The Gospels’ witnesses — A defence of

‘Visits’ as ‘Events’ in their own right

The Gospels’ witnesses — Are they the angels’ witnessing each in his own account in the only event of the women’s only witnessing of Jesus’ resurrection from the grave?

Or,

Are the angels’ witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, separate accounts in the separate events of the women’s visits at the tomb?

In other words, are the ‘witnesses’ at, or are they of and about, Jesus’ resurrection?

Several visits

GE:

The Gospels recorded for us the one unquestionable truth of the events of the night and the following Sunday morning of Jesus’ appearances. No one Gospel gives all the information; but the only Message of, and from the four Gospels together, without contradiction or discrepancy in any detail provides the full answer to the knowledge needed by the believing enquirer for total happiness in the knowledge of the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. The details and information for the whole picture of this night and morning are discovered in separate and different events of the women’s visits at the tomb, rather than in a single event of a single visit of theirs to the tomb.

One Visit

TonyZ:

You need to look at all the parallel accounts, not just Matthew. For instance, in Mark 16, the women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen. I am trying to include _all_ the Biblical evidence here, not just one of the four versions we have. Luke 24 has the same sequence of events. Does that not enter into your thinking at all?

GE:

It obviously hasn’t entered your thinking that Luke does not have the same sequence of events than “in Mark 16”! One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, ‘parallel accounts’, but sequential in terms of time and occurrence.

Consider, “For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.”

Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15.)

1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!

2) Then John, 20:1 further, tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angel/s etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.

3) In Luke, not only “the”, but more than “three women” “arrive”, and “enter the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.

4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.

5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14-18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),

6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have returned to the grave after Mary had left, in detail what, without anybody’s presence or knowledge, had happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). “And as they went to tell the disciples, Jesus suddenly met them.” (Mt28:9)

Eleven:

And???

Hellbound:

.... and it is clear that the chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other.

Joman:

Your mind has been deceived by your master. As such you are blind and simply stumbling around in darkness. Until you come to Jesus you’ll find no remedy.

GE:

Hellbound, how totally unnecessary and unfounded! What! Don’t you want to tell us why – to you – it’s clear the chronologies offered by the gospel accounts conflict with each other? Because of what I have said? Come on! Mine is the only way there aren’t all sorts of contradictions. If it shows contradictions, then you show them; don’t just claim it’s “clear the gospel accounts conflict with each other” because of what I’ve written; anybody can do that!

Here is one guy bound for glorification and everlasting life, and not for hell, believing the Gospels for the Word of God they are, and that they contain no contradictions whatsoever, in the least, and especially not in the greatest of all events this earth has ever witnessed. Who approaches the facts of the Resurrection of Christ from the viewpoint of faith, that He in human body of glorified flesh, rose from the dead again, and was witnessed by many the Risen Jesus Christ, Mighty Saviour of their souls.

And it has been my purpose with this discussion,

1) to stop in this matter the big mouths of people like Hellbound’s. And to show,

2) No single Gospel even attempts to give the full chronological picture of times and events that preceded or followed the Resurrection;

3) Each gives one or more of many facts and facets which in every smallest particular is correct, true and fully reconcilable and in harmony with every other;

4) And that it is people who make of the Gospel-compilations of these separate, different and differing events, one and the same event of one and the same moment in time and place – yes, force them into it –, who are the creators of the innumerable number of contradictions.

I have already made this ‘clear’, for anyone with brains and eyes that can read, and, with a heart willing and believing, reading and understanding.

Eleven:

If you take 4 witnesses to a car accident, chances are very good that their accounts will not match exactly. In fact, they can’t because each person witnessing is in a different position with different perspectives, so how can they match exactly?

Joman:

By the ability of the Holy Ghost. Admit it...you aren’t looking at this from a position of faith. Such a position means you haven’t the ability to resolve any doubts that confront you. Because you say you can see your blindness remains.

Eleven:

Do yourself a favor. Go to Noah’s Lounge and take a quick glance thru the CNN discussion.

Joman:

The gospels are not testimonies of accidents. John’s gospel ends by reminding us that none of these things concerning Jesus of Nazareth was done in a corner. If the gospels were not historically accurate then there would exist proof from that era. Your inability to understand the chronology means only that you yourself don’t understand it. It isn’t proof of anything other than your own personal lack.

Eleven:

The gospels are not testimonies of accidents. No, but they are 4 separate accounts of a significant event. Just because they differ (which they must) doesn’t negate that the event

happened.

That I myself don’t understand is a weakness of mine. I tend to run from those who claim to know the mind of God.

I will listen more closely to them once we get the basics down - like how human thought works, or the power behind the heartbeat. First things first, ya know....

Joman:

I know that your thought experiment doesn’t apply because Jesus told us that the Comforter would bring to remembrance of Jesus’ followers all that he had said. So, the remembrances of the gospels is the work of the Holy Ghost and not the willy-nilly work of men.

Eleven:

Let me guess.........your favourite cologne , Joman, is......Calvin???

Joman, try one more little experiment for me, will ya.

Place a plant in the middle of a room.

Invite 8 people over to your home.

Now have the 8 people who are in the SAME room talk about the plant.

It will be IMPOSSIBLE to get 8 identical descriptions.

Why? Because for one thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 8 people to be standing in the exact same spot, angle, lighting, etc. They will all have an entirely UNIQUE perspective because 8 people cannot occupy the same space. Not to mention personal, emotional, and spiritual comprehension about the plant they are looking at.

They are all looking at it from their own individual perspectives. Does that make ANY of their descriptions wrong? No, of course not. They are all correct, yet all different. That is how it is with the gospels. They are all correct, but coming from 4 different sources, and backgrounds. God planned it that way, Each addresses a different audience, yet all are truth. Very cool.

Growing Lion:

I’m with Eleven on this one, any court room will show that witnesses are not the ultimate reliable standard since everyone will have their own perspective shaded with their

own expectations, and filtered through their own experiences.

In the book “Who Moved the Stone” the author takes the whole resurrection incident into a hypothetical courtroom and examines the witness testimony and comes up with his conclusion that there must have been a resurrection. While this book is a rather old book (1930) the issue is even older so it it is still relevant.

Most remarkably Morrison, the author, started the whole process as an atheist and was converted to Christianity through the examination that the process of writing the book took.

GE:

I have had to do with the objection different witnesses will and must witness differently, or, contradictory. I say it is irrelevant; it applies not in the case of the Gospel records of Jesus’ resurrection— which records in fact were one only; so how can there be discrepancies? The four Gospels give the one witness of the Resurrection. The Word of God it is, not the word of men.

It must be approached by faith. But that does not mean one by faith excuse mistakes, discrepancies and contradictions. In the court of Law of God, witnesses agree perfectly or are judged liars. No Gospel contains lies or accidents, contradictions and irreconcilabilities, or just ‘mistakes’.

Now the solution to the alleged cases of such things as ‘mistakes’, ‘contradictions’ and ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the Gospels, the first we have had a look at, that God is the Giver of the record of the Gospels. He errs not. God is One in his Word; He is not double tongued like the serpent devil.

Remember this, “the whole resurrection incident” is the greatest and most trustworthy work of God He ever did: that He raised Christ from the dead. Can we not absolutely trust God’s Word on this, how can we trust Him in anything else?

Next point: We, are not able, to discuss “the whole resurrection incident”— not even from the Gospels. My idea with this conversation is to require into the human and natural ‘incidents’ of the Saturday night and Sunday morning as recorded in the Gospels— not to probe into things not allowed angels to see— what mortals; especially the Resurrection.

To begin with,

There are not ‘four witnesses’, four from, or four in, or four the “authors”, of the Gospels. One may only speak of ‘four witnesses’ if one has in mind “the witness testimony” written down in the Gospels individually. So one must first define what one means with the terms and phrases one uses; most importantly, what one means with ‘witness’ and ‘witnesses’. I think this is the main cause of the confusion that always results and takes over when people try to understand the Gospel stories; they actually don’t know what they are talking about.

There is but the one ‘messenger’ or “witness testimony” of “the whole resurrection incident” in every of the four ‘witnesses’ or Gospels, and that was, the angel / angels’ ‘witness-testimony’ of the Resurrection at every separate occasion of its having been ‘related’ or ‘told’; and afterwards ‘recorded’.

By this I do not mean

1) the anecdotes per se, found in the Gospels. By this I am also, not repeating what I have just said, that the Gospels give us,

2) the One Word of God on the event of Christ’s resurrection. I don’t mean,

3) ‘the Gospels’! I am not repeating; this time I am referring to the only one event, of the breaking news— of its being made known. That event-of-word, did not come from any of the writers of the Gospels; not by any apostle; not by any woman-disciple; by no human being. Nothing of the Resurrection was possible for humans to ‘witness’ or ‘observe’, but they would be dead.

The only, first, witness of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is the witness-by-word of “the angel”, who “told / explained / witnessed to the women”— the angel of Matthew 28:5, and this angel in clear and separate distinction from even himself were it he who in other places in the Gospels during the night and following Sunday morning on other occasions of the women’s visiting the tomb, related the Message of the Resurrection to them.

Why an angel, and no living eye-witness from among men?

First,

Because that is what the Scriptures say:

“Without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1Tm3:16.

When Christ rose from the dead, this was what happened:

“But in the Sabbath Day’s fullness, being mid-afternoon before the First Day of the week, when set out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to go look (at) the grave there suddenly 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 on it, his countenance like lightning, and his raiment white as snow— ANSWERED / EXPLAINED / TOLD / WITNESSED THE ANGEL, and said to the women.....”

Caution!

Matthew – most probably – might have meant the same angel in both verses 2b and 5a; but he implied separate actions on separate occasions of the angel’s appearance; his first ‘appearance’ in time was when he – unseen by any other creature – ‘came down

from heaven’ and removed the stone.

The angel’s second and later ‘appearance’ in time, was when he “explained / answered to the women” what in verses 1 to 4 had happened— the Resurrection! This – verse 5a – was the first and only time “the angel told the women” these specific Resurrection-particulars found in verses 1 to 4 that had not been recorded anywhere else in the Gospels – particulars the angel could not have told the women before because they were not prepared for it before.

The contextual and syntactical relation between Mt28:1-4 –Resurrection–, and 5-8 –(second) Appearance– is

1) sequential. The Resurrection historically had to have occurred before the angel’s ‘explanation’ of or ‘witness’ about it to the women. But it is also

2) rhetorical— as follows,

The Gospel writer placed his statement, “The angel answered / explained to the women, and said ....”, both as concluding and introductory remark, in between, the angel’s ‘witness’ of and about the Resurrection contained in 1-4, and the angel’s direct “speech” to the women at the empty tomb in 5-8.

There is no equivalent of 1-4 in another ‘witness’ of the angel or for that matter in another Gospel. The fact of the incidence of verses 1-4 in the angel’s witness ‘in Matthew’, proves the course of events that developed up to the unique opportunity that presented itself ‘in Matthew’ in the form of the event (in its own right) of the women’s final visit at the tomb when the angel related his ‘witness’ to the women as not once before.

Before Jesus appeared to the women other than Mary on Sunday morning, Mt28:5-10, the angel first “explained to / answered the women” about the Resurrection, in verses 1-4 and 6. Only then, “Said he to them, fear not .....” etc. See how the differences, prove agreement that the ‘one visit principle’, can’t.

In verses 1-4, ‘Matthew’s’ angel, ‘relates’ to the women his message, “explaining” / “answering, he told them” his “witness testimony”—

1) about “the whole resurrection incident” — as the Resurrection actually had happened on the day before;

In verses 5-7, ‘Matthew’s’ angel,

2) actually “tells the women” his “witness testimony”; and

3) actually “tells the women” to go tell the disciples what he had told them of and about the Resurrection.

Neither the angel’s reference to or mentioning of the Resurrection, nor his answer or explanation or speaking to the women, is the incidence of the event as such of Jesus’ Resurrection, or, is the incidence of the events as such of the women’s visits. It is the, big mistake that these things all, and together, are made, and are identified with, and so are confused for, the Resurrection per se.

The sole source of human knowledge of the Resurrection was the angel— no mortal eye beheld the Resurrection or the angel coming down -- not even the guard who because they could not see anything were struck unconscious and down “like dead”! So that faith shall come by hearing (from the angel); and not by seeing; and so that faith shall come by hearing from one source not capable of lying against itself, even from the Word of God. So that no Gospel in any wise contradicts another. And so that, if we do still encounter contradiction or “irreconcilabilities”, we shall surely know the trouble lies with us and our understanding or / and explanation, and not with the Gospel accounts.

I’m not inquiring into the truth of the Resurrection; my purpose with this discussion was to find out how the rest of the Gospel accounts harmonises perfectly. I’m enquiring about the visits made by the women to the tomb and in fact at the tomb during the night after the Resurrection and before Jesus’ appearances. Were the events several; or was there only one? That’s my question.

I therefore take as a-priori, four things, not debatable: 4) Faith; 3) God’s Word; 2) Believing by hearing what is incontrovertible: 1) The Good News of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. I wish this discussion to deal with the things that happened after these accepted and historically in that order had been made true already, facts.

About Eleven having said, “No, but they are 4 separate accounts of a significant event. Just because they differ (which they must) doesn’t negate that the event happened”.

This from the outset, is a false proposition as well as false presupposition! No, the ‘4 separate accounts’ are not, four differing accounts of one event that ‘only really matters’; they are four separate accounts of 4 or even 5 separate and different events— that in their own right, “happened” and mattered in every respect. In other words, each Gospel gives one of four separate, different and differing, events. They are not supposed to be identical or even vaguely the same events. Because these events were the women’s very real and realised visits to the tomb.

Just because they are separate events, the four accounts in the sense of contradict, ‘differ’ not (nor “must” differ) in the least or smallest detail. And therefore – because not the one and same, or because not of, the one and same event – these separate events do not in the smallest detail negate the event per se, nor do they negate that the event happened, which one event presupposed in these events of visits, is (or was), Jesus’ resurrection.

The four accounts were in each case, of a different and other, event.

Straight forward:

Matt. 28:5-10 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

John 20:11-17 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

Mark 24:2-8 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

Luke 24:1-10 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

John 20:1-10 does not record the event of the Resurrection;

Mark 16:1 does not record the event of the Resurrection.

Matthew 28:5-8 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

John 20:11-17 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

Mark 24:2-8 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

Luke 24:1-10 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

John 20:1-10 implies the Resurrection way earlier;

Only Matthew 28:1-4, does record the event of the Resurrection way earlier;

John 20:11-17 records the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;

Mk16:9 implies that recording of the first Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;

Mt28:6-10 mentions the second Appearance, implying the Resurrection way earlier;

Only Matthew 28:1-4, actually records, the events that accompanied the Resurrection way earlier.

For very good reason then the Gospels for every visit mention or / and imply a specific hour of night or Sunday morning—

Mark 16:1, “When the Sabbath had passed”, after sunset 6 p.m. (3-4 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

John 20:1-10, “When early darkness still on the First Day”, Saturday evening (4-5 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

Luke 24:1-10, “Deep(est) early-morning on the First Day”, just after midnight (9-10 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

Mark 16:2-8, “Very early sunrise on the First Day”, before sunrise, 4-5 a.m. (15 hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before);

John 20:11-17, “Mary had had stood after....; supposing the gardener”, sunrise, 6 a.m. ....

Mark 16:9, “He appeared to Mary first, early on the First Day”, daylight— 15 hours plus since the Resurrection 3 p.m. the day before;

Matthew 28:5-10, “Suddenly Jesus met them”, a little later— after a little more than fifteen hours since the Resurrection 3 p.m. “on the Sabbath” the day before— Mt28:1-4.

That’s the whole and full story without a single smallest hitch!

Now your “very cool” beating about the bush irrelevancies, Eleven, are no more than meaningless, without substance, beating about the bush irrelevancies. Don’t bring your weak and sinful human

witnesses stuff for witness against the trustworthiness of the events and accounts from God Himself.

Hellbound:

Sure, humans are fallible. Either the gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection are fallible, or they were never intended to be taken literally.

And Joman, If you want to put your money where your big mouth is, let us discuss the chronology of the resurrection stories. If you just want to talk smack like a coward, then have

fun. Let me know.

GE:

Hellbound, here’s that ever present subtlety; let me crush its head right now before everybody is led astray onto your rabbit-trail: You say, “let us discuss the chronology of the resurrection stories”; I said from the outset, let us discuss the chronology of the stories of the women’s several visits to the tomb! It’s completely a horse of another colour! There are no “resurrection stories”; there in all four Gospels is only the angel’s stories of the Resurrection. In all four Gospel-stories the only ‘story’, that tells about the ‘Resurrection-story’, is Mt28:1-4. All the other ‘stories’, only, imply, the Resurrection. In all the other ‘stories’, the angel, mentions and relates the fact that, the Resurrection had occurred. There is no Indicative, Continuous Present ‘story’ or ‘witness’ of the Resurrection taking place in the Gospels. The nearest to something like that, is Mt28:1-4. The other ‘stories’ or ‘witnesses’ are not about or, of the Resurrection; they are ‘stories’ or ‘witnesses’ about and of, the women’s visits and their being told the angel’s story or ‘witness’ of and about the Resurrection which not while the visits took place, took place, but took place on the day before, in fact “On the Sabbath Day” before.

I no longer argue these things; I confess these things, and I confess them from the Scriptures, with the Scriptures.

Goat boy:

I can’t say I agree with your approach in your opening statement, GE. Allow me to borrow the car accident example (let’s say it was a hit and run): you have four slightly different accounts of what happened. One witness says the car that drove away was a van, one says it was an SUV, one says it was a Hummer and one says it was a station wagon. If we take the approach that some take to the gospels, we’ll end up with a police report that says the victim’s car was struck by four different vehicles. But there is no indication in any of the witness’s testimony that there was more than one offending vehicle...

When one attempts to compile information from the different accounts into a single narrative the same problem is encountered. An external construct is created, one that isn’t consistent with any of the gospel accounts.

..... .....

The problem is that the accounts do contradict each other - just not explicitly. Mark mentions “a great earthquake” at the scene, for example. The other witnesses don’t. If at the scene of our car accident one witness notes that an earthquake occurred immediately before the accident and three others fail to mention this, are we to assume they are agree through their silence? We can’t just assume that because one gospel writer doesn’t mention something that they would agree with another that does mention it.

From what I can gather your sequence faces the fundamental problem of assuming that slight differences in language mean the gospel writers are describing different events. This technique is problematic in and of itself, but even more because it isn’t used consistently: it’s only used to solve supposed gospel contradictions. Using the same approach we could determine that the gospel writers describe multiple events in other locations.

To quote Wallace: “In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times!

Dabmic:

I liked what you said and wanted to add to it. Like in the Gospels you don’t get the exact accounts but what you get is complementary information, and from that you will get a very close account of what happened.

Just my two cents.

GE:

A well appreciated two cents contribution!

May I suggest one little change to what you have proposed:

In the Gospels you get the exact accounts, but you don’t get the full account in one Gospel only; but what you get is precise complementary information in each, and from that you will get a very close account of the full picture of what happened.

About Goatboy having said, “....you have four slightly different accounts of what happened....” ‘Slightly different’?

Hellbound has given you the manly challenge: To discuss the

chronology of the events; not fake court cases. I gave you my chronology to tear apart if you can. Try to! :—

Mary is the central figure:

Mary in Jn20:1-10;

Mary in Lk24:1-10;

Mary in Mk16:2-8;

Mary in Jn20:11-17/Mk16:9.

1) The Gospels have:—

Four/five accounts, by the Gospel-writers of, four/five events of, women who, visited at, the empty tomb:

The visits....

1) Of Mary alone, in Jn20:1-10;

2) Of the two women of Mk15:47, Lk23:55-56 and others, in Lk24:1f;

3) Of three women named in Mk16:1 and probably others, in Mk16:2f;

4) Of Mary alone who “had had stood after”, in Jn20:11-13;

5) Of the other women, in Mt28:5-7.

2) The Gospels have:—

Two accounts, by the Gospel-writers of, the two events of, Jesus appearing to, women away from, the tomb:

The appearances....

1) “To Mary first” —after her fourth (or third continued) visit—,

in Jn20:14-17 (Mk16:9); after Jn20:11-13;

2) “Jesus met them”, the other women, after their third and last visit — in Mt28:8-10, after Mt28:5-7.

3) The Gospels have:—

One account of, the event of, the relating of, Jesus’

Resurrection:

Mt28:5,1-4, “The angel answered the women, explaining to them.... In the fullness of the Sabbath being daylight mid afternoon.”

Jesus in both appearances of his to women, some distance away from the grave, appeared to them. Jesus did not ‘appear’, from the grave, meaning, He did not ‘appear while rising’, as some people falsely ‘translate’ Mk16:9. In fact, Jesus was “raised, by / in the glory of the Father”, “from, the dead”— all presence else expelling!

No sinner or creature could behold the mystery and glory of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Yes, in the very last analysis not even was it an angel who witnessed or saw God raising Christ from the dead. We have noticed that Mt28:2 states the angel “rolled the stone back away from the door, and sat on it”— he did not enter the tomb, and he also, did not actually by sight witness the resurrection of Jesus! (See ***) For indeed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and no presence, God, “worked the exceeding greatness of His Power”, Eph1:19, which no creature could partake in or even see with whatever faculty of his created being! So that ultimately the Only Witness of, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, is “the Blessed and Only Potentate”, God in the Full Fellowship and Presence of His Own Being of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So that ultimately the Only Witness to, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is “The Faithful” and “True Witness”, through the “Spirit of Christ”— mighty to both raise Christ from the dead, and to witness to Christ-Risen-from-the-dead.

*** The women on the occasion of their being told of Jesus’ resurrection by the (same?) angel in the story found in Mt28:1-4 only, seem not to have entered into the grave, but to have departed from it without having gone inside, no longer doubting, but believing! All showing different events of different points in time; or everything must be contradictory and confused and confusing.

Now this Power of God of, and in, and to the revelation of Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, Paul says in this Scripture of Ephesians, “God worked to-us-ward”, so that – Paul saying in another place – “no one is able to say Jesus is Christ, but by the Holy Spirit”. Christ the Risen, “whom God, has set forth a Propitiation through faith.... to declare, His Righteousness for the remission of sins”. That is, God both witnessed and revealed the Intimacy and Inner Most Holy Sanctuary of His Own Being “to us, for us”: even Christ Jesus “come in the flesh”, “from the dead”.

The Gospels therefore ‘give account of’, or they ‘witness to’, different and differing yet reconcilable, complementary, separate,

historic events:

1) Jn20:1-10,

2) Lk24:1-10,

3) Mk16:2-8,

4) Jn20:11-17/Mk16:9 and

5) Mt28:5-8

— events which

1) not one of, marked Jesus’ resurrection;

2) only two of, marked Jesus’ appearances; and

3) all four of, marked accomplished visits to the tomb by women and

4) all four of, contained the angel’s ‘witness-accounts’ of and about the Resurrection.

And Goatboy, I do not “compile information from the different accounts into a single narrative” of visits and, Resurrection and, Appearances! I accept the information given in each Gospel account or ‘witness’ for already ‘compiled’ and completed, of, the specific event in each account related or ‘witnessed’— in all four cases, accounts of, visits, of the women at the tomb, and not of the Resurrection; but therefore about, the Resurrection indeed.

Goatboy:

Yes, this is the fundamental problem I see in your approach; it does not follow the evidence and does not follow logically either (probably because you are working from an assumed premise of some level of biblical truth or inerrancy). You and I make the same initial observation, it appears: the accounts are not reconcilable. But you take an additional step not supported by the evidence, making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events.

I’ll close here with one more example: compare Mark and Matthew, bit by bit, and see if it is more reasonable to assume these are completely different speeches given on different occasions, or whether the authors are relating the same speech.

[Mark 16.6-7; Matt 28.5-7]

Mark: “But he said to them,”

Matthew: “But the angel said to the women,”

Mk: “‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.”

Mt: “‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.”

Mk: “He has been raised; he is not here.”

Mt: “He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said.”

Mk: “Look, there is the place they lay him.”

Mt: “Come, see the place where he lay.”

Mk: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Mt: “Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.’”

The point I’m making is that treating the gospels as if they provide complementary information is problematic.

The external chronology in the OP demonstrates the problematic nature of this approach. Take an element of the master chronology, and see if the evidence supports it. For example, the appearance of two angels/“men in dazzling clothes” reported by Luke. You can include this in your account; the problem is that according to 50% of our witnesses they didn’t appear.

Your assumption that these two accounts, despite their extremely similar wording, actually describe two distinct events does not seem supported by the text. Rather, I think it more prudent to conclude that the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event. Subtle variations among different writers telling a slightly different version of the same event is the simplest answer, certainly simpler than creating a complex external construct to try to reconcile the events.

And it is complex, I mean how do you come to the conclusion that the “they” in Mk 16.2 isn’t referring to the people in the previous verse? Is that the most obvious, straightforward reading or are you just taking a more awkward reading in order to reconcile the different accounts? What indication is given for a sudden change in subject?

GE:

“....one more example...”. No; this is your only ‘example’; you gave no ‘example’ before; The ‘accident witnesses’ example, is irrelevant and alien.

And that you could think that you hereby ‘close’ the debate, is presumptuous; you scarcely have opened it.

You also do not ‘compare’; you extract from two ‘Gospel-accounts’, the one and same message what you call a “speech”. What you did, was to have extracted the mutual subject told of in every of the accounts or ‘witnesses’ of the four Gospels. One may add below your extracts from Mark and Matthew, the exact same ‘speech’ or ‘witness’ from Luke and John (as I did) – without a single contradiction or ‘irreconcilability’.

1) The “speech”

The “speech” which you ‘compared’ (actually extracted) is the fully ‘reconcilable’ repeated “speech” or relating or ‘witness’ of the fact and event at, and of the truth about Jesus when he rose from the dead, repeated in and as per each of the accounts or records or stories or ‘speeches’ or ‘witnesses’ of and in all four Gospels, virtually identically repeated without the least ‘irreconcilability’. All the four Gospels tell that Jesus suffered, was crucified and died, and was resurrected as He had told his disciples he would. They are not the event of the Resurrection; they do not record the event of the resurrection (except Matthew in 28:1-4). It is the angel’s ‘witness’ in each visit-story that every time is “a slightly different version of the same event” told, told of, and told about— the Resurrection! The angel’s ‘witness’ is, not, the Resurrection; the Gospels’ inclusion of the angel’s ‘witness’, is, not, the Resurrection. The angel’s ‘witness’ in each visit-story, is part of, each visit-story and visit-event.

2) The ‘speeches’

The ‘speeches’— the angel’s ‘witness’ or “speech” four times told in the Gospels, are the anecdotes of and about the Resurrection. ‘Anecdotes’ or ‘relating’ or ‘witnesses’, are not ‘events’ although they are integral of the Gospels’ ‘accounts’ or ‘anecdotes’ or ‘relating’ or ‘witness’ of and about the women’s visits at the tomb. The anecdotes are the Gospels, that ‘relate’ or ‘account’ or tell of, the events at which the Message or the angel’s “speech”, had been ‘related’ or told— the events of the women’s visits at the tomb.

There cannot be contradiction or discrepancy or irregularity as far as the Truth of the Gospel – the Truth of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection in the flesh – is concerned. Just so is it impossible that the Gospels would contain contradiction or discrepancy or irregularity or “irreconcilability” as far as is concerned the events at which this only and fully reconcilable “speech” in each of the Gospels was told or ‘witnessed’ by the angel, and heard or ‘witnessed’, by the women at every event of their visits to the tomb. Your claiming the Gospel accounts or ‘witnesses’ contain or “must” contain ‘irreconcilabilities’, is untenable.

You, Goatboy, make the authors or compilers of the Gospels, the ‘witnesses’: “.....the gospels..... witness .....”; “Mark mentions”; “the other witnesses”; “the authors are relating”.....

And they “witness” and “mention”, “at the scene”. Of what or which ‘scene’? ‘At the scene’ of the Resurrection, or, ‘at the scene’ of the Resurrection being related? So that it may appear ‘at the scene’ of the Resurrection, you pretend the Gospels’ ‘witness’, ‘account’, ‘an historical’ ‘scene’— the ‘scene’ of the Resurrection as were it playing off!

Meanwhile the Gospels only recorded and are just anecdotes albeit ‘witnesses’,

1) of the events of the women’s visits at the tomb,

2) of the telling or relating or the making known by the angel

of and about the Resurrection at these very visits at the tomb by the women.

You, Goatboy, make of

1) the Resurrection— of the thing told, “these different speeches”;

2) “these different speeches” of the angel /angels, you make the ‘irreconcilable’, “versions” or interpretations or “witness”— not of the angel, but of the Gospel writers! It’s not far-fetched; it’s fetched from nowhere.

To try “.... to conclude that the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event”, and that “Subtle variations among different writers telling a slightly different version of the same event is the simplest answer, certainly simpler than creating a complex external construct to try to reconcile the events”, certainly is very easy to say; it is another matter to illustrate, what prove! Because your “slightly different versions” “of the same event”, are,

1) presumed, “of the same event”, and are not ‘concluded’ “of the same event” in the least. First conclude, that is, first prove them of the same event!

Your “slightly different versions”, are,

2) presumed, “slightly different (versions)”. How can you ‘conclude’ your ‘answer’ “is the simplest answer”? Only by presumption, presumptuousness, and pretence. The “different versions” that each includes the angel’s ‘speech’, if of one event, are not “slightly different”. They are what you yourself say they are, “irreconcilabilities”— that is, unsolvable contradictions! The differences, if of, or in, one event, are irrefutable and huge; the differences, if of the Gospels’ accounting of only the one event as were it the Resurrection happening, are totally “irreconcilable”.

First demonstrate different “versions” in their total context, that is, as had there been no separate visits of the women at the tomb— demonstrate them ‘slightly different’, that is, ‘reconcilable’— and so destroy, your own argument.

No! friend (I hope). You say of me, that “Your assumption that these two accounts, despite their extremely similar wording, actually describe two distinct events, does not seem supported by the text”..... while you, admitted, the “extremely similar wording” of the “text”— which I relied on, to say, they “actually describe two distinct events”!?

I did not “create” “the complex external construct” of “complementary information”. Its very own “text”, and ‘compilation of information’, ‘support’ its “very close account

of what happened”, namely, “distinct events”.

Show just one particular in any of the accounts that cannot conclusively be explained by different events of visits! There is not one! While there is not one that can be reconciled if of the one event of the Resurrection: either with itself or with things like names, numbers, times, circumstances, manner and aspect that surrounds any particular in the accounts.

Treating the Gospels as complementary information, is the only, unproblematic solution to the ‘problem’ that would not have existed but for treating the gospels as if they do not provide complementary information, but imaginary mental projections of human witnesses like in a court, for the witnesses of the Gospel accounts!

Why? If you viewed the events of the appearances of the two angels – reported / ‘witnessed’ / ‘related’ by Luke and John – as being ‘complementary’ – that is, as being separate events of visits – the two angels would have been two angels on the two occasions of visits they are mentioned (Lk and Jn); and the one angel would have been one angel on the two occasions of visits, one angel only is mentioned (Mk and Mt).

In all four events-of-visits, angels were the witnesses who told the women that Jesus had risen. Being twice one angel and twice two angels, it can only tell there were four visits, at the tomb— which is “the most obvious, straightforward reading”. You want to deny it?!

The external chronology in the OP (several times by now illustrated), demonstrates the solution -- the only one. Have a proper look at it. What textual, contextual objections do you propose? .... please not your subjective predispositions!

In fact, just look at your own ‘construct’, “For example, the appearance of two angels/“men in dazzling clothes” reported by Luke. You can include this in your account; the problem is that according to 50% of our witnesses they didn’t appear.”

Nonsense! False ‘logic’! You can include this in Luke’s own individual account only, and no problem exists or ‘remains’, that according to 100% of Gospel-witnesses, two angels in fact appeared in Luke! The only internal conciliation, lies right before you, in ‘the text’, in the “external construct” of “the events”! It lies right before your eyes to regard each event as recorded in every Gospel,

as an ‘event’ in its own right.

“Extremely similar wording”, “slightly different versions of the same event”, “subtle variations (in) telling.... of the same event”, in “the most obvious, straightforward reading”, suggest the original ‘witness’ (rather than ‘eyewitness’) of Jesus’ resurrection, could only be, an angel— most probably “the angel of the Lord” who rolled the stone out of the opening, Mt28:2, who told / ‘related’ / ‘witnessed’ his story at four different occasions under differing circumstances to different women at different times of night— four separate ‘accounts’, one in each Gospel (as it happened to be)!

The differences or variations in this one and the same relating of the angel— every time at another visit of the women to the grave, seem too ‘slight’ that different angels would have reported; but even were it the relating or ‘witness’ of or by different angels, it would still indicate ‘witness’ at separate occasions under differing circumstances at different times of night, of ‘relating’ to various women, the exact same account of the event of Jesus’ resurrection— ‘spelling out’: separate ‘events’ of visits at the tomb. Therefore, yours is a false question, presuming it too ‘complex’ to unravel.

About Goatboy having said, “... how do you come to the conclusion that the “they” in Mk 16.2 isn’t referring to the people in the previous verse?”

GE:

Who says I say “the “they” in Mk 16.2 isn’t referring to the people in the previous verse?” I maintain the “they” in Mk 16.2 refer to the very same three women, named, in verse 1 – all my life I have. I also have always maintained there is no ‘sudden change of subject’— but that the women who actually “came upon the grave” in verse 2, could have included others than the three named in verse 1.

The most obvious, ‘straightforward reading’ of verse 1, says everything possible or needed to say that in verse 1 three women went to the traders in spices and ointment for to buy some of it for to, “when they go, they would salve the body”. Mk16:1 does not ‘say’ the women went to or arrived at the tomb, and therefore says, they did not, go to the tomb; but you want to make belief they did and that they, witnessed the Resurrection?! [Apparently, you are assuming that because verse 1 does not say, they went to the tomb, therefore it says, they did go! — exactly your kind of reasoning in the case of Luke’s two angels— “that according to 50% of our witnesses they didn’t appear.”]

You want to make belief the women did go to the tomb;, and then also that they actually witnessed the Resurrection at the tomb?! Well, then – by your vicious calculation of ‘evidence’ and ‘logic’ from Mark 16:1 – the time of the Resurrection must have been just after sunset Saturday evening, would it not? And you wouldn’t have liked it, would you? Why? Because it further would have demonstrated several events of visits and more impossibilities created by your ‘fundamental approach’ of ‘irreconcilabilities’ that is supposed to explain any and all discrepancies.

The most obvious, straightforward and only possible reading of

verse 2, says everything possible or needed to say that in verse 2, several unidentified women actually came upon the grave and inspected it only to confirm what they already by then, knew, that the body was gone and the grave was empty. But again, you want to make belief they, witnessed the Resurrection?!

Besides, how would you then ‘reconcile’ Mk16:1 with Jn20:1 (or any other of the accounts which I enumerated for you above), that only Mary witnessed; how would you ‘reconcile’ what she witnessed; and the time she witnessed; and what she did after she witnessed etc.; and that everything she did, excluded any other, that no one else, also witnessed? Unless of course – according to you – to be reconcilable, the accounts must be “irreconcilable”!

Yes Goatboy, I can also see, this, what you here have ‘exampled’ – the angel’s ‘witness’ –, shows the fundamental problem in your approach; that you have ‘followed the evidence’ in your ‘example’, but was unable to have seen that you – not ‘the evidence’ – do not follow the evidence through ‘logically’, precisely because you are working from

1) the assumed premise of some level of biblical ‘errancy’

and, because you are working with

2) translations,

so that the ‘slightly different versions’ in the ‘translations’, of the same event’ in ‘these two accounts’ of the ‘different writers’ — ‘despite their extremely similar wording’ and ‘subtle variations’ in their ‘telling’, cannot be seen clearly enough and “must”, be “irreconcilable”!

For this reason, I am supplying you with a transcription of the Greek, herewith:-

Lk24, Mk16, Mt28, Jn20:

Lk 3 eiselthousai ..... 5b klinohsohn ta prosohpa eis tehn gehn

Mk 5b eiselthousai eis to mnehmeion 8 ekselthousai ephygon apo

Mt 5a --------------------------------- 8 apelthousai tachy apo t. m.

Jn 11, Maria de heistehkei pros tohi mnehmeiohi eksoh klaiousa

Lk 4b kai idou andres dyo

Mk 5a kai eidon neaniskon -----

Mt 5a ----------------- ho angelos -----

Jn, 12 ....kai theohrehi angelous² dyo¹

Lk 4b epestehsan autais ------------------ en esthehti astraptousehi

Mk 5b kathehmenon e. t. deksiois peribeblehmenon stolehn leykehn

Mt --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jn 12b kathedzomenous hena pros tehi kephalehi kai hena pros tois

posin (en leykois) hopou ekeito to sohma tou Iehsou

Lk 5a emphobohn de genomenohn autohn

Mk 5c eksethambehthehsan ---------------

Mt, -------------------------------------------

Jn, --------------------------------------------

Lk 5b ----------------- eipen pros autas -------------------------

Mk 6a ho de ---------- legei ------- autais, meh ekthambeisthe

Mt 5a apokritheis de, eipen tais gynaiksin, meh fobeisthe ymeis

Jn 12b kai legousin --------------- autehi ekeinoi: ---------------

Lk 5c ti dzehteite -------------------------

Mk 6a -------------- Iesoun dzehteite

Mt 5b oida gar hoti Iehsoun ..... dzehteite

Jn 13 gynai, ti klaieis? ---------------------

Lk, ton dzohnta meta tohn nekrohn ----------------------------------

Mk, ton ------------------------------ Nadzarehnon ton estaurohmenon

Mt, -------------------------------------------------- ton estaurohmenon

Jn, -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lk, 6, ouk estin hohde, _alla_ ehgertheh ------------.

Mk, ehgertheh, ouk estin hohde ----------------------;

Mt, 6, ouk estin hohde; ehgertheh gar kathohs eipen;

Jn, --------------------------------------------------------

Lk, --------------------------------------------------

Mk, -------- ide ho topos hopou ethehkan auton.

Mt, deyte idete ton topon hopou ekeito. --------

Jh, ---------------------------------------------------

Lk, mnehsthehte hohs elalehsen hymin eti ohn en Galilaia

7, legohn ton wyon tou anthrohpou hoti dei paradothehnai

eis cheiras anthrohpohn hamartohlohn kai staurohthehnai

kai tehi tritehi hehmeras anastehnai.

Mk, --------------------------------------------------------

Mt, --------------------------------------------------------

Jn, --------------------------------------------------------

Lk, ------------------------------------------------------------------

Mk 7 alla ------- hypagete eipate tois mathehtais autou

Mt 7 kai tachy poreytheisai eipate tois mathehtais autou

Mt 7b hoti ehgertheh apo tehn nekrohn

Mk 7b -------------------------------------- kai tohi Petrohi,

Lk, ------------------------------------------------------

Mk, ---------- hoti proagei hymahs eis tehn Galilaian;

Mt, kai idou, ----- proagei hymahs eis tehn Galilaian;

Jn, ------------------------------------------------------

Lk, -------------------------------------------------

Mk, ekei auton opsesthe kathohs eipen hymin.

Mt, ekei auton opsesthe; ------------------------

Jn, -------------------------------------------------

Lk, ---------------------

Mk, ---------------------

Mt, Idou, eipon hymin.

Jh, ---------------------

One does not need to know Greek to be able to see from the above interlinear,

1) where the Gospel writers used different words for the same thing,

2) where the one omitted something the other has said,

3) where one used an extra word, or used

4) different modes or forms etc.,

5) showed individual style (Mt, ‘gar’, ‘hoti’, ‘kai idou’, ‘tachy’).

Proving, ‘logically’:

1) Fully ‘reconcilable’, ‘witness’ of the single, true, Event, of the Resurrection; which again proves,

2) the Gospels’ different accounts of the original angel’s / angels’ flawless but differing ‘relating’ or ‘witness’ because at separate and different occasions! Which again proves,

3) different ‘Gospel accounts’ or ‘witness’, in full agreement— like as of one! Which again proves,

4) the identity of the original ‘witness’, an angel or angels, and that he / they

5) under different circumstances on separate occasions, ‘witnessed’ or ‘told’ of the Resurrection. Which again – seeing Mark and Matthew mention one angel and Luke and John mention two angels – proves,

6) separate events or occasions at which the angel / angels ‘witnessed’ or ‘related’

7) as recorded by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John; each Gospel having incorporated only one original ‘witness’-of-secondary-source— ‘sources’ such as the women, or later on, ‘oral tradition’ or ‘witness’; or still later on, ‘sources’ of written ‘traditions’, from which (secondary) sources all ‘related’ / ‘accounted’ / recorded / used ‘sources’, the Gospel writers chose only one, ‘witnessed’ or ‘related’ event.

It need not have been different angels who at each visit of the women, told them that Jesus had risen. That the ‘slight differences’ in the same ‘speech’ suggest the same angel could have ‘related’ or ‘witnessed’ in every Gospel, is fully explainable by the different situations at each visit of the women to the tomb and at which, the angel every time, repeated his only and same ‘witness’.

I therefore even the more, still maintain the only solution to

the alleged ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the Gospels, is:-

1) Not a single event but a number of different events;

2) Not a single point in time, but a number of different points in time;

3) Not a single group of people, but a number of groups of people;

4) Not only one positional setup, but the same place from different approaches;

5) Not necessarily the same angel or angels, but most

probably the same angels or even more correct, the only angel relating on different occasions.

6) I still maintain, the free choice of every Gospel-compiler or author in deciding his use of the ‘sources’ or ‘witnesses’ he used—

7) Which choices together and as a whole, give the perfect bigger picture of:

1) the women’s visits at the tomb; and of

2) Jesus’ appearances at last; and of

3) Jesus’ resurrection, at the very first!

Different days, is what it boils down to; not one day upon which both Resurrection and Appearances occurred, but one day upon which several visits occurred! Which is the root-cause of all the contradictions, discrepancies and burlesque of the traditional viewpoint, that these things are ignored, neglected and negated to save Sunday-sacredness!

Goatboy:

Well, I believe I’ve made my point... Treating the gospels as complementary in cases such as this is convenient, but it doesn’t follow the evidence and by doing so we are treating the gospels much differently than we would treat other witness accounts, historical or otherwise.

Dabmic:

Goatboy, with all due respect, I am not following what you are saying. If we use the case of the witnesses each saying they saw different cars in an accident then yes that would be a conflict, but the gospels are not doing that. The writers of the 4 gospels are looking at the events from different sides but the concussion they come up with is that Jesus was not there. They add more information to the account and never contradict each other, meaning their accounts are explainable. The car accident account is a little suspect.

