Empty tomb - for sonship.

Here you go. Two discrepancies.

Who was in the tomb? An angel, or two, or a young boy or no one?

Who opened the tomb? Was it already open or did and angel open it?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here you go. Two discrepancies.

Who was in the tomb? An angel, or two, or a young boy or no one?

Who opened the tomb? Was it already open or did and angel open it?

I believe there were two angels that had the appearance of young men in white robes that were at the tomb and one of them rolled away the stone before the women got there. Then when the women got to the tomb, they saw the stone already rolled away before the angels suddenly appeared to them.

Mary Magdalene ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They (the two angels) have taken away the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have taken Him."
(John 20:2 NASB)

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe there were two angels that had the appearance of young men in white robes that were at the tomb and one of them rolled away the stone before the women got there. Then when the women got to the tomb, they saw the stone already rolled away before the angels suddenly appeared to them.

Mary Magdalene [b]ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other ...[text shortened]... y the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have taken Him."
(John 20:2 NASB)[/b]

So who was the young boy in Mark's account? Where does he fit into your scheme of things?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So who was the young boy in Mark's account? Where does he fit into your scheme of things?

Are you referring to Mark 16:5 ?

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you referring to Mark 16:5 ?

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Affirmative.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here you go. Two discrepancies.

Who was in the tomb? An angel, or two, or a young boy or no one?

Who opened the tomb? Was it already open or did and angel open it?

Well, let's see. Some of these things I can only speculate about.
Going in NT order:

Matthew

"And the angel answered and said to the women. Do not be afraid, for I know that you are seeking Jesus, the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised, even as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying." (28:5-6)

So Matthew does not tell us anyone was in the tomb.
The emphasis of Matthew is who was NOT in the tomb - Jesus.

Who may have been there, whether no one or one or two or more somebodies, is not explicitly stated.

Going on to Mark.

Mark - "And when they entered into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised; He is not here. Behold the place where they laid Him." (15:5,6)

So Mark says a young man in a white robe was there.

Was it the same women as mentioned in Matthew? The only one that I am certain was of this group inside the tomb was Mary Magdalene. I think I know that the additional women Mark speaks of include another Mary who was the mother of James. Whether that was the other Mary that Matthew mentioned, - "Mary the Magalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave" I do not know.

Was "the other Mary" (Matthew) the "Mary the mother of James" (Mark) ? I don't know.

Mark adds also Salome - three women.

Did they all come at the same time , Mary Magalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome ? I don't know. But at least two of them were spoken to because the young man spoke to "them" -

"And he said to them, Do not be alarmed." (v.6)

Now on to Luke:

Luke - " ... the women who had come together with Him out of Galilee followed after and beheld the tomb and how His body was laid. And they returned and prepared spices and ointment. And on the Sabbath they rested ... Now on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they found the stone rolled away from the tomb ..." (23:55,56a; 24:1,2)

Who "they" is must include but not necessarily be limited by the women explicitly mentioned in verse 10 -

"Now they were Mary the Magadalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James ..." (v.10a) And these three were joined by some other unnamed women " ... and the rest of the women with them."

Who does Luke say was in the tomb? It says "But when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

And while they stood perplexed about this, behold two men stood by them in dazzling clothing. And they became frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, and the men said to them, Why are you seeking the living One among the dead?

He is not here but has been raised ..." ( v.6a)

If I make the assumption that Luke means they stood perplexed INSIDE of the tomb then I would assume that within the tomb Luke records two men in dazzling clothing were there. Whether this exchange between the two men and the women occurred inside the tomb or outside the tomb is not totally clear to me. I'll assume that they stood perplexed inside of the tomb.

The word stood is supplied by the editors. "While they perplexed about this, behold two men stood by them ..."

It is possible that some of the group were outside the tomb and some were inside. It is possible that all stayed together. It is possible that the perplexed in the general area of the tomb but not specifically inside of it.

Perhaps it is also possible that one group of women OR A woman, had one experience inside the tomb and others or another of the group had another experience outside the tomb. The bottom line was that the heavy stone was already rolled away and Jesus was not there inside the tomb.

Finally we come to John

John - "Now on the first day of the week, Mary the Magalene came early to the tomb white it was yet dark and saw the stone taken away from the tomb. She ran therefore and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and said to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." (20:1,2)

This was one visit. Did she go in? I do not know.
But after the following event we are told she went in.

Peter and probably John raced to the tomb. John (probably) looked inside. It does not say that he saw ANYONE.
Peter went inside. It does not say that Peter saw ANYONE inside.

In both instances it just says they saw the grace clothes neatly arranged and.

Then on this subsequent RETURN to the tomb first it says Mary stood outside and then looked in.

"But Mary stood outside at the tomb weeping. Then as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb and behold two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain."

So in this visit Mary saw two angels in white sitting there inside the tomb.

1.) If women saw two angels did they see an angel ?
Yes.

2.) If a woman saw two angels did she see an angel ?
Yes.

3.) Could angels appear as men?
Yes.

4.) Could an angel appear as a young man?
Yes.

5.) Could an angel have a terrifying appearance to one group of people and then latter tone down his appearance to be less threatening to another group of people?
Yes.

6.) Since it says in John that Mary the Magdalen visited the grave, ran from it, and revisited it another time as with Peter and John, is it possible that she had two different experiences there - the experience of the first visit followed by the experience of the subsequent visit?

