Yes or No?

[Athetotheist]

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. (Matthew 28:2-3)

Did Mary Magdalene see this happen or did she not?

[Shem Yoshi]

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. (Matthew 28:2-3)

Did Mary Magdalene see this happen or did she not?

I am not sure. On examination of all 4 Gospels I think most likely Mary didnt see it rolled away but found the tomb with the stone rolled away.

However you have to question, how would anyone know what happened without a witness present. Many places in the Gospel raise this question. How would they know that?

Personally I take a mystical interpretation of the Gospels, and the Bible at whole. I do not believe that the mysteries of God can be explained by human knowledge

[brunumb]

Personally I take a mystical interpretation of the Gospels, and the Bible at whole. I do not believe that the mysteries of God can be explained by human knowledge

I guess that's the sort of approach one might find useful in order to prop up an unwarranted belief.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #2

Personally I take a mystical interpretation of the Gospels, and the Bible at whole. I do not believe that the mysteries of God can be explained by human knowledge

Then how can the mysteries of the gods of Olympus or the Mother Goddess be explained by human knowledge?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #2

I am not sure. On examination of all 4 Gospels I think most likely Mary didnt see it rolled away but found the tomb with the stone rolled away.

On examination of Matthew, it's hard for me to imagine MM not being there when it happened when that's where the author puts her.

Unless the Matthew account is wrong.

[Miles]

.

According to the chart here



Mark, Luke, and John say the stone had already been moved, so she wouldn't have witnessed it. Only Matthew says she was there before it was moved. Too bad the writers of the gospels didn't get together and agree on what happened before putting it to ink. It's contradictions like theses that really give the Bible a bad name. Who ya going to trust?

.

[Athetotheist]

.

According to the chart here



Mark, Luke, and John say the stone had already been moved, so she wouldn't have witnessed it. Only Matthew says she was there before it was moved. Too bad the writers of the gospels didn't get together and agree on what happened before putting it to ink. It's contradictions like theses that really give the Bible a bad name. Who ya going to trust?

.

Even if she misses the opening of the tomb, Matthew clearly has her there to see the angel himself.

[Shem Yoshi]

The differences of the Gospels give character to the Word. I believe it helps us understand God even more then we would if they all were the same. The differences really make us question what God is saying, and open our eyes to understand the varieties of perspectives. I think the differences actually bring us closer to God. We can know God better because of it.

[Athetotheist]

The differences of the Gospels give character to the Word. I believe it helps us understand God even more then we would if they all were the same. The differences really make us question what God is saying, and open our eyes to understand the varieties of perspectives. I think the differences actually bring us closer to God. We can know God better because of it.

Why couldn't the same be said of the texts of any other religion? Would you cut the Quran or the Upanishads the same amount of slack? If not, how would you justify the double-standard?

[Shem Yoshi]

The differences of the Gospels give character to the Word. I believe it helps us understand God even more then we would if they all were the same. The differences really make us question what God is saying, and open our eyes to understand the varieties of perspectives. I think the differences actually bring us closer to God. We can know God better because of it.

Why couldn't the same be said of the texts of any other religion? Would you cut the Quran or the Upanishads the same amount of slack? If not, how would you justify the double-standard?

I actually think this is fundamental for all knowledge in all we do. No one knows everything, no one knows exactly what happened ever. Even in observable science, we have no clue how quantum particles can occupy two places at once. Or one observer will always see something different then another observer, relativity proves it. If we break truth down to a literal concept, it brakes down at the seems. No one knows exactly what happened in history, or in the present, it all breaks down. Everyone sees something from a different preservative, rationalizes it in their own mind, and every story ever is perceived with different details, and fundamentally totally different truths.