Hope that helps.

GE:

I liked the concussion!

One needs to look at all the accounts to see that they are impossibly, ‘parallel accounts’, but logical and sequential in terms of time and occurrence. I say again what I at the beginning answered TonyZ, who maintained, “For instance, in Mark 16, the (three) women enter the tomb and only then meet the figure who tells them that Jesus is risen.”

Where in Mark? Verse 1 or in the following verses? (Verse one must be read together with the ending of chapter 15 --- verse 47.)

1) Mark 16:1 tells of the three women who “bought spices, after the Sabbath had gone through” (no angel, no grave, no ‘come’ or ‘set off’ or ‘arrive’, no ‘see’; no ‘hear’, no ‘explain’)!

2) Then John, 20:1f tells of Mary only, who only, “when only early darkness still” (after sunset), caught a glimpse only of the rolled away stone only (no angels etc. as in the case of Mk16:1), who then without having gone into the grave or knowing what happened inside it at all, turned around and ran back.

3) In Luke, not only ‘the’, but more than three women, “arrive”, and actually, “enter the tomb”, and when (some of them) come forth from the sepulchre, two angels outside, confront them at the entrance, and tell them to go think about what Jesus had told them.

4) Then Mark16:2f tells of women who came and inspected everything at the grave, and fled and told nobody anything.

5) “But Mary had had stood after”, Jn20:11, “at the grave” (Jn20:14-18), where Jesus soon after, “appeared to (her) first” “early on the First Day of the week” (Mk16:9),

6) Last of all, Mt28:5f, “the angel told the (other) women”, who must have returned to the grave, in detail what, without anybody’s presence or knowledge, had happened when Jesus was resurrected “On the Sabbath” before (Mt 1 to 4). And while they went to tell the disciples, Jesus appeared to them.

What fault do you find in this summary of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ appearances? Show the faults and flaws; is what I asked for. Thanks.

Goatboy:

The problem is that the accounts do contradict each other - just not explicitly. Mark mentions “a great earthquake” at the scene, for example. The other witnesses don’t. If at the scene of our car accident one witness notes that an earthquake occurred immediately before the accident and three others fail to mention this, are we to assume they are agree through their silence? We can’t just assume that because one gospel writer doesn’t mention something that they would agree with another that does mention it.

From what I can gather your sequence faces the fundamental problem of assuming that slight differences in language mean the gospel writers are describing different events. This technique is problematic in and of itself, but even more because it isn’t used consistently: it’s only used to solve supposed gospel contradictions. Using the same approach we could determine that the gospel writers describe multiple

events in other locations.

To quote Wallace: “In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times!

GE:

Goatboy, the accounts do not “contradict each other”! Not, explicitly and not, “just not explicitly”.

(Don't mind that ‘explicit’ mistake “Mark mentions “a great earthquake”.”) Matter is, the accounts do in fact contradict each other – in every respect explicitly and with irreconcilable and many contradictions – contradict each other if.... if one refuses to accept the gospel writers are describing different events of visits women brought the tomb. So the Gospels’ accounts “must be irreconcilable”— your way.

“This technique”, of ‘different events’— of “treating the gospels as complementary in cases such as this”— solves every “supposed gospel contradictions”— every 'problem' of different times given, different persons given, different angels given, different events given, different words given etc. etc. ad infinitum, because it is the only ‘technique’ that is ‘consistent’!

The ‘technique’ of ‘different events’, solves every 'problem' of “silence”, of “extremely similar wording ”, of “slight differences in language”, “slightly different versions of the same event”, of “subtle variations among different writers’ telling of the same event” and “awkward reading”, of “complementary information”, of “external chronology” and “complex external construct”, of “distinct events” and “different accounts”, even of “sudden change in subject”.

This “approach”, thoroughly ‘determines’, “that the gospel writers describe multiple events in other locations” or rather, on, other occasions! I do not ‘just take a more awkward reading’; I stick to the literal words and their literal meaning in the Greek, while in full agreement in this case, with accepted translations such as the KJV’s. And I maintain, in order to reconcile the different accounts, they must be acknowledged for their being the different accounts of different events.

‘Different events’ is the only solution. To reckon that the

solution lies therein that “the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event”, just does not go up. We are not questioning the Resurrection; we are enquiring after the events other than the Resurrection.

It is true in the one and only case of the angel’s report / witness / account / relating of, the Resurrection, that “the gospel authors tell slightly different versions of the same event”. Actually, it is not “the gospel authors” who “tell”; it’s the angel who told; and “the gospel authors” who used some source that contained the angel’s telling or ‘witness’. The angel in reality had to four times “tell” his ‘account’ or ‘witness’ to the women of the event of the Resurrection— in each different situation of each separate event of their visits, as precisely, accurately and fully reconcilable ‘accounted’ by “the gospel authors” in the ‘Gospel-witnesses’.

That the different occasions of the angel’s ‘witness’ were not actually different events of the women visiting the grave at least four times, but merely were the irreconcilable ‘witnesses’ of certain “authors” in the Gospel ‘accounts’— it is shear untenable nonsense. How much greater nonsense is it, your idea, the ‘different versions’ were “of the same event” of Jesus’ resurrection! Your method comes short in every respect because your unsubstantiated ‘differences’ and ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the four Gospel accounts, are far too many, far too big and far too unlike, ever to be compressible into or reconcilable with only one event, no matter which event. Your ‘technique’ or ‘strategy’ fails if differences, peculiarities and irreconcilabilities not only must imply, but necessarily must be, differences, peculiarities and irreconcilabilities because the four Gospels allegedly accounted only one visit to the tomb allegedly when, the Resurrection occurred.

Now these different events mentioned by the Gospels of women visiting the tomb – each Gospel mentioning one of them of his own choice – are separate and different and differing events, not because “of assuming slight differences in language”, but, because of “the fundamental problem” that no two given data of fact in any two stories or ‘Gospel accounts’ – what in four ‘Gospel accounts’ – are reconcilable if, not accepted for and of different, separate, subsequent and consecutive events, as well as accounts of women’s visits at the tomb, as well as the angel’s relating his witness at the tomb.

And ‘Wallace’ (Morrison, Wenham.....), surrenders case; that's all, trying to save face. His are vacuous arguments being irrelevant, out of context, and, unnecessary!

Besides, it not at all is difficult to harmonise specifically the reports of the Lord's Supper and Peter's denial. ‘Wallace’, gave up these two incidences for hopelessly contradictory without even having attempted a conciliation which in any case is totally unasked for; then used his failure to support another failure of his. In fact, Wallace should not have tried to prove a case of reconcilability, but of irreconcilability in these instances, because where are the alleged irreconcilabilities he sees in them?

I ask the sensible and ‘logical’ question, Why can different

events not be accepted as the once for all solution to the alleged and preconceived contradictions and irreconcilability of the Gospel accounts of the Appearances and Resurrection? Why can different events of visits at the tomb not be accepted? Because then the Resurrection would appear to have occurred on the Sabbath Day. That a priori to the Sunday-worshippers is unacceptable; they have judged and decided, heretical and damnable!

I myself for the first time so clearly have seen the independent Gospels’ account of the angel’s, one ‘witness’, for the very reason its “extremely similar wording” actually describes distinct events! Thank you, Goatboy! You have opened my eyes for what I have seen, but as trees, people walking!

Here clearly and beyond a doubt observe therefore what we both believe was the case, that in the Gospel-accounts of the angel’s relating, we have,

1) the only original ‘eyewitness’, the angel;

2) his ‘witness’ of Jesus’ resurrection; and

3) the women, hearing and ‘witnessing’, his ‘message’.

In the Gospel-accounts of the angel’s relating, we therefore find four independent and unique Gospel-accounts or ‘Gospel-witnesses’ of these three factors, derived from as well as comprising, the women’s four times carried out visits to the tomb, Jn20:1-10, Lk24:1-10, Mk16:2-8, Jn20:11-17/Mk16:9, Mt28:5-10. In these four ‘Gospel-witnesses’ of the women’s visits at the tomb, we find the angel four times with reference to Jesus’ resurrection recited his ‘witness’ to some women.

In Matthew’s account, we find the most comprehensive, informative and impressive of the angel’s ‘speeches’. I personally believe the angel’s actual relating was the real ‘witness-source’ of the ‘Resurrection-Witnesses’ of events generally, before, during and after the Resurrection.

But in Matthew specifically, in this section of the Gospel, the use of the angel’s witness as the truly original ‘source’, begins in 27:62, because there is no way the women might have known of the things told there and right through up to 28:4. In the dramatic moments of the opening of the grave and Jesus’ simultaneous resurrection, there were no human witnesses or even angels. The guard were struck “down like dead” by the brightness of the angel’s appearing “like lightning”; so the guard saw, and knew, nothing! And “the angel of the Lord”, “sat down upon the stone” outside, and also did not see, but in fact knew, everything!

In Matthew’s account, we find the most informative of the angel’s ‘speeches’ therefore, which also explains why and how the women for the first and only time, reacted in faith on his ‘witness’.

What is beyond a doubt or contention, lies before hand: the different and differing but never contradicting or irreconcilable reports found in the four Gospels of the angel’s ‘witness’.

This truth, is the real point of contention between us!

Just here, our paths part. Here, is where you, depart from the “fundamental approach” the ‘witnesses’ or Gospel “authors”, “witnessed”, that is, saw, at, the time and place and event, of their telling about— i.e., the ‘witnesses’ or Gospel “authors”, “witnessed”, at, the Resurrection— and here, is where you, “conclude”, for the very reason of their being ‘eyewitnesses’ in order to be trustworthy, the ‘witnesses’ must be “irreconcilable”! You, even use the illustration of an eyewitnesses-account of a car accident and the supposition, had the witnesses agreed one hundred percent they must have been lying, and therefore, must be “irreconcilable” to be believable.

Here is where I, depart from contextual and chronological presupposition, the witness / witnesses or, even the only eyewitness, the angel, witnessed of and about the time and place and event of his telling— which was at, (four) visits the women paid the empty tomb (Resurrection long past). Here is where I in fact depart from the presupposition the witnesses or, only witness, the angel, at each visit of the women, ‘witnessed’ or “explained to and told the women” about the Resurrection. At each, visit in fact, as indicated and mentioned and ‘accounted’ from every possible angle and dimension of reality of space and time and people in the Gospels’ ‘resurrection-witnesses’!

The difference between our views has become evident in two words of just two letters each, ‘at’, and ‘of’!

Nevertheless, had it not been for the ‘slightly different versions of the same event’ in the ‘accounts’ of the different writers or Gospels, we would have been forced to conclude — exactly by the preciseness of the supposed replica — that the Gospel-writers then would have copied from one another precisely, or that they must have copied from the exact same source precisely. But because no such imagined preciseness exists, it only proves the Gospels used different ‘sources’ related to different events the angel or angels delivered his or their witness or witnesses— a ‘witness’ that is in precise agreement with itself in all four the accounts, and ‘witnesses’, that are in precise agreement one with another in all four the Gospel-accounts.

The ‘slightly different versions of the same event’ in the Gospels, are quoted ‘versions’, quoted verbatim as it were, from the real, live, ‘witness’ of the angel on the separate occasions of the women’s visits at the tomb and of his having met them there. The ‘slightly different versions’ confirm the “versions” were taken from four instances of the telling (or ‘witness’) “of the same event” by the same angel or angels— every time absolutely reconcilable with regard to

1) its own content;

2) the other instances of its having been told;

3) the event told of, the Resurrection,

4) the witness or messenger, the angel, and

5) the Gospels compared with one another.

You, though, Goatboy,

1) mistake the complete picture or impression created by all the events of the night and Sunday morning for one presumed event at which the Resurrection supposedly occurred.

2) mistake the Gospel authors or compilers for eyewitnesses.

3) mistake that which each Gospel chose and used from separate ‘sources’ to ‘relate’ / ‘account’ / ‘witness’ with, for the Gospels.

4) mistake the angel’s ‘witness’ or ‘speech’ on, and of, four separate occasions, for a one-time ‘witness’ or ‘speech’ on, and of, one presumed and imagined, occasion.

5) mistake the ‘irreconcilabilities’ in and of and between events not the Resurrection, but visits by the women, for assumed ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the angel / angels’ ‘witness’ / ‘witnesses’ of or about the Resurrection.

6) mistake the events of visits at the tomb as recorded in the Gospels, for the Resurrection as such.

7) mistake the ‘witness’ of the angel / angels, for human ‘witness’. The Resurrection did not occur with any of the visits at the tomb; which excludes any possibility the ‘witnesses’ could have been women or men or Gospel-writers present at or near to the event or scene of the Resurrection. That, besides the factor of human sinfulness that is unable to witness the Divine work of God’s having raised Christ from the dead.

8) mistake your “example” – the ‘report’ / ‘witness’ of the angel about and of the Resurrection – for the women’s actual visits at the tomb.

9) misunderstand the very real ‘evidence’ and factual incidences of various visits made to the tomb for, or as, some undefined, void of all evidence, ‘taking’ “.... an additional step not supported by the evidence”.

10) completely muddled yourself, accuse me of “making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events” as not “logical”, and not “following the evidence”. Instead you propose a ‘logic’ that says, ‘making the assumption that the accounts must be irreconcilable, the accounts therefore must be describing one event’.

That is not the ‘logic’ I used.

On the contrary, you, are the one making the assumption that:

because the different accounts of

1) “the witnesses” (the Gospels), and

2) ‘the witness’ or “speech” of the angel itself,are ‘irreconcilable’ subjects, they ‘must’ therefore prove your imagined and presumed one event of both the women’s only visit at the tomb and the Resurrection, at once.

[It’s no use you garb your concept of compelling ‘irreconcilability’ (‘must’, was Eleven’s word) with euphemisms like “complex” and “problematic”; your every argument demands it and relies upon it.]

Your ‘logic’ and ‘evidence’ – to be anything –, must prove because the different accounts of ‘the witnesses’ (the Gospels) allegedly confirm your imagined and presumed one event of the Resurrection and supposed and presumed single visit, they therefore, “must” prove to be “irreconcilable”— which completely is illogical and contrary all evidence!

‘You and I’, for these reasons, do not, ‘make the same initial observation, it appears: the accounts are not reconcilable.” I make the observation – that is, I see in the Gospels and from the Gospels – that the accounts of the Sunday morning’s events are in every respect and particular, reconcilable. You are by yourself when you ‘observe’ that they are “irreconcilable”. I don’t share your “observation”!

Each Gospel records one of four events-of-visits fully in agreement with the other three events-of-visits recorded in the other three Gospel-accounts or Gospel-witnesses of and about the night and the following Sunday morning of Jesus’ appearances. Each Gospel records one event-of-visits which, besides being evidenced in and from the many other facts and factors of reality actually taken up and recorded in the Gospels, is also implied and evidenced in and by the angel’s witness as recorded in Matthew specifically from 27:62 to 28:8. Thereby it in fact is evidenced every Gospel does not record the same event, but an event – a visit – of its own choice taken up and recorded in it, so that all four Gospels record different events, but events fully in agreement and reconcilable one with another as well as with the Resurrection and the Appearances as recorded in all four Gospels.

Only you, Goatboy and co., “make the initial observation, it appears: the accounts are not reconcilable”; I do not!

Then to ‘prove’ your point, “the accounts are not

reconcilable”, you present everything agreeing in the Gospels about the Resurrection and Appearances. How does that help your theory? Because you, ‘declared’: “the accounts are not reconcilable”? How do you arrive at a negating conclusion through only confirming and affirmative proof— proof of agreement in and between every and all accounts in the Gospels!? You can do that only if you departed from the presumption, “the accounts are not reconcilable”! You try to arrive at a negating conclusion through only confirming and affirmative proof of agreement by everything and nothing than which contradicts your, ‘observation’ or rather presumption, “the accounts are not reconcilable”!

You, above, listed only the angel’s report to the women of Jesus’ resurrection — the truthfulness of which I for one, have not denied, but the accounts about it, you, have consistently insisted must be ‘irreconcilable’— and irreconcilable ‘they must be’ if of one event only and that event the event of the Resurrection!

This you have done carefully above, while you not at all gave account or ‘explanation’ of the many other events and factors besides the angel’s evidence or witness— the human and natural things, that followed (or preceded) the Resurrection. You have beaten about the bush, and never have even aimed at the heart of the matter at issue, namely, to give due account of these other factors of event, time, and circumstance etcetera as being either perfectly agreeing matters of fact (as I maintain), or (as you maintain), as being varying, contradicting and ‘irreconcilable’ accounts of human, ‘witnesses’, to wit, according to you, of four, ‘irreconcilable’ Gospels— only for being – according to you – four ‘irreconcilable’ accounts of the only event of the Resurrection!

I have ‘assumed’ the truthful and agreeing events and accounts in and of every and all historical facts and factors which really had occurred and which accurately had been recorded according to the 100% in agreement ‘witness’ of in the last analysis one only ‘witness’— the angel of Mt28:5a (which I have explained above for having been the witness of God, ultimately)— but, which you, ostentatiously treat as if they do not exist and only the report of the angel to the women is real and in agreement with itself while the several witnesses’ witness about it, namely, the Gospels’ telling of the women’s visits, are untrustworthy for being ‘irreconcilable’ with, in your words, “the evidence” and “logic” of “different accounts” of “witnesses” “of what happened”.

Actually you argue the illogical, that every and all the ‘witnesses’ are trustworthy for being ‘irreconcilable’!

You— to claim the truth of the Resurrection and Appearances, Goatboy and co., ‘assume’ “irreconcilable” and contradicting accounts as well as “irreconcilable” and contradicting events implied and, according to you, in fact mentioned “irreconcilabilities” in the “different accounts” of your “witnesses”. To show what? — according to you, yes, in fact, believe it or not, to show disagreement! But you still suppose us to believe the Gospels? What then is the use of using agreements to show disagreements? Simply unbelievable!

You in your ‘example’ have resorted to precise agreement in Mark and Matthew, to show me how wrong I am, to presume the Gospels are in precise agreement and harmony! An ‘example’ of what was your ‘example’ supposed to be? An ‘example’ of disagreement in the stories of the Resurrection and Appearances, yet it turned out to be nothing but an ‘example’ of agreement in the stories of the Resurrection and Appearances?

Or have you changed tune, and now are the resilient defenders of agreement in and between the anecdotes of the Sunday morning?

You, Goatboy, make the stories or ‘accounts’, the Event, and you take the Event – Jesus’ resurrection and both his appearances –, for the one, ‘account’ or “witness” of the angel. You confuse and confute the accounts for the event told of— the faultless and without contradiction told of— the in all four Gospel-accounts faultless and without contradiction told-of-event— even the Resurrection being told about and ‘witnessed’ of by the angel ..... then claim, the accounts of and about the women’s visits and Jesus’ appearances, are “irreconcilable”!

My challenge to you is,

1) Show the difference in the “different accounts” of the Gospels, so that I can show you they are not differing accounts?

2) Bring “the evidence” against ‘my’ “fundamental” “biblical truth and inerrancy”-“approach” in this matter, and be specific, so that I – well knowing there won’t be a thing – may know in what to answer you.

3) Explain, your ‘logic’, “the accounts”, are “supported by the evidence”, but “are not reconcilable”?

4) Tell me what negates ‘logic’ or “does not logically follow”, in “making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events”?

5) What is going against the evidence or “is not supported by the evidence”, in “making the assumption that the accounts must be reconcilable and therefore must be describing different events”?

6) Tell me what is “subtle variations among different writers” and “relating the same speech” by the same writers proving, other than that the same “speech” was “related” on separate, consecutive incidences of it’s being told?

7) Explain the ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the “slightly different versions of the same event” and “extremely similar wording” of the ‘text’?

6) Explain what is the “fundamental approach” than to “follow” and be “supported” by the “evidence” of the “complementary” but “consistent” “information” of the “exterior construct” of the women’s visits to or rather at the tomb, and to proceed from the presupposition they are fully reconcilable and trustworthy?

7) Is your better alternative of a ‘fundamental approach’ , ‘the evidence’ is and “must” be “irreconcilable”; an “initial observation”, the “evidence” “must” be “irreconcilable”, even despite its “extremely similar wording” .... before it may be believed?

You create, and do not solve, insurmountable misconceptions about the Resurrection and Appearances by ‘making the fundamental assumption’ the accounts or ‘witnesses’ are ‘irreconcilable’.

But the Gospel stories give the faithful accounting of the historical events and “external” factors / “external information” / “external construct” / “external chronology” mentioned or / and implied with regard to the Resurrection— the truth and trustworthiness of which ‘Witness’ is destroyed by compressing these stories into a supposed or rather presumed one and only story of a supposed or rather presumed one and only event supposed or rather presumed of Sunday morning.

So one can either succumb to contradiction and confusion or be courageous – and honest – enough to acknowledge and accept a ‘fundamental’ alternative— the only alternative of separate, different and differing but never “irreconcilable” events in full harmony and sympathy with the resurrection and appearances of Jesus.

We (or I) question no report in the Gospels of the angels, or of anything else in the Gospels. I do not question that everything in them are in perfect agreement. We differ as to whether these reports were of the same moment in time and of the same event in time because that is what causes agreement or irreconcilability.

Owed to the “slight variations” in the “extremely similar wording’’ in the angel’s ‘witness’ or ‘report’, one may safely assume that in every event, the same angel reported / ‘witnessed’ / ‘related’ Jesus’ resurrection — which witness in every of the four Gospels is separately ‘accounted’. But you allege different angels

‘related’ – another for every Gospel!

