An unreliable so called historical event (stripped apart)
Below we will show a serious error concerning the so called resurrection Christians boast took place... This paper will evidently prove the whole resurrection was a hoax and Christians need to get over this false teaching Paul invented..
We shall examine two different accounts portrayed in the so called gospels, one by Matthew the other by John, and see how both contradict each other stupendously.
Infact john is the cause of the problem as we will see!! But before that I wanna share a quote from Paul in which he says:
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
(1 Corinthians 15:14)
Let's put Paul and his Christian followers to shame....
----------------------------------
MATTHEW'S ACCOUNT
According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene (and also "the other Mary") went to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. As they did so, the stone blocking it was moved aside by an angel.
Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. (Matthew 28:1-2)
It is not clear whether they actually saw the angel do this. In any case, after the angel speaks to them (verses 5-7), they leave - filled with joy - to inform the disciples. On the way, they actually encounter Jesus himself.
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
(Matthew 28:8-9)
---------------------------------------
JOHN'S ACCOUNT
John also describes an early morning visit by Mary Magdalene to the tomb. She finds the tomb deserted and tells Simon Peter and John that the body had been stolen.
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
(John 20:1-2)
The problem is obvious: if Mary met an angel at the tomb, and then Jesus himself (as Matthew says) then why does she merely report that the body had been stolen?
----------------------------------
John later describes a second visit by Mary to the tomb. Perhaps one can say that the visit described in Matthew 28 is this second visit, which is at John 20:11-12 and onwards:
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. (John 20:11-12)
But this doesn't work. In John, the stone was removed before Mary Magdalene's first visit. And yet, Matthew 28:2 says that the stone was removed as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were arriving; so he must be talking about that first visit, not the second visit.
Furthermore, Matthew is clearly describing the same visit to the tomb as Mark 16:1-8. In Mark, we are told that Mary and friends were bringing spices to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body with, whilst worrying about how they were going to move the stone. This makes no sense if Mary already knew the body was missing.
So, it seems we're forced into saying that Matthew and Mark are talking about the first visit John describes, in which case it's bizarre that Mary tells the disciples the body has been stolen, and then weeps at the empty tomb.
--------------------------------------
AN IMPOSSIBLE SOLUTION
Apparently, the standard solution to this problem from apologist is to say: yes, Matthew is describing Mary's first visit, but she panicked and ran away (as per John 20:1-2) as soon as she saw the stone was missing. And so, she never actually met Jesus (or the angel) at that point. But this explanation is impossible. Matthew's account only mentions two women, and then says that "they" met Jesus on their way to tell the disciples about the angel.
It's certainly true that Mark's account mentions a third woman, Salome. But Matthew does not, so he can't expect his readers to understand "they" as referring to anyone but Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who are the only women he mentions. Likewise, Matthew refers to "the women" at verse 28:5, and this faces exactly the same problem - which women? He can only mean Mary and Mary.
Anyway, this analysis is overly technical. Just reading Matthew 28:1-9 should convince any normal reader. Matthew's meaning is crystal clear.
SHAME SHAME !!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment