The case for Christianity

[Mike_from_NJ]

Flashback.

Angel rolling away the stone.

So you’re saying that Matthew 28:2-4 was a flashback despite the fact that there is nothing in the language to suggest it was a flashback. There’s nothing in the text that says that what happened with the angel and the stone happened prior to the women at the tomb. In fact, if you wanted to write that the angel arrived and moved the stone after the women arrived you would use that very language. What’s especially odd is that if the author wanted to make the order of events to match with what you propose he could have easily just put verses 2 through 4 ahead of the single sentence of verse 1.

Your proposal also points to another problem. In Matthew 26:5 the angel who moved the stone tells the women that Jesus was not in the tomb. In Luke 24:2-4 the women walked in and were “wondering” why there was no body despite the angel specifically telling them it wasn’t there.

Or it just means the Evangelists can pick whatever details they wish to zero in on.

So the other three gospels take specific care to note that the stone was rolled away. It’s vital to the story, yet when an explanation for that event is readily available it’s suddenly unimportant?

Matthew says nothing about whether the women talked to passerbys. Again, the longer ending of Mark says they did deliver the report.

Mark 16:8 specifically says the women were trembling and bewildered and didn’t talk to anyone. Matthew says the women were joyful and ran to talk to his disciples. These verses not only disagree in terms of speaking/not speaking but in terms of emotion.

And that Mark long ending, you don’t think it contradicts Mark 16:8? We don’t even have to consider whether that ending is false or not because of this contradiction.

Nope. It states Mark used Matthew and Luke. You didn’t check it.

You are corect. I was mixing it up with something I was already familiar with, the very similarly named Four-Document Hypothesis (as can be seen here). Now I was kind enough to provide a link to my article on Editorial Fatigue and ask if you would check that out.

No. You’ve made claims about details and tried to make slam dunk arguments against the accounts. I’ve shown otherwise.

I have to disagree in the strongest of terms.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So you’re saying that Matthew 28:2-4 was a flashback despite the fact that there is nothing in the language to suggest it was a flashback.

Nothing’s there to suggest that the women say the stone rolled away by the Angel. So that cuts you.

It’s vital to the story, yet when an explanation for that event is readily available it’s suddenly unimportant ?

Yeah. Especially when you consider Matthew wrote first and his audience.

Mark 16:8 specifically says the women were trembling and bewildered and didn’t talk to anyone .

Longer ending says they spoke to the Apostles. That refers only to the women on the way.

And why would the longer ending receive virtually no pushback until now if it contradicts Mark?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Nothing’s there to suggest that the women say the stone rolled away by the Angel. So that cuts you.

Matthew 28 says the women went to look at the tomb, the angel moved the boulder and scared the soldiers, then the angel spoke to the women. That’s a very basic narrative with no cuts in action. There’s nothing to indicate that the women left in verse 1 and then arrived between verses 4 and 5. Saying that’s what happened is just adding to scripture.

This also brings up another problem with the story. Matthew says the women that went were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark says it was these two women and Salome. Matthew seems to have forgotten Salome.

Yeah. Especially when you consider Matthew wrote first and his audience.

This differing audiences excuse never made sense to me, especially since “Where is Jesus?” is the very crux of the story. Imagine a story where four men in 1980 landed in a remote Pacific island and found Amelia Earhart’s plane empty and uncrashed. If we assume the four men would talk to different audiences, in no way would some of them mention that they also saw an alive 83-year-old Amelia while others would leave that part out. Why? Because “Where is Amelia Earhart?” is the crux of that story.

And why would the longer ending receive virtually no pushback until now if it contradicts Mark?

The earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t include the longer ending, strongly suggesting it was added later. Can we just add whatever we want to documents if it helps advance a desired narrative?

One last analogy on the resurrection story, one I’ve posted in the past. There’s a joke where four friends in college who all take the same class spent the night before partying and missed a big exam. They lie and tell the professor they got a flat tire on the way to the exam. He agrees to give them a make-up test the next week. During that test they are seated in separate rooms and they each notice the last question on the test, “Which tire had the flat?”

Now by some apologists’ reading it doesn’t matter which tire had the flat so long as they all agree that there was a flat tire. I’m a bit more cautious and won’t allow brushing aside of very large contradictions just because some would prefer they be ignored.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Saying that’s what happened is just adding to scripture

The reverse is true.

Nowhere does the text indicate that the women say the Angel rolling away the stone.

This differing audiences excuse never made sense to me,

1. It’s documented that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. So whether you like it or not, we gotta take that into an account
2. Matthew tells us try Jewish priests circulated the rumor that the Body was stolen. So the guards’ story is included to combat this assertion.

The earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t include the longer ending, strongly suggesting it was added later.

So do we cut off John’s epilogue as uninspired because it’s not written by John?