The ‘alternative’ – the simplest and most fundamental of any, of the ‘witnessing’ of the same message on different occasions at different events recorded with and in different anecdotes –, shall never be given due credit just because it discovers the deception of Sunday-sacredness.

About Goatboy having said, “Your assumption that these two accounts [Mark and Matthew], despite their extremely similar wording, actually describe two distinct events does not seem supported by the text.”

“The assumption that these two accounts... actually describe two distinct events” isn’t mine; it’s your story of my story. I have never said what you say I said. Show me! On the contrary, I have all the way agreed with you “these two accounts” in “Mark and Matthew”, are one and the same and fully reconcilable with itself and everything else account of the angel’s, relating or “witness”, of and about, the Resurrection.

But the angel’s ‘account’ and references to the Resurrection, every time are contained within an anecdote about the women’s visits to the tomb at every ‘historic’ occasion of their visits. It is so simple to see and understand, I cannot see for what good the ‘comparison’ (I mean your ‘example’) could be used to disprove my thesis that every Gospel has its own story of the events of the Sunday morning of the visits to the tomb and Jesus’ first appearances during – or rather, to be exact, after –, the last two of these visits.

Your ‘example’ therefore is as irrelevant as can be because it ‘compares’ the references to a referred thing, the Resurrection – referred to and told of, in the ‘accounts’ or ‘witnesses’ that actually tell of the women’s visits at the grave that were not merely referred to visits, but actually and indicatively described, visits.

It is not assumption, but presumption, that you, Goatboy, and not I, first assume that the accounts —both of the angel and of the visits— are “irreconcilable”, and that they therefore must be describing one and the same event! I assume in contrast,

both, that,

First, The accounts are describing different and differing events, and that they therefore –in themselves and mutually–, must be reconcilable accounts of, those “distinct events”— events separate and differing one with another— events of visits of the women at the tomb, after, and never at, Jesus’ resurrection.

I assume,

Next, The accounts are, reconcilable because in the last analysis they are the Word of God, and that therefore every and all distinct ‘evidence’, must be considered for true in every detail in itself, which inevitably evidences “distinct events”— events separate and differing one with another— events of visits of the women at the tomb, after, and not once, at, the Resurrection.

We therefore hold opposite and opposing ‘initial observations’! It is by your ‘initial observation’, Goatboy, and by your ‘assumption’, that you, “take an additional step”, namely, to “assume” (actually, presume), that the accounts must be irreconcilable because they must be describing one and the same event. Does that, ‘follow logically’? Does that, ‘follow the evidence’? Neither!

Now we may look at a few details, only with reference to Goatboy’s ‘comparison’ or ‘example’. Not all, because all will be so many it will fill books. See book 7, ‘The Last week’, et al.

Goatboy,

“Mark: “But he said to them”

Matthew: “But the angel said to the women”

GE:

Who is ‘he’, in Mark? “A young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a white garment” – ‘neaniskon kathehmenon en tois deksiois peribeblehmenon stolehn leykehn’.

Who is ‘he’, in Matthew? “The angel” – ‘ho angelos’.

Who is ‘he’ according to Goatboy, Eleven, and co.? ‘He’, is Mark and Matthew, Luke and John!

Look at the Greek. It’s obviously not the same ‘source’ or same ‘speech’. Yet there is precisely nothing ‘irreconcilable’ anywhere!

Look at just one other particular— In Mark the angel is inside the grave before the women entered; in Matthew the angel first converses with the women outside, then invites them inside to see the place where the Lord was laid, as though challenging them, ‘You should come inside and see for yourselves, if you don’t believe me!’— ‘deyte idete’. Not just ‘ide’, like in Mark where the angel is inside the grave, and as were he pointing straight at the place, talked to the women. Also note that this command is not recorded in Luke or in John because in Luke the angels confront the women as they came out of the tomb after for the first time having seen the place where He lay. In John Mary knows what is going on, and is not even surprised by the two angels. It almost looks like she knew they were sitting in the grave, and bent over to speak to them where they sat inside. Every little detail indicates growing awareness and apprehension on the part of the women, everything indicating several exercises in awareness and apprehension during the course of the night. So here at their last visit to the tomb, the angel seems to have stopped the women, and they seem to not actually have entered the tomb, because the angel before they could enter, it seems, summoned them, “But be going! Quickly! Go tell his disciples....! And gone! they there and then went....!”

In Matthew, what the angel told the women, even could have begun in 27:62, because the women knew nothing about the events there made mention of about the guard, unless someone informed them— who else than the angel?

The angel doubtless told the women what happened at the tomb (28:1-5), “....when (‘kai idou’) there suddenly was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord came down and rolled the stone from the opening of the grave”, because no human eye ever beheld or could have beheld the event that then occurred “in the Glory of the Father”.

“The angel explained to the women”, says Matthew, these

things they could by no means otherwise have come to know.

Matthew’s angel must have comforted the women greatly, because they without hesitation and “with great joy, went to tell the disciples”.

Mark’s angel’s message greatly upset the women so that “they fled from the tomb terrified and told no one anything”!

See my closing remark.

Again notice the different language and particulars. Although Jesus and his resurrection are spoken of, and while most likely it was the same angel who spoke, it cannot have been the same occasion, time or conversation made mention of and ‘accounted’ in writing in the Gospels. Only in the angel’s witness was the Resurrection referred to in every Gospel— virtually exactly the same and without any irreconcilabilities in it! Don’t try to fool us to believe you it was the Resurrection itself ‘witnessed’ by sight!

There are no ‘irreconcilabilities’ in the angel’s accounts of the Resurrection; that is my ‘fundamental approach’. Your ‘fundamental approach’ is that there “must”, be, “irreconcilabilities” in the angel’s ‘relating’ of the Resurrection because – according to you – 1) the accounts of the angel’s ‘relating’ are the accounts of four or more, and different, Gospels, whom you, call, ‘the witnesses’; but 2) which the presumed “irreconcilable” ‘witnesses’ of, you view as the women or individuals like Mark and Matthew, whom, 3) you also call, ‘the witnessesses’ and ‘irreconcilable’ ‘accounts’ or ‘witnesses’ of

4) a single event of several things happening together,

1) the women arriving at the tomb,

2) Jesus ‘while rising’, and

3) Jesus while appearing to

4) the whole party of “witnesses” of angels, guards, women, and Evangelists!

This cannot be an “irreconcilability”; this must be a mess.

The uncompromisable difference between the two of us, lies in our use of the Singular and Plural, like with ‘account’ and ‘accounts’; ‘angel’ and ‘angels’. Your view of the one event of the Resurrection for four ‘relatings’ or ‘witnesses’ in the Gospels, must give rise to four and therefore “irreconcilable” stories / accounts / “witnesses”.

My use of ‘accounts’, is for the repeated relating or ‘witness’ at four events of women visiting the tomb on four occasions in time and space that in the end resulted in four fully ‘reconcilable’, accounts / stories / ‘witnesses’, in the four Gospels irrespective which, and four ‘witnesses’ of relating in the four Gospels irrespective which.

You are prejudiced against “evidence” and “logic”, so that

you, against all “evidence” and “logic”, insist, one visit only at which the ‘account’ was ‘related’ / “witnessed”, once, and which afterwards was ‘witnessed’ four times by the four Gospel writers, so that, in order to be reconcilable, they must be “irreconcilable”.

My conclusion from the “evidence” and through “logic”, means there were four visits at which the same ‘account’ or ‘witness’ of the Resurrection was ‘related’ / “told” / “explained” / “answered” / ‘witnessed’ by the angel to the women, four times, once with every visit during the night and Sunday morning. Every and all “slight differences” are fully ‘reconcilable’ through this ‘approach’ – no exceptions! Which “evidence” and “logic” only prove separate and different occasions or events when the same ‘witness’, the angel or angels, ‘related’ or ‘witnessed’ his or their ‘witness’ or ‘Message’ which we can read in the ‘witness’ or ‘accounts’ of, and in, the Gospels.

In the Message of the Gospels, there are multiple differences, but never ‘irreconcilabilities’— that by their perfect agreement indicate separate— indeed prove, different events and occasions of their telling, rather than different ‘witnesses’ whether in human or angelic form. That is my ‘fundamental approach’; while being more than one event, everything correlates and agrees, and is reconcilable with everything else; and all the Gospels, are reconcilable the one with the other.

A. There are no “irreconcilabilities” if the Gospels-accounts are regarded accounts of separate events at and of the women’s

visits at the tomb, at which

1) the only ‘witness’ of the Resurrection, “the angel”,

2) told the women the only witnesses of his witness,

3) in separate moments in time (“early morning” etc.) and

4) accompanying eventualities (“she ran”, “they fled”, the guard, an “earthquake” etc.),

5) under various circumstantial surroundings (the grave, the stone, the place where He lay, etc.)

6) of and about the Resurrection.

(Emphasis not for nothing under ‘of and about’!)

B. Not two things about the Message could be correlated or reconciled with anything else, including itself, if the Message were delivered or received, heard or told, while invariably

1) the same women – every and all of them,

2) ‘witnessing’ by hearing –

3) at one point in time

3) in one place

4) and circumstance —

5) the event of the Resurrection.

C. Nothing, not even the angel’s message itself, could be reconciled with itself or anything else, were the ‘witness’ that of men or women – or even of angels –, seeing! Never has there been a mortal— human, eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection. But a mortal sinner or sinners must have ‘witnessed’ Jesus’ resurrection, were Resurrection and only visit at one and the same time, circumstance, event and witness. It is not strange therefore at all there is no mention made of an accomplished visit or arrival at the tomb before or simultaneous with the Resurrection.

Your, ‘fundamental approach’ is the opposite of mine.

You do not take into consideration the subject matter of contention, which is the ‘different witnesses’, the Gospel records of different visits, and not their corresponding and mutual ‘Witness’— the Truth of the Message of the Gospel as such, which neither you nor I have doubted incontrovertibly trustworthy and factually in perfect agreement with itself!

Goatboy therefore confuses the matter of agreement, for imagined disagreement. According to Goatboy’s “fundamental” “approach” of “irreconcilable evidence” and “not following the logic”, “an external construct” “of the master chronology” around Mark and Matthew has been “created, one that” have the following in every respect and irrevocably, “irreconcilable”,

The night and the morning of the First Day of the week

Mark Matthew

Space filled in with 27:57-60

15:47 parallel with 27:61

space filled in with 27:62–66 to 28:1–4

16:1 filling in after 28:1–4

space Filled in with Jn20:1–10 and Lk24:1-8

16:2–8 filling in before 28:5–8

space filled in with Jn20:11-17

16:9 parallel with John 20:11–17

space filled in with 28:9–10

The Message of the Resurrection has been told for two millennia now, and, though witnessed to by millions of different witnesses who never knew of one another, has always been the same and virtually the identical replica of these two Witnesses Goatboy is referring to, Mark and Matthew, that Jesus rose from the dead. Ironic therefore is it, Goatboy endeavours to prove his theory of contradictory and ‘irreconcilable’ ‘witnesses’ – even contradictory and ‘irreconcilable’ eyewitnesses –, with supplying us with his “example” of two perfectly in agreement, unique and authoritative, ‘Witnesses’!

