Earliest Accounts Of Christ's Resurrection - Lee Strobel

[oombuddah]

The minute you conceive you will believe that Jesus died for your sins "according to the scriptures" etc is to believe that the person/people who composed this creed were inspired by God, thus they are like prophets themselves, because God only reveals such theological convictions regarding himself, to the prophets for them to reveal onto mankind. So we would have to assume that these creed former(s) are pretty much divinely inspired. Because in the end, they are drawing conclusions by scripture

[oombuddah]

Most whom are still living - notice that this is a letter to the corinthians, this is far away, and besides, we need written testimonies from any of the 500 to believe in the historical validity of the 500.

This creed, for God's sake, please, it doesn't confirm that Jesus rose from being dead.

Case for Christ - you must be as critical as you can go to find out the truths here.

The annoying thing is that Christians are assuming that this creed belongs to the disciples.

[oombuddah]

Received from who? from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? From people who are trying to think of a justification of deuteronomy 21:22, thinking it would apply to Jesus?

According to the scriptures? - Would God base our salvation on such ambiguity which used to refer to other things and fit into these other events historically?

What about the appearances to the women, didn't that come first,

Peter,then to the twelve?Does that twelve include Peter? Judas died btw.Any written testimonies of 500?

[shinesthrudarain]

thats ignorant they have doo doo in their souls

[krwhite02]

If Jesus Himself came to some of these people and showed the a video of Him rising from the dead, they still wouldn't believe. If you held all of history to the standard people hold the Bible, we would have to abandon all of history.

[Vincentaneous]

@krwhite02 Scholars are deeply skeptical of ANYTHING that ancient people wrote. There is strong evidence for a revolutionary rabbi named Yeshua who came from Nazareth and preached a controversial teaching, created a disturbance in the temple at Jerusalem, preached against the temple authorities, was arrested and executed for sedition by the Romans. The accounts of his miracles and his resurrection are spectacular claims that require more evidence than ancient documents can provide.

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[No1RobLoweFan]

But Paul does concede that he received this creed. It was still second hand for him too. We have no one writing in the new testament about the life of Yeshua who was there during the times they wrote about. All you have is the document of an early religion.

[mfunke]

That would really convince me IF there was any proof that the bible was not created or heavily modified by men over almost 2000 years. But quotes from the bible are hardly evidence. More like hear-say.

[StaceyC123]

*I'M* taking this fairy-tale too seriously, and being irrational? The story given in your magic book doesn't make sense, and it doesn't even agree with other tellings of the story in your magic book. I don't believe anything ELSE when an extraordinary claim is made, but no evidence is offered to support that claim (and neither do you, except, apparently, in this case), so what makes this fairy-tale any different?

[darski2007]

The fact that you feel the need to be offensive in your post shows me that you are indeed searching for God. You may not want to believe in Jesus but even your antipathy tells me how desperately you want this to be true. I can assure you that it is true and that you can put your faith in Jesus Christ. I'll pray for you.

[StaceyC123]

There is nothing whatsoever about your chosen superstition that makes it any more believable than any OTHER superstition; I'm simply wondering why people choose to abandon the logical thought processes they use to make any OTHER decision only when it comes to their chosen superstition. Muslims do it for their superstition, Christians do it for their superstition, Mormons do it for their superstition, and so on, and all without any evidence whatsoever.

[StaceyC123]

So now you're claiming that there was not one, not two, but THREE "angels"; I guess consistency doesn't matter when you're allowed to make things up anyway, right? This still contradicts the accounts given in the other stories, which say nothing about seeing an "angel" come down to roll the stone away, but claim that they simply found the stone rolled away when they got to the tomb. As I've said before, this story has got so many contradictions in it, no court in the world would accept it.

[toddtyszka]

You're taking this WAY too seriously and being irrational. Whether or not the angel who rolled away the stone was also one of the angels inside is irrelevant, and you are clearly just trying to be argumentative. Go ahead and cry to Jesus that He didn't preserve the stories in the Bible to your satisfaction. Guess He shouldn't have used humans to write it, huh? You're going to feel like the biggest idiot... Your expectations really are ridiculous!

[scorchhunter]

@StaceyC123 Well to be perfectly honest its unfortunate that majority courts throughout the world are far too corrupt to understand truth when they see it or even willing to accept it if they do. All that red tape, got-to-be-politically correct, bureaucratic nonsense blinds them all. Sorry but I felt that needed to be there b/c of that last comment. I must agree with toddytyszka in that you are trying to be too arguementative about the angel. Chill out.

