Supposed New Testament Contradictions Part II

This page was found on an atheist web site. This is Part 2. Click here to return to Part 1.

All text in black was written by Paul Carlson. Although we have seen several atheist claiming authorship. This version will be assumed written by Paul Carlson. All blue text was written by the creator of this refutation or from other sources.

Please note that the answer to each question follows his question/comment.

For more information; see Atheist Common Errors

IV. JESUS' TRIALS, DEATH AND RESURRECTION

A. THE TRIALS

Before listing the contradictions regarding the trials of Jesus, it should be stated that the whole episode is quite obviously a fabrication. Anyone familiar with Jewish law recognizes the impossibility of the chief priests and scribes arresting Jesus and assembling to question him during the most holy of Jewish festivals.

Mr. Carlson is implying that his mistaken conclusion's are facts. We will prove that these statements and so called conclusions that Mr. Carlson arrives at, are due to his poor understanding of the Bible.

The impossibility? It is a known fact that the chief priest and scribes were not honest men, and that is being rather kind to the integrity of the high priest and scribes. I'm assuming that Mr. Carlson thinks that dishonesty and manipulation are traits associated with "modern" politicians and religious leaders only. By his statements, Mr. Carlson is implying that the high priest and scribes could not even be capable of these traits. The most holy of Jewish festivals meant very little to these men in comparison to political positions. These men would have done anything, ANYTHING to save themselves and positions. You are also omitting the fact that the Pharisee's and the Sadducees looked at Passover from different perspectives and time frames. It was also illegal to have a trial at night. If this was fabricated, then why didn't the writers just play it safe and say it was during the daylight? Why didn't the writers play it safe and make it all legal in all regards to Passover, Jewish law, etc...? It was also illegal to reach a verdict on the same day as the trial. Again why didn't the writers just "create" a story that did not go against the Jewish laws? It is obvious that these events happened. Anyone who investigates Jewish history relating to trials and verdicts would be surprised at how many laws these men broke. Jesus was so feared by these men that special measures must be taken. Exactly how many witnesses would be needed to satisfy a secular event? If any other historical event had the number of reliable witnesses as these events had; it would be accepted as fact. Yet since we are talking about Jesus Christ; it must be fabricated. Again the atheist is not playing on a level field.

The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ was done at the worst time for the chief priest and scribes. Yet the events were forced by divine intervention. The time (Passover) was when the sacrifice for sin was performed. This is fitting in with divine intervention. They could not arrest Jesus Christ during the day. A riot would have started. They had no idea when Judas would tell them where Jesus was. Again this is speculation with no basis to back up the speculation, except an opinion.

1. Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?

a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).

b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).

A simple look into Jewish customs during this time period, clears up this so called contradiction. First off, it is not a contradiction. It was very common for children of their parents or in-laws to erect their house on the same property as the parents or in-laws. The houses actually shared the same courtyard. Again this was very common.

As for who Jesus Christ was taken to first? Considering they took him to the same property is not as important as the political hold Annas had on the high priest office. Prior to the son in law Caiaphas, who was high priest for that year. We have Annas being high priest. Not once but on two separate occasions. In addition to this we have five of Annas's five sons as high priest also. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who was running the show.

With the above information; it is very easy to understand why Annas is even mentioned. This man was basically running the puppet show. Annas had so much influence on this office that it was obvious that everyone knew his standing.

2. When did the priests and scribes gather together to question Jesus?

a. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.

b. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesus' arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.

c. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.

d. John mentions only the high priest - no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.

This is a rather minor misunderstanding. The priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to Caiaphas. Not Annas.

Mark 14:53 is misinterpreted here. It does not say after. I do not see the word "after" anywhere here.

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

Nothing is implied as to exactly when they gathered together. Again failure to mention every single detail in all 4 gospels is pointless. If this was the case, we would need only one gospel. Not four.

Luke 22:66 starts the trial narrative in the morning. It is well known that Luke's main source of information was from Peter. This explains the details about Peter during this time frame. However, failure to mention every event does not automatically signify a discrepancy. If one reads Luke 22:63-65; it is obvious that Luke was discussing events that were during the P.M. trial.

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. 64 And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck thee? 65 And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.66 And as soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council, saying,

3. Was Jesus questioned by Herod?

a. Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11).

b. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.

Pilate would have handled the case. When Pilate learned that Jesus Christ was from Galilee, he saw his chance to rid himself of this problem. Herod's jurisdiction was Galilee. So this was Herod's problem. Herod was in town for the Passover celebration.

Mr. Carlson needs to understand the political struggles during this time in this area. There are two times that the Jewish leaders went over Pilate's head. Pilate knew that the Jewish leaders would go over his head, if they felt strong enough about an incident. (Josephus documents these events). Both of these times Pilate was reprimanded, and ordered to reverse his actions. It was obvious to Pilate that the Jewish leaders were very serious about this. This was a concern for Pilate. Pushing it off on Herod was Pilate's attempt to not get involved. I didn't work.

The "another contradiction" is dealt with below.

4. Who was responsible for Jesus' death, Pilate or the Jews?

The gospel writers go to every conceivable length to absolve the Romans in general, and Pilate in particular, