Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

"He is Risen!" -- ???


Citsonga

Recommended Posts

Here is something that I believe I posted here for Easter a few years ago, but since there are new people on the board, I thought I'd post it again. Please note that even though I refer to the authors by the names ascribed to the Gospels, I fully acknowledge that nobody knows who actually wrote them.

 

"He is Risen!" -- ???

     As we are well aware, the crux of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. It has been summed up like this: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:17-19).

 

    So, with Christianity hinging on this very issue, one would expect that the Christian's "divine text" (the Bible) would be very consistent with the details surrounding Jesus' resurrection, right? Let's take a look.

   

    Now, it is often pointed out that the Gospels differ as to which women and how many of them went to the tomb, as well as how many angels greeted them. For this particular writing, I am going to ignore those and move on to what seem to me to be more problematic issues.

 

    One issue is the timing of the women's visit. John's account says, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1). Mark, on the other hand, says, "They came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (Mark 16:2); in other words, "When the sun had risen" (NASB), or, "Just after sunrise" (NIV). Matthew is stuck in the middle, claiming that they came "as it began to dawn" (Matt 28:1). Apologists claim that what we're dealing with is events unfolding as the sun was rising. In other words, John was referring to it still being dark when the women set out to go to the tomb, Matthew was referring to the dawn breaking while they were on their way, and Mark was referring to the sun having risen by the time that they arrived at the tomb. On the surface, this may sound acceptable. However, John's account refers to when Mary "cometh... unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1), and not when she started her journey there. Thus, there is no validity in the apologists' claim.

 

    As with the women, there is a serious timing issue with when the angel(s) appear(s). Matthew records that the angel "rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Matt 28:2). With the angel sitting on the stone, we read, "And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you" (Matt 28:5-7). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter the angel outside the tomb, and the angel invites them to go in and see where Jesus had been laid.

 

    Mark, however, tells a different version, saying, "And when they (the women) looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you" (Mark 16:4-7). The presumed angel says much the same thing as in Matthew's account, but one striking difference is that there is no invitation into the tomb, because the women are already inside! The statement, "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man" (Mark 16:5), implies that the angel was seen fairly immediately upon the entry of the women. So, according to Mark, the women did not encounter the angel until entering the tomb!

 

    Luke, who has two angels in his story, says, "And they (the women) entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words" (Luke 24:3-8). So, Luke places the presumed angels inside the tomb, just like Mark. However, while Mark has the angel appearing as they entered the tomb (Mark 16:5), Luke has the two angels holding off until "it came to pass, as" the women stood there "perplexed" (Luke 24:4). It could be contended that not much time had passed yet, and therefore there is no real timing contradiction between Mark and Luke, but even so, there is still a huge timing problem between Luke and Matthew (just like between Mark and Matthew), because Matthew has the women encounter the angel before entering the tomb.

   

     John, on the other hand, says that when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, she "seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him" (John 20:1b-2). So, Mary comes to the tomb and runs off without encountering any angels! John has Mary assuming that Jesus' body had been stolen, while Luke clearly states that "they (the women, including Mary) remembered his (Jesus') words" that on "the third day" he would "rise again" (Luke 24:8)! In John's account, it's not until after Peter and "that other disciple," whom many presume to be John, run to the tomb to check it out (John 20:3-10) that Mary Magdalene has her angelic encounter! It is at that point that she "stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:11-12).

 

    As we just saw, John's account has Peter (and another disciple) running to the tomb to check it out before the angels make their appearance (John 20:3-12). Luke, on the other hand, has Peter's trip to the tomb taking place after the angels appear and the women report it to the disciples (Luke 24:4-12)!

 

    In Matthew's account, after the women's angelic encounter, we read, "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail, And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me" (Matt 28:8-10). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter Jesus before making it to the disciples.

   

    John, on the other hand, has Mary Magdalene completing her trip from the tomb to the disciples, Peter and another apostle's subsequent trip to the tomb, and then Mary's return to the tomb and subsequent encounter with the angels (John 20:1-13) all taking place before Jesus' first appearance (John 20:14-17)! Not only that, but according to John, this encounter took place right outside the tomb (John 20:11-14), while Matthew has Jesus' first appearance taking place somewhere between the tomb and the disciples, interrupting the women's run to the disciples (Matt 28:8-10)!

 

    According to Luke, the risen Jesus' first appearance to disciples was to a couple on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32), after which Jesus reveals himself to the disciples collectively in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33-49). John says that they were in a closed room (John 20:19-23), which could easily be meant as the same place. However, according to Matthew the place where Jesus first reveals himself as risen to the disciples is on a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16ff)!

 

    In Luke's account, after Jesus reveals himself to the disciples in Jerusalem, he then takes them to Bethany, where he is "carried up into heaven" (Luke 24:50-51). However, John has an eight day delay before Jesus appears again to the disciples, this time with Thomas there (John 20:26-29), and a later appearance at the "sea of Tiberius" (John 21). These details in John, along with the Acts claim that the risen Jesus remained for forty days (Acts 1:3) before "a cloud received him out of their sight" (Acts 1:9), conflict with the flow of events in Luke's narrative regarding the ascension mentioned above.

 

    In addition, Luke places the ascension in Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), while Acts claims that it took place at "the mount called Olivet" (Acts 1:12). The Mount of Olives is not in Bethany, and is actually closer to Jerusalem than Bethany. (Regarding this discrepancy, even Tyndale's "New Bible Dictionary" entry for "Olives, Mount Of" admits, "The visitor to Palestine learns the futility of pondering insolubles.")

 

    In summary, then, one has to consider the aforementioned fact that Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. If God really did raise Jesus back to life to save us from our sins, and if the Bible really is God's Word, then why in the world would the Bible's details surrounding Jesus' resurrection be such a terribly jumbled, contradictory mess? And if those who penned the alleged Word of God couldn't get the details straight on such an important issue as Jesus' resurrection, then how in the world are we supposed to be able to trust anything else they've written?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh ye unspiritual man who savourest not the things of the spirit of god!  How dare ye apply logic to that which must be viewed by faith?  Faith, you hear?  Blind faith...!!!

 

Oh dear... don't know what came over me there...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discrepancies in the Resurrection story were one of the final nails in the coffin for me, as far as the idea of Jesus being God and rising from the dead were concerned. One would think that if the Gospel texts were truly divinely inspired, an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have been able to see the problems in the accounts and questions that would arise as a result. If so, one would expect God to 'inspire' the gospel writers in such a way that their stories were at least a little more cohesive, especially on a subject as critical to the faith as the Resurrection. 

 

I've often heard apologists argue that the discrepancies in the resurrection accounts, far from proving that the Gospels were written solely by men, actually lend credence to the disciples' story. The idea is that what the Gospels describe are 'eye-witness' accounts, and that if there were really no empty tomb and the disciples decided to make it all up, one would expect almost complete solidarity between the Gospels. Of course, these are pretty weak arguments. The fact is that no amount of apologetic pleading will make the contradictions go away, so believers are still left with resurrection 'testimonies' that can't be reconciled. Many texts, while referring to the same period in time, inform us that the witnesses in question (i.e. Mary Magdalene) were doing completely different things. Again, if God really wanted people to come to faith in him, why would he inspire the Gospel authors to write stories that contradict so strongly? 

 

Another thing about eyewitness reports: this is one of the apologist's strongest arguments for the veracity of the resurrection accounts, but as anyone with experience in law enforcement will tell you, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. 

 

In a way, the multiple contradictory resurrection stories remind me of the reports of Jesus' trial, when the religious leaders brought false witnesses in to testify against the would-be Messiah. As one would expect, however, the witnesses' stories conflicted, and their testimony was thrown out of court. It's intriguing that believers won't do the same thing with the Resurrection...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, SkepticsApprentice. I also find the apologists' arguments about the differences validating the stories as eyewitness accounts to be ridiculous. When a court of law hears testimonies as highly contradictory as these, the judge or jury does NOT just assume that the contradictory statements are all factual, yet that's exactly what Christians want us to do with the Gospels' contradictions. Instead, the judge or jury tries to figure out who's lying, whose memories may be faulty, and who (if anyone) is telling the truth. Nobody would need to sort through such problems if the testimonies were inspired by an all-knowing deity and 100% factual.

 

Interestingly, I had never thought about drawing a parallel with the contradictory testimonies being thrown out in Jesus' alleged trial. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am less concerned about what amounts to minor discrepancies in the various gospel accounts regarding the resurrection of Christ, than I am with a far more basic and important question. Did a human being known as Jesus the Christ ever exists in the flesh in the first place? He had to have existed before he could be killed or resurrected.

 

Dr. Robert M. Price, a world renown Bible scholar, has taken the position that the Jesus of the gospels is a literary figure only. His conclusion is based on years of study and research into the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Price has written several books that defend his conclusion that there never was an earthly Jesus. More and more scholars are also taking this position as the exploration for a Historical Jesus continues. Scholars have known hundreds of years there is no evidence of an earthly Jesus and now more and more of them are willing to acknowledge the obvious reason they can find no historical Jesus.

 

Price believes the Gospel and Jesus was created by the use of typology and Jewish Midrash. That simply means OT stories were rewritten and new stories were created. This is an age old Jewish custom and tradition. Parts of the original story were incorporated into the new story. Jesus is the new Moses in the gospels. Moses lead his people out of Egypt. Jesus came out of Egypt to lead his people of our bondage. Moses was tempted 3 times and wander in the desert for 40 years. Jesus was tempted 3 times and wandered in the desert for 40 days. The numbers 40 & 7 reoccur numerous times throughout the bible in many stories. Price believes Jesus is a composite of midrash as well as other ancient mythical beings and deities. In other words the Jesus character was created by human beings and placed in the gospel story.

 

Why would scholars be so reluctant to draw what amounts to a rather obvious conclusion after studying the research. Money for one. A scholars paycheck often is tied to their scholarship findings. If you work for a Christian University you are expected to defend the faith not destroy it. Prestige and Professional accreditation. We all know those that rock the boat suffer the consequences. Grant money isn't given to troublemakers and those that don't want to play ball with the majority. Peer pressure. About the worst thing that can happen to any scholar is to be laughed at and ridiculed by their colleagues. Once a pristine reputation is ruined it is virtually impossible to reestablish it. Better to go along and get along than to be thrown overboard.

 

Just like in other areas of life free thinkers and innovators often pay a heavy price for bucking the system....until they are proven to be right. Then they are hailed as hero's and brilliant thinkers. Sadly, that is just the way life works. I've read Price and other scholars that hold the same view of Jesus and they have convinced me Jesus of Nazareth never existed anywhere but on the pages of the gospel story.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geezer, I fully agree that the topic of the "historicity" of Jesus is interesting. Indeed, the only "evidence" they have is the propaganda-laden religious writings. Although I'm somewhat agnostic on the issue, I do lean toward your position.

 

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the discrepancies I've pointed out are "minor." I purposely skipped over one issue that often gets brought up (what women went to the tomb) because I do see that one as a minor discrepancy that is easier to reconcile. The contradictions I pointed out are very significant and should give pause to any reasonable person who's been taught that the Bible is without error.

 

Someone as brainwashed as I was would not likely give a second thought to someone claiming that Jesus never existed. However, finding out that there are errors within the Bible itself could lead such a person to open his/her eyes. That's what did it for me and quite a few other ex-christians around here.

 

So, please, don't falsely classify the issues raised here as "minor." That simply is not true and saying such does no service to our cause.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still go back to the claim that these were eyewitness reports, but they include conversations between people that they could not have overheard; they report fantastic public incidents that NOBODY else recorded besides the cult; they aggrandize their leader and give him godlike powers just like most cults; nobody knows who wrote the gospels - the names were added long after they were written; and lastly they tip their hand in saying "These things were written so that you may believe". They are not writing facts, they are evangelizing. All of these are reasons to not believe the gospels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, Fuego. Even the author of Luke acknowledges that he's not an eyewitness, and, to the best of my recollection, I don't think the other Gospels claim anywhere to be written by eyewitnesses.

 

Of course, even if they did claim to be eyewitness testimonies, that wouldn't prove anything, but as it is, the standard Christian apologetics attempt to present these as eyewitness accounts fails miserably.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

Geezer, I fully agree that the topic of the "historicity" of Jesus is interesting. Indeed, the only "evidence" they have is the propaganda-laden religious writings. Although I'm somewhat agnostic on the issue, I do lean toward your position.

 

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the discrepancies I've pointed out are "minor." I purposely skipped over one issue that often gets brought up (what women went to the tomb) because I do see that one as a minor discrepancy that is easier to reconcile. The contradictions I pointed out are very significant and should give pause to any reasonable person who's been taught that the Bible is without error.

 

Someone as brainwashed as I was would not likely give a second thought to someone claiming that Jesus never existed. However, finding out that there are errors within the Bible itself could lead such a person to open his/her eyes. That's what did it for me and quite a few other ex-christians around here.

 

So, please, don't falsely classify the issues raised here as "minor." That simply is not true and saying such does no service to our cause.

 

 

My point being, if Jesus never existed, then the Gospels are fictional too. The fact the gospels are horribly flawed strikes me a secondary to the likely possibility they are also fictional stories. 

 

I do agree with your other point though. Bart Enrman convinced me the Bible is a collection of incomsistancies, contradictions, & countless flaws & errors. When I discovered that my faith basically evaporated. 