[StaceyC123]

@scorchhunter

"Corrupt"? I'm only looking at what your little magic book itself says, so if there's anything "corrupt" about this fairy tale, that's the fault of your little magic book. If this same sort of fishy nonsense was presented as "proof" of the truth of any OTHER cult, you would doubtless be pointing out that this is nothing more than a self-contradictory fairy tale, so why do you have special rules only for your own cult?

[StaceyC123]

If someone wants me to believe that this "Jesus" character was resurrected, they're going to have to explain why the four separate accounts of this "resurrection" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. If you were a police officer investigating a crime, and four supposed "eye witnesses" gave you four different accounts that differ from each other as much as these four do, you'd KNOW that someone was lying to you.

[toddtyszka]

There's plenty of books which rxplain the differences, have you read one? It's not that complicated to understand...

[StaceyC123]

Yes, and the "explanations" always come down to "oh, you just don't WANT to believe", or "these differences don't matter, you're not seeing the BIG picture". Sorry, but I need more than "trust me" to believe in something, especially an imaginary invisible man in the sky.

[toddtyszka]

Those are not the explanations given. You asked about inconsistencies in the four Gospels and that is what I replied to. There are plenty of good books which address the inconsistencies and give the simple explanations. None of the explanations are "trust me." Do your homework.

[StaceyC123]

None of the "explanations" I've been given answer these contradictions in any way other than "Oh, you're just not seeing The Big Picture."

[toddtyszka]

Are you serious? See below...

[StaceyC123]

Here's a couple for you: your magic book says that Mary Magdalene (plus one, two, or possibly three other women, depending on which account you want to believe) went to the tomb 3 days after the crucifixion in order to "anoint Jesus' body with oils". BUT, observant Jews WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS; once a body is buried, they are forbidden to touch it, let alone "anoint it with oils".

[toddtyszka]

These women were going to prepare the body for burial which would have been allowed and customary.

[StaceyC123]

No, the body had ALREADY been prepared for burial, before it had been put into the tomb; from that point on, it is anathema for a Jew to touch a dead body, and they wouldn't have gone to the tomb to "anoint" the body any more than you or I would dig up our grandfathers to "anoint" THEIR bodies.

[toddtyszka]

Says who?

[StaceyC123]

Says the Jews themselves; if you'd care to research the Jews' burial rituals, they have a number of specified procedures for dealing with a dead body, among them including:

[StaceyC123]

1) a body must be accompanied until it is buried (the Jews even have official "accompaniers" who are supposed to remain with a body until it is interred), 2) the body must be cleaned according to rites before interment, and 3) after a body IS interred, it is considered "ritually unclean", and will not be interfered with in any manner. "Interference" would include the supposed "anointing" undertaken by "Mary Magdalene".

[StaceyC123]

Second, was this Mary character drunk, high, or just stupid? How did she expect to be able to do any "anointing", when she believed that this body was sealed in a tomb with a boulder and guarded?

[toddtyszka]

These women were going to prepare the body for burial which would have been allowed and customary.

[StaceyC123]

They wouldn't have been able to even GET to the body, considering we're told that it had been sealed into the tomb with a huge boulder; did they just "forget" that inconvenient fact?

[toddtyszka]

Maybe. Who says the guard wouldn't allow these ladies to prepare the body?

[StaceyC123]

You mean the very same guards that your religion says would not have allowed the body to be interfered with, for fear that they would steal the body? If they could be so easily swayed from their task, who's to say that those guards couldn't just as easily have been bought off with a bribe or other favour?

[toddtyszka]

I just found it. Mark 16:3 even says they asked each other "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" Why didn't you read that? I hate it when people waste my time on trivial things like this! The women were obviously stressed and focussed on what they thought they should do (anoint the body). Give 'em (and me) a break!

[StaceyC123]

And another thing; under Jewish law, only MALES are allowed to prepare male bodies for burial, while only females are allowed to prepare female bodies for burial. That makes this whole "Mary Magdalene went to anoint the body" thing inordinately suspicious.

[josueanthonylpz]

which they already did ,theyalready finish preparing the body,the bible says that magdalene and the other women where going to the tomb to anoint it with oil so it wouldnt stink.

[StaceyC123]

The Jews' burial rituals say that all of these rituals (including any "anointing") has to be done BEFORE a body is put into a grave or tomb, and it must also be done by someone who is of the same sex as the deceased body. Therefore, the whole story stinks as a convenient tale.

[Vincentaneous]

@StaceyC123 I am an atheist, but I just want to throw this in: IF someone were going to make up the story, they would not have had two women (or three) as the first witnesses of Jesus' empty tomb. As you said, it was strange to have women there anyway. That kind of strangeness could mean the account has a core of truth - an embarrassing truth. Did Jesus really come back from the dead? No. The mindset of these women would have been very fertile ground for hallucinations and misapprehensions.

[StaceyC123]

@Vincentaneous

This raises yet MORE questions about this aspect of the fairy tale; since these accounts all come to us from early Greek converts, and not actual eyewitnesses (who would have written them in Hebrew or Aramaic), it is likely that the people telling these stories simply didn't realize the inferior position that women would have held at that time and place, as well as not realizing that women would have been PROHIBITED from doing what was claimed ("anointing a dead male body").

[Vincentaneous]

@StaceyC123 Of course that's plausible. Only remember the author of Matthew likely was a Greek-speaking Jew. Now, was he really the disciple named Matthew? Probably not. But, the style and content of Matthew is very Jewish and there are a lot of "Hebraisms" in Matthew - i.e., strange Greek phrasing and terms that Jews used. But, to add to what you were saying, not only did these predominantly Greek writers show ignorance of Jewish culture, they also botched Roman customs and political culture.

[StaceyC123]

@Vincentaneous

Claiming that the unknown author of "Matthew" was a Greek-speaking Jew seems to be an absolute leap in logic/leap of faith here; at the time when these stories were being spread around the eastern Mediterranean, women were actually claiming to be equals (to the point that "Paul" took them to task for it, telling them to be quiet in church, that they were the property of their husbands, etc). This stil casts doubt on the fairy tale of the "resurrection".

[Vincentaneous]

@StaceyC123 OK, I'll let it go here. But please look up information about the gospel of Matthew for example in wikipedia. Find information about the scholarly interpretation of Matthew and you'll see there is a consensus that the gospel of Matthew was likely written by a Jew. When you read it in Greek it is clear that this person is not part of the Greek cultural tradition and he writes in a strange form of Greek.

[StaceyC123]

@Vincentaneous

"Matthew" DOES stand out unusually from the other versions of this fairy tale, in that it both copies verbatim and wholesale from "Mark" AND adds a large number of other supernatural claims that aren't supported by any of the rest (earthquake, seeing "angels" come down to "roll the stone away", and so on). The author of this part of the Christians' little magic book may well have been well-travelled for his time, but to claim much else is pure conjecture.

[StaceyC123]

@Vincentaneous

Also, I'd expect that if the author of "Matthew" was a Jew, he would know that Jews are prohibited from both a) handling a body after it has been placed in a grave or tomb, and b) handling a body of the opposite sex; since these are integral aspects of the fairy tale as presented, it's pretty clear that this author wasn't as familiar with Jewish ritual as one might think.

[toddtyszka]

From a quick reading, it appears that the Sabbath was about to begin (Lk.23:54) and they went early Sunday morning to anoint the body with perfume and spices. They must have believed the guards would let them as it wasn't properly or fully done since it was "Preparation Day" and the Sabbath was about to begin. For example, they didn't use perfume, only hastily uses spices (Jn.19:40).

[StaceyC123]

See above; as Jews, they WOULDN'T have done this, any more than you or I would dig up our great-grandparents to "anoint" THEM.

[toddtyszka]

They wanted to give Him a proper burial and they waited one day because of the Sabbath. What is so wrong with that? Don't answer, I'm not interested in a fruitless discussion. It is NOT a contradiction and if that's what's going to keep you from accepting Christ, that's your choice.

[StaceyC123]

Because that "answer" is not allowed by Jewish ritual, unless the body is attended at all times by a "shomerim"; when your magic book says that the body of this supposed "prophet" was put into the tomb, that's when all further activity with that body would have been anathema under Jewish law, Sabbath or no Sabbath. This is not so much of a contradiction as an outright falsehood.

[josueanthonylpz]

its not a book a magic, obviously you have not read the bible. and it not a falsehood

[StaceyC123]

Going by what it claims itself, and by what we know of the way that these people would have acted, it's most certainly a falsehood, and no different from any OTHER religion dreamt up by people who are desperate to believe that they will live forever.

[toddtyszka]

Stacey, that's pure speculation and has no merit, you know that. Stick to facts (if you have any).

[StaceyC123]

Those ARE the facts; your magic book claims that these people were observant Jews, but then goes on to claim that they acted in ways that observant Jews are forbidden to act, no different than claiming that ham sandwiches and lobster were served at "the last supper"; the story in your magic book makes some outrageous, insupportable claims, claims that are not supported by everything else we know of the people of this time and place.

[Shaston]

And you know this because you know what the burial traditions were for these people? Or because you "think so" because you wouldn't?

[StaceyC123]

No, because the JEWS THEMSELVES SAY SO; their burial traditions today are the same way they've ALWAYS been, according to the Jews, and if THEY don't know, who would?

[toddtyszka]

I just found it. Mark 16:3 even says they asked each other "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" Why didn't you read that? I hate it when people waste my time on trivial things like this! The women were obviously stressed and focussed on what they thought they should do (anoint the body). Give 'em (and me) a break!

[StaceyC123]

Third, how is it that Matthew, Mark, and John all claim that the "resurrected Jesus" met his "apostles" in Galilee, but Luke says that this "meeting" happened in a village called Emmaus? These directly contradict each other, so one or the other (or BOTH) CANNOT be true.

[toddtyszka]

That's not true... Are you talking about Jesus meeting Cleopas and his friend on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24?

[StaceyC123]

Depending on which version of "the infallible word of god" you want to believe, Luke says that "Jesus" met this Cleopas fellow and another person (which may have been Simon, according to 24:33), ate with them and stayed the night, and then simply "disappeared", to "reappear" in Jerusalem, without ever even GETTING to Galilee. Once again, these stories contradict each other, and if they were offered as "proof" in a court, they would be laughed at.

[toddtyszka]

Luke 24:33 says, "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem." Jerusalem was 7 miles away from Emmaus. What don't you understand? The three of them went to Jerusalem together to meet with the 11 apostles (without Judas). Does your faith in Christ really come down to understanding this?

[StaceyC123]

But at Luke 24:31, it says "Their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight", so the "they" in 24:33 does not include this supposed "resurrected prophet".

[toddtyszka]

You're right that Jesus didn't go with them to Jerusalem and it appears he left from their house as soon as they recognized Him. Jesus "disappeared" (v.31) and met up with them in Jerusalem (v.36). So what's the problem?

[StaceyC123]

Because it completely skips the tale told in the other accounts; those other accounts claim that the "resurrected Jesus" was met in Galilee, while Luke claims that this meeting happened in Jerusalem (they also differ on who saw what, when, and where). I note that when any other religion has holes in its fairy tale the way that this one does, Christians pounce on them and say "See? This proves that this is a false religion!"

[toddtyszka]

You're not listening. That was another appearance and you aren't even providing the reference so I can explain why you're wrong. There is only ONE appearance in all four Gospels.

[StaceyC123]

No, the different books give different accounts; Luke says that the "resurrected Jesus" was seen at Emmaus and, later, at Jerusalem, but not at or near the tomb. Matthew, OTOH, says that the "resurrected Jesus" was seen by the women on their way from the tomb, and that "Jesus" told them to tell the apostles to meet him in Galilee.

[StaceyC123]

Mark tells yet another story, where the "resurrected Jesus" appears first to Mary Magdalene somewhere other than the tomb, then to two other women who were walking in the country, and finally to the apostles, presumably at Jerusalem. No mention of Emmaus OR Galilee here.

[StaceyC123]

Finally, John says that Mary Magdalene saw "Jesus" AT the tomb, then to the apostles (presumably at Jerusalem), and then once more at the sea of Tiberias. I wouldn't believe a story with this many holes in it from any OTHER religion, so why should I believe THIS one?

[StaceyC123]

Furthermore, this STILL contradicts the accounts in Matthew, Mark and John, that claim that this "meeting" was in Galilee.

[toddtyszka]

No they don't! Where are you getting that from? What verses contradict? All four gospels don't describe ANY resurrection appearance except at the empty tomb?

[StaceyC123]

How many women came to the tomb after the crucifixion?

John 20:1 says 1, Matthew 28:1 says 2, Mark 16:1 says 2 and possibly 3, and Luke 24:9 says at LEAST 3.

[toddtyszka]

John does NOT say 1, it mentions Mary but then says "...and WE don't know where they have put him!" As far as an EXACT number, who cares? When someone summarizes a story, they don't provide ALL of the details, they may only mention significant people, people you know, the ones they saw... The women probably arrived at different times (to avoid suspicion) with Mary first (while still dark and the others at dawn) and there were simply different witnesses at different times.