However, it is the mistake of Goatboy even to speak of the Gospels as such or of their authors, as the ‘witnesses’ of the Resurrection and Appearances of Jesus. Because the actual ‘witness’ in the place and in the occurrence and time of – or rather –, of before the Appearances as such –, was, first, the angel who, next, “explained and told the women” about the Resurrection, who, thirdly, told the disciples who, fourthly, proclaimed the Gospel Message of the Resurrection to all the world who, in the fifth place, some of, informed the authors or compilers of the Gospels who, sixth and most importantly, under the Witness of the Holy Spirit, penned in writing what we, in the last instance, have “received” (Paul, 1Cor15:4) as the ‘Witnesses’ of the four ‘Gospels’. So the only “True and Faithful Witness” has all along been ‘The Message’, even Jesus Christ Himself.

Therefore already – before we have even started to “argue the irreconcilable witnesses” –, it is beyond controversy more than one events of visits at, the tomb have been recorded in the Gospel accounts or ‘witnesses’ which chronologically occurred after the Resurrection and before the Appearances. The Gospels recorded no realised visits or visit concurring with Resurrection; the Gospels only recorded two visits of concurrence with the first and the second Appearances.

Then because of more than one events, more than one times for the occurrences of each visit, occurred; and more than one circumstantial evidences, manifested; more than one groupings of or from the same persons developed; and more than one movements to and from the tomb took place, while more than once the same angel or same two angels, gave evidence or “witnessed” at each visit.

Now the ‘events’ I refer to, are these very ‘accounts’ or ‘witnesses’— that tell of, the irrefragable event of Truth, the event and events of Jesus’ resurrection and appearances, not at all here doubted or questioned.

In a word, like you, Goatboy, I do not question any aspect of the Resurrection or its reality and truth as such. I question the confusing of these stories of the different ‘historic’ events and aspects and / or stages during and of the human discovery of this Truth, by ‘interpreters’, commentators, critics, scholars— call them anything— who behave as were they Inspiration itself.

Nobby:

Gerhard Ebersöhn, your answer is far too long!

GE:

Thanks Nobby, for having noticed, and for telling me. I only replied to Goatboy’s arguments with which he tried to refute my views. One cannot arrive at a satisfactory answer to these issues in just a few words. It is then that one forgets what has been said before, or confuse things and take them out of context, etc. Please therefore allow me this long dissertation; it was unavoidable. And please allow me again to stress, it is the only way properly to give an answer; or for my capabilities it is.

We seem to have become addicts of junk-food theology.

Goatboy:

GE, I can see you must have put a lot of time into your post. Unfortunately, after attempting to read through the first third of the reply I’m going to have to give up for the moment; your writing style is nearly incomprehensible to me. If your tactic is to overwhelm me with muddled verbosity then you have surely succeeded.

I ask that you either supply a more succinct reply, or simply allow me a few days/weeks/months to decipher and comprehend what you have written.

Nobby:

Hi GE, now do you see the problem with loooooong posts. They take too long to read & forever to answer.

GE:

Everybody seems to complain about me being ‘incomprehensible’. Everybody can’t be wrong. So I regret I just cannot improve on myself. Maybe it will help if I remind you I have replied to or on your, statements, Goatboy.

In one or two words I would say my dissertation boils down to,

.... the ‘evidence’ or ‘witness’ to Christ’s resurrection is the thing agreed upon 100% in different and ‘slightly’ differing ‘witnesses’; which is not our point of contention, but which was that with which you attempted to refute my ‘theory’ the Gospels each give an independent account of an independent event in total harmony the one with the other— events of women who visited the tomb on Sunday morning; not the event of the Resurrection.

Zyzzyva:

Poor goat boy. :cry:

It might be prudent now to point out that Mark wasn’t even there, and so therefore has no credibility, as a witness that is. He was going on hearsay, if we want to take the legal terms and make them applicable to this discussion.

GE:

Not poor Goatboy or poor Mark, but poor sleeper Zzzzzzz, who cannot wake up to the fact Mark in fact was, “going on hearsay”:- what the learned men call oral tradition. Poor Mark also had to rely on ‘written sources’ for every bit of information he penned down in his Gospel. ‘Hearsay’ of ‘tradition’ has it, poor Mark was going on hearsay from an apostles named Peter. And poor Peter again, these very hearsay-Gospels tell us, was going on hearsay from certain women; which certain women were going on hearsay from an ‘angel’ it is believed, called “an angel of the Lord” -- an angel that attended the commands of his Lord the Lord Jesus Christ.

And then poor Mark as well as all the other poor mortal and fallible intermediaries, it is believed, was going on what them believers call the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So that that is all and the best them believers have for to claim there were several visits made to the tomb during the morning of the First Day upon which their Lord “appeared risen to Mary Magdalene first” at – or just after – the second last of those claimed visits, and to the rest of those women on – or just after – their last visit to the tomb – according to hearsay.

You see, just because poor Mark “wasn’t even there”, and was not himself an eye-witness of this believed One who on the morning early of the First Day of the week appeared in the flesh, for the last fifteen hours at least, having been, “risen”.

Pete:

Whenever a post isn't complete on my screen and I have to start scrolling, I usually keep scrolling to the next post.

There's no reason a point can't be made in a paragraph, or two, but then some folks don't seem to know what a paragraph is.

GE:

Ja well, we have become addicts of junk-food theology, obviously.

Goatboy:

Well, I tried once again today to approach that monstrosity of a reply. I think I shall admit “defeat.” Gerhard Ebersöhn, I generally need to read your sentences 3-4 times before I can fully comprehend their meaning, working through that entire post will just be too time consuming. From what I've been able to gather you seem to also attribute positions and ideas to me that I did not intend to imply at all; the task of clarification on top of interpretation is again just too great. Believe me, I'm not trying to “back out” or to offend, it's just a communication issue. In the future, perhaps you might have some compassion for those you discuss with and avoid responding to 500 word posts with 5000 word replies.

GE:

What I usually try to do with such a long 'reaction', is to post it to the answered person personally, for which there usually is a facility, or by private e-mail. But I don't know the mechanism of this

forum. My apologies once again, friends, and thanks for your – let's admit – your 'patient' handling of my defence.

I think you will get the drift of my reasoning much easier from my answer to Zyzzz-something. What did you ask for, Goatboy? A 'succinct' statement? In my posts of before this 'monstrosity', you will also find my ideas formulated quite simply.

It is just this:

There were several visits of the women to the tomb during the course of the Saturday night, and at each visit only an empty tomb was found. At every visit the women received a message from an angel / angels that Jesus had had risen before! Then He appeared to Mary first on the second last of these visits, and to the other women, on the last of these visits, early after sunrise on the Sunday morning.

Implications:

Jesus did not rise any time during that Saturday night or Sunday morning.

Jesus rose as “explained / answered” by the angel of Mt28:5 --- NOT by the angel of verse 2! The angel of verse 2 (although he could have been the angel of verse 5 and the other Gospels) never spoke to any women; nor was seen by any! The women were not then ‘there, even’! The two Marys also were not ‘then there’, but according to Mt28:1b, then have just “departed” / “started out”, from their abode wherever, “to go have a look at the grave”. “Then suddenly” — when the women departed “there was a great earthquake” — not when they arrived or saw; they never then, ‘arrived’, or, ‘saw’! When the women “departed to go have a look at the grave” and “there was a great earthquake”, Jesus of course rose from the dead and the grave— “at once / suddenly” (‘idou’), “in the twinkling of an eye”— his resurrection being witnessed in the Inner and Most Holy of the Sanctuary of the Fellowship of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is at this point that you will find the grotesque monstrosities of translators, learned men and the haters of God’s Sabbath, to try and smother these facts under a heap of verbosity. (I have used some terms used by you people, so you can understand me well.)

To close,

The information Mary brought the disciples after her first glimpse of the rolled away stone, was a psychological preparation for what awaited the women as soon as all the others had joined those who had had spices prepared, “so that”, after by midnight the guard would have left, “coming, they might anoint him” (hina elthousai aleipsohsin auton, Mk16:1b). The women still believed the body was intact, although they must have shared Mary’s fears that Joseph and Nicodemus might have taken it away. Mary says she thought the body was taken away – she didn’t say, ‘stolen’; she at no stage said she assumed the body was ‘stolen’. She definitely never said that the body was gone, either. No one knows what Peter and John would have done, had Mary told them the body was certainly gone. If they already were assured they probably would not themselves have run to an empty tomb to make sure about something they already knew and would have believed.

Mary never said that the body was gone, or she would not have persuaded the other women to join her in her errand to go salve the body of Jesus “as women were accustomed to do to their beloved dead”. (Gospel of Peter.) So it came as a great disconsolation to the women when they found the grave not only opened as Mary had told them, but also against their expectations, empty, and the body, gone. They came out of the tomb with “faces (and hearts) bent down to the earth” (Lk24:5a), greatly disappointed. Two angels confront the unbelieving women, and tell them to go rethink Jesus’ words to his disciples before his death. No other Gospel account contains these wise recommendations. The women left the tomb and went and told the disciples, who this time, after they had seen for themselves the body was gone, got impatient with the women, and accused them of “idle tales”. Only separate, consecutive events of the women’s visits at the tomb, explain these smaller as well as bigger aspects and details in their accounting by different Gospel compilers.

No wonder therefore that these very women so blamed for just telling idle tales, went back to the tomb – Mark 16:2-8 – to ascertain their rethinking of Jesus’ words and their findings with their previous visit. They no sooner left completely disorientated and in great fear and obviously ashamed, not even prepared to tell anyone they actually had gone back to the grave as if there was any hope left of finding some answer to their many questions.

The time was ripe that God might intervene! Grace works that way, always. When everything has been given up for hopeless, God reveals his power to bring comfort to his children at their weakest. So, when everybody was totally dismayed and had “fled from the tomb” — “Mary had had stood after, crying.....” John 20:11.

And so it is obvious, the clear way in which the one visit prepared the way for, and gave occasion to, the next. It while uncomplicated and strictly realistic and factual, makes perfect, feeble, human nature, sense. Even in the angels’ ‘witnesses’, this slow but certain and steady development towards the angel’s final revelation of the whole truth to the women’s fullest possible comprehension, can be followed, trace by trace of evidence from one visit, to the next. 31 December 2008, To God alone all honour!

Gerhard Ebersöhn

Suite 324

Pvt Bag X43

Sunninghill 2157

biblestudents@imaginet.co.za

http://www.biblestudents.co.za