mean you believe it?

[TRANSPONDER]

The fact that all four Gospels, written in an extremely patriarchal environment point to women as the primary witnesses of the resurrection, can be viewed as quite radical. This makes the Resurrection story true. Any rebuttals?

It's a point worth making. In the frankly patriarchal ethos of the 1st Middle east, that the two women would be the ones to find the tomb open and empty requires a good reason why two women,if it wasn't true. I have to recognise the point. I have never denied that i think Jesus was a real person and the crucifixion (where it agrees) is based on a real event, apart from Paul supporting that. He didn't mention the women finding the empty tomb, but it is a point I can't dismiss that the women (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary) found the tomb open and empty.

There are problems of course, such as the angel parked there to explain everything is contradicted by John. The reason the women went there at all is not clear from the gospels, (and the Tomb - guard is an invention of Matthew's I'll bet my pension) and it takes some adroit excusing that the women, while preparing the spices never stopped to think 'How do we get it open?'

So I have an idea that there might have been a need to back up the resurrection -claim with the tomb empty, to prove it. The tomb open so they could see Jesus was gone - not that Jesus needed it open to get out; he could walk through walls. So the possibility is that Someone needed to go and see the open and empty tomb, and women seemed handy persons without Involvement in taking the body that could testify the tomb was empty.

Or it might be a record of a credible event like the crucifixion. Which has its'own questions.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]
I am sorry, but this is the Appeal to Misoginy. It has been continually brought up by all kinds of christian apologists.
Still it has been done to death and finally was dead in the water.

Richard Carrier names a whole chapter in his NOT THE IMPOSSIBLE FAITH to sucessfully refute that argument that says:

" No one would listen to/invent the Tombgirls, so christianity must be true! "
It gets culturally, historically and psychologically destroyed.


Further I myself see even a poetic continuity in scripture, of angels visiting females for important messages.

Abrahams wife was vistited by angel who told her that she would give birth in her old age.

Mary was visited by an angel who told her she would give birth to Jesus.

David Whitmers Mother was visited by an angel, outside of her house, who showed her the Golden Plates.

[elijahpne]

[Replying to ThatGirlAgain in post #2]
You said:

If having women be the witnesses was part of some divine plan (not sure if you are saying this), would not having witnesses to the resurrection itself and having non-believer witnesses of a risen Jesus make a better plan? After all this is the payoff. The Gospels have Jesus doing all kinds of public miracles to establish his authority. But the Big One that makes it all make sense goes unwitnessed in a way that invites disbelief?

You probably missed the fact that there were soldiers, in other words, non-believers, who were guarding the tomb. Matthew 27:65, 66 seem to suggest only one guard was posted at the entrance to the tomb which was sealed with a [Mark 16:4 very large] stone.

NIV
The Guard at the Tomb
Matthew 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate.
63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’
64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”
65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Matthew 28:4, however, clarifies that there were at least two guards or soldiers that were posted. They saw that an angel had rolled back the stone ...

Jesus Has Risen
Matthew 28:2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.
4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

... and had taken the body away [Matthew 28:13]. They were, therefore, witnesses of the resurrection ... as you have wanted.

The Guards’ Report
Matthew 28: 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

So, there were non-believers who not only saw the empty tomb but had also witnessed the whole event which the women did not witness.

Those non-believers were bribed [see Matthew 28:13] to twist the whole account which the authorities cannot pull off with believers.
------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 15:14 But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to elijahpne in post #14]
What exactly did the roman soldier(s) witness

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]
I am sorry, but this is the Appeal to Misoginy. It has been continually brought up by all kinds of christian apologists.
Still it has been done to death and finally was dead in the water.

Richard Carrier names a whole chapter in his NOT THE IMPOSSIBLE FAITH to sucessfully refute that argument that says:

" No one would listen to/invent the Tombgirls, so christianity must be true! "
It gets culturally, historically and psychologically destroyed.


Further I myself see even a poetic continuity in scripture, of angels visiting females for important messages.

Abrahams wife was vistited by angel who told her that she would give birth in her old age.

Mary was visited by an angel who told her she would give birth to Jesus.

David Whitmers Mother was visited by an angel, outside of her house, who showed her the Golden Plates.