[StaceyC123]

If any other religion has an inconsistency like this, Christians rightfully claim that this means that the story has been made up by the believers of that religion. I'm not asking any questions of your superstition that you wouldn't ask of any other, and, given the number of loose ends that simply don't add up in the telling of what is supposed to be the crucial event, I don't see how anyone with any sense at all can gullibly swallow it whole.

[toddtyszka]

Does your faith in Christ and the Word of God hinge on this? Really? I do not see it as an inconsistency and I explained how it makes complete sense. If you can't understand something as basic as eyewitness accounts, I'm afraid there is little hope.

[StaceyC123]

My "faith" has nothing to do with it, as I don't believe in things that I don't see any evidence to be true. Your religion (like every OTHER religion) is in the business of selling a story, in an effort to gain converts (and thereby, money and power). If any of these things actually happened, I would expect a clear, straightforward explanation, supported by evidence, and when those things aren't forthcoming, I see no reason to believe the story. This goes for ANY superstition, not just yours.

[toddtyszka]

Sorry it's not as forthcoming as YOU would like. You can complain to God, not me. Again, if you can't understand something as basic as eyewitness accounts, I'm afraid there is little hope.

[Vincentaneous]

@toddtyszka Ask any investigator: Eyewitness accounts are the worst form of evidence. Our legal system relies on it only because often it's the only evidence available. Of course the followers of Jesus thought they saw Jesus after his death, but there are people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, or even people who have seen Elvis after his supposed death. The followers of Jesus were uneducated people with strong religious passions. That kind of mindset often makes a bad eyewitness.

[StaceyC123]

See above; only ONE of the four accounts (John) says that the "resurrected Jesus" was seen at the tomb, and they all differ in who saw what, when, and where.

[daughtry4eva]

was it 3 or 2 women? or just one? Your Bible doesnt make up its own mind anyway so it's not like we atheists are trying to find a fault or something.

[toddtyszka]

John does NOT say 1, it mentions Mary but then says "...and WE don't know where they have put him!" As far as an EXACT number, who cares? When someone summarizes a story, they don't provide ALL of the details, they may only mention significant people, people you know, the ones they saw... The women probably arrived at different times (to avoid suspicion) with Mary first (while still dark and the others at dawn) and there were simply different witnesses at different times.

[StaceyC123]

Well, if you don't care about "exact numbers", then I guess you're so desperate to believe this fairy-tale that you're willing to gloss over ANY contradiction, for example what was supposed to have been seen at the tomb; Matthew says an "angel" was sitting OUTSIDE the tomb, Mark says an angel was sitting INSIDE the tomb, John says there were TWO "angels" standing inside the tomb, and Luke says there were TWO angels SITTING inside the tomb.

[toddtyszka]

Again, not a contradiction, different persons & times, & you even mixed them up. The NT was in Greek, not English. The Greek word "ephistemi" in Lk. as "stood by" also means be present, to come near, appear to, & the same word is translated as "came upon" in Acts 12:7 & Lk 2:9. It doesn't mean the angels were standing. The angel who opened the tomb & sat on the stone is not the same as the two found sitting inside (Jn 20). Mark doesn't say there was ONLY one, it just mentions the one who spoke.

[StaceyC123]

And do you have ANY evidence at ALL to suggest that "the angel who opened the tomb & sat on the stone is not the same as the two found sitting inside"? It seems to me that you're now reduced to simply making up convenient explanations for things that don't make sense. I'm not about to believe someone who claims that they were taken aboard a UFO without any sort of supporting evidence, so why should I believe this sort of thousand-year-old "friend of a friend" hearsay?

[toddtyszka]

Mary never even says she saw the angel in Matthew, Matthew just says that an angel came from heaven to roll away the stone and that he sat on it, scaring the guards. He later speaks to the women. The two inside are seen by Mary Magdalene after she has been there crying for some time alone and she also sees Jesus who speaks directly to her. They are totally different accounts.

[StaceyC123]

I guess these people saw "angels" often enough that minor details like this were simply forgotten, right? How about the contradiction around how many of the "apostles" came to see if Mary Magdalene wasn't just BSing them about the "empty tomb"? Luke 24 says that Peter went alone to the tomb, and found only scraps of cloth, but John says that Peter AND Simon AND an un-named "other disciple" did this. Yet another loose end that doesn't add up.

[daughtry4eva]

well said