 

I've moved on from the Bibles problems to what I consider a much more serious problem & that being the gospel story itself is fiction & so are the characters in it. That makes all of Christiamity a lie & therefore irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, Geezer. However, would you have ever gotten to the "more serious problem" without first seeing the contradictions within the Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

I agree, Geezer. However, would you have ever gotten to the "more serious problem" without first seeing the contradictions within the Bible?

 

No, I acknowledge that was the catalyst for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Geezer said:

 

No, I acknowledge that was the catalyst for me.

 

I was just checking to see if you felt that was a necessary step, which is what I figured to be the case. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My family members, on Easter, still greet me by saying "Christ is risen". They do this even though they know I don't believe anymore. I've taken to responding by saying "So it has been said". And every time the look in their eyes tells me that I've killed their dreams.

 

It's been 2000 years people. Wasn't he supposed to be back by now?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that not just Jesus was risen, but according to Matthew, many dead people also rose from their graves.

 

Matthew 27:51-53

 

51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and53 Or tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

 

You would think that with something of that magnitude, that someone would have recorded that. 

 

"Holy shit! My dead uncle came to our house after Jesus died. It was insane!"

 

But of course no one did, because it's all utter bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, if memory serves me correctly, even the other Gospels don't mention that alleged event. That's probably why I didn't include anything about it when I wrote the OP several years ago, since I was focusing on the contradictory details in the story lines that appear in multiple Gospels.

 

You're quite right, though. Something as remarkable as that happening would've been mentioned in quite a number of sources, but all we have is the "testimony" of one very problematic Gospel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a silly question:  How is it that Christ was allegedly crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on a Sunday, yet 3 days and nights were supposed to elapse between his death and resurrection?  Unless I've missed something (which is quite possible as I was never great at studying scripture), it seems even time is distorted with the resurrection story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a miracle! Ya just gotta have faith! ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Faithfulless said:

Here's a silly question:  How is it that Christ was allegedly crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on a Sunday, yet 3 days and nights were supposed to elapse between his death and resurrection?  Unless I've missed something (which is quite possible as I was never great at studying scripture), it seems even time is distorted with the resurrection story. 

 

The typical apologetic explanation (at least in my experience) has been that the Jews didn't always think of 'days' in terms of literal, 24-hour periods of time. In this view, Jesus would have spent Friday evening in the tomb (part of one day), all of Saturday in the tomb (one full day), and then rose from the dead on Sunday morning (part of another day). 

 

I find it interesting how fundamentalists like to play around with time in the Holy Babble, defending a literal, 24-hour, six-day creation to the death, even as they're apparently quite comfortable with interpreting Jesus' days in the tomb as something less than literal. Whatever helps them banish the demons flying around, tempting poor unsuspecting mortals to indulge in a little critical thinking... :P 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what I heard, too. One big problem with it, though, is that it doesn't just say three days. If it did, even though it wouldn't be literally correct, it could potentially fit with such a scenario. However, the Bible says three days and three nights, but no matter how you slice it, there would not be the slightest portion of a third night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I was a little intrigued by this question after posting, so I did a few minutes of research and found this. It critiques Glenn Miller (who runs The Christian Think Tank, an apologetics site), who holds to the theory that the Jews didn't count days as 24-hour periods. The problem is, as the writer of this article points out, this theory is false. The Jews never had such a custom, and so the apologists' attempt to explain the problem away in this manner is either ignorant or dishonest. 

 

Balance (not) restored!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was sure it wasn't legit, but I didn't have time to look anything up last night. Basically, it's just another one of those snake-oil apologetics arguments that are really designed to convince those who already believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Authors that write fiction apparently don't feel a need to fact check their stories. I suppose that's because they're fictional stories & the author assumes people are smart enough to realize that.......but apparently not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember, too, that "Jews" are mystical, mysterious people to the Gentile crowd at your local Christian church. Therefore, any sort of non-standard, non-logical defenses against objections to the originally Jewish setting of these myths is met with "ooohh... but they have MYSTICAL explanations for everything - part of a day equals a day" and all that bullshit.

 

Think about it - these are people who PUBLISH THE TIME THAT THE SUN GOES DOWN IN JERUSALEM, so just in case you're a Jew on a business trip and can't figure out when sundown "officially" is in your area, you can always just fall back on the calculation for sundown in the Big City.

 

They want to make sure that you know EXACTLY when their religious leaders have dictated that sundown occurs for purposes of Sabbath and other holidays - why would they have been the kind of people to play fast and loose with their definition of "days" and "nights" when it came to THE MESSIAH??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.