Good post. I do not argue from misogony, but it would be wrong to overlook that some have argued that way. I don't go for it myself, but suspect it is a question of the right person for the plot. After all an angel visits Joseph to execute hi part in the annunciation, but Mary is of course the central figure because she is a female. So I musdt consider that the women were the ones to find the tomb open because they were seen as appropriate for the plot.

On the other hand, I don't discount that there might be an actual true tradition (as I reckon with the crucifixion) behind it.

I won't opt for one as a fave theory, but consider what, given either one is true, this means and what happened after.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]
I am sorry, but this is the Appeal to Misoginy. It has been continually brought up by all kinds of christian apologists.
Still it has been done to death and finally was dead in the water.

Richard Carrier names a whole chapter in his NOT THE IMPOSSIBLE FAITH to sucessfully refute that argument that says:

" No one would listen to/invent the Tombgirls, so christianity must be true! "
It gets culturally, historically and psychologically destroyed.


Further I myself see even a poetic continuity in scripture, of angels visiting females for important messages.

Abrahams wife was vistited by angel who told her that she would give birth in her old age.

Mary was visited by an angel who told her she would give birth to Jesus.

David Whitmers Mother was visited by an angel, outside of her house, who showed her the Golden Plates.

Good post. I do not argue from misogony, but it would be wrong to overlook that some have argued that way. I don't go for it myself, but suspect it is a question of the right person for the plot. After all an angel visits Joseph to execute hi part in the annunciation, but Mary is of course the central figure because she is a female. So I musdt consider that the women were the ones to find the tomb open because they were seen as appropriate for the plot.

On the other hand, I don't discount that there might be an actual true tradition (as I reckon with the crucifixion) behind it.

I won't opt for one as a fave theory, but consider what, given either one is true, this means and what happened after.

True, our Tombgirls were appropiate for ther the plot. What is the main reason for that?

Easy; Women were used for despicable work. Running in the dawn to a cemetery for taking care of a dead body was considered despicable work, fitting for subordinated women.

Really remarkable for a story back then would habe been.if tje narrative had men doing this womans work. Everyone would have demamded an explanation for that.

So everytime Xians grabble out the Argument from Misoginy,
they should lnow that MALE.first witnesses would rather give the resurrection narratives more credibility, than females.
People would wonder; "Sending men to do womens work - whatta revoltin development!"

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, but if the women would be there in the sory because they had to do that, then they had to be there if it really happened.

So the women being the ones to go to the tomb adds credibility to to the story as a story or a real event.

Luckily, the credibility of the story doesn't depend too much on it being the women going to the tomb.There is a vague idea that only they would have reason to, even if the writers seem to to have trouble with why. As I recall Mark and Luke both say to bring oils and spices.

Remarkably Matthew omits this and I suspect he (not being the sharpest knife in the box) has a Problem with the women obtaining and preparing spices on the Sabbath, though they could have done it it during the Sunday night, I recall he just weakly says they went to look at to tomb.

John givers no reason at all and i suspect that (like having no explanatory angel) that is how it was, original story as well as mark reflecting the original form which has the women running away and Nothing after that.

There are plot problems with the tomb being open at all as well as with the women not considering how to get in the tomb until the last minute. It all screams 'invented plot - and not a very clever one, either'.

I should certainly like to hear the reasons for supposing (given the basic elements - the women seei ng the tomb was open and empty) there a single good reason to credit any of the (mostly) discrepant and contradictory events related thereafter.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]

Not that I support this theory or anything, just putting it out there as one possibility, but maybe they used women so that it could not be claimed that they opened the tomb and moved the body. After all, in those times I'm sure many thought women not capable of pulling that off. Today we know that's bunk, but maybe then ....

To me, the story would be more 'Wow' if the tomb was still closed with a heavy stone and Jesus was busy wandering around. Like someone above said, Jesus wasn't afraid to walk through walls when it suited the narrative.

Regardless of what the story claims, it lends no real support to the truth, whatever that may be.

Using this logic, I could write down on a piece of paper that I, an ardent atheist, was having a group of JWs over so that I could enjoy being preached at for the afternoon. The ludicrousness of the story does not lend any weight to the truth value of the event just because I felt like writing that down.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #19]

Good, you are clearly with me here !

The Argument from Misoginy apologetics makes no sense !


Still, the narrative needs an empty tomb open, so that bystanders and fans can see "nothing there" !

Than the simplest reader will not doubt; "He is risen" !