Yes. I think so.

7.) Since Mark says that at least some of the women were too scared to say ANYTHING about their experience at the tomb, could accounts dramatically vary ?

"And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." (Mark 16:8)

Is it possible that different women had different experiences and reactions to the visit to the tomb?

I think Yes.

8.) Lastly, John tells us that the details of his Gospel are not exhaustive but selective to make his point. And he says there are loads of details about Jesus which even a library the size of the world could not contain all the books should all the details be written.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books written." (John 21:25)


"Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:30,31)

Because we do not have exhaustive details of the resurrection, I am not able to explain all the discrepancies with 100% certainty that I know exactly what occurred. I don't see this amounting to any contradictions which render the Gospels as false on Christ's resurrection.

The heavy door to the tomb was rolled back by an angel of God.
That's enough for this post.
Books have been written on the subject.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Affirmative.

Well, in that case the text says "young man" not "young boy" so based on everything else said about him, I would say he is one of the angels.

Originally posted by sonship
1.) If women saw two angels did they see an angel ?
Yes.

2.) If a woman saw two angels did she see an angel ?
Yes.

3.) Could angels appear as men?
Yes.

4.) Could an angel appear as a young man?
Yes.

5.) Could an angel have a terrifying appearance to one group of people and then latter tone down his appearance t ...[text shortened]... k by an angel of God.
That's enough for this post.
Books have been written on the subject.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is here?! That you have to harmonise the gospel accounts by 'speculating' surely proves my point. You also admit there are contradictions and discrepancies within the different scriptures. Which is what I claimed in the first place. 😕

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm trying to figure out what your point is here?! That you have to harmonise the gospel accounts by 'speculating' surely proves my point. You also admit there are contradictions and discrepancies within the different scriptures. Which is what I claimed in the first place. 😕

The point is that people often tell about the same event in different ways based on their perspective, but God inspired four persons to write down the story so the story can be seen from four viewpoints.

That does not mean there has to be a contradiction, if one person mentions two angels or men and other persons only make mention of one person or angel. None of them said there was ONLY one, so there could be TWO as one writer reported.

Originally posted by Proper Knob

I'm trying to figure out what your point is here?! That you have to harmonise the gospel accounts by 'speculating' surely proves my point. You also admit there are contradictions and discrepancies within the different scriptures. Which is what I claimed in the first place.

The point is you are sounding a false alarm.
And what dependencies you grasp at could have a number of explanations, some of which I proposed.

By the way, I was expecting you to write the verses or refer to them yourself and point out the contradictions. It sounds like you never read any of the verses but just parroted some objection you heard second hand somewhere.

I explained how one or two persons could be varyingly reported as having appeared in the tomb.
I explained who rolled the stone away.

Incidently, BEFORE any of these gospels were written, the oldest NT document speaking of the resurrection of Jesus would be Paul writing to the church in Corinth. And in that letter he mentions that STILL alive at the time of his writing are around 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.

The majority of them, therefore, could have been consulted by the audience to verify or falsify Paul's teaching that Jesus rose from the dead.

This letter was written BEFORE the earliest Gospel of Mark was written.

See First Corinthians 15:1-9.

Originally posted by sonship

I'm trying to figure out what your point is here?! That you have to harmonise the gospel accounts by 'speculating' surely proves my point. You also admit there are contradictions and discrepancies within the different scriptures. Which is what I claimed in the first place.

The point is you are sounding a false alarm.
And what depe ...[text shortened]... ritten BEFORE the earliest Gospel of Mark was written.

See [b]First Corinthians 15:1-9.[/b]

I'm not sounding any alarm. You asked for the discrepancies and I gave them to you, which you freely admitted having to speculate and assume to piece the account to together. As you said, 'books have been written on this topic'.

What you expect of me and whether you think I have read the verses is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not sounding any alarm. You asked for the discrepancies and I gave them to you, which you freely admitted having to speculate and assume to piece the account to together. As you said, 'books have been written on this topic'.

What you expect of me and whether you think I have read the verses is neither here nor there.

I'm not sounding any alarm. You asked for the discrepancies and I gave them to you, which you freely admitted having to speculate and assume to piece the account to together. As you said, 'books have been written on this topic'.

That's right. Somewhat the same level of speculation at a court case with varied eye witnesses who were not in collusion together.

IE. What happened at the gun fight at the OK Coral ?
What happened at the collision of planes at the World Trade Center ?
What happened at the Chicago Fire ?

I would expect a variety of eye witness accounts would make it some speculation unavoidable.

I read through the court proceedings of the Gun Fight at the OK Coral. I could not figure out who fired the first shot as accounts differed.

One thing is clear, all hell broke loose in a brief but bloody gun battle that day.

It the same with first day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead.

Originally posted by sonship

I'm not sounding any alarm. You asked for the discrepancies and I gave them to you, which you freely admitted having to speculate and assume to piece the account to together. As you said, 'books have been written on this topic'.

That's right. Somewhat the same level of speculation at a court case with varied eye witnesses who were not i ...[text shortened]... battle that day.

It the same with first day of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead.

You're comparing the gun battle at the OK Coral with the inspired word of God?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're comparing the gun battle at the OK Coral with the inspired word of God?

A word in a book can not be inspired. Only people can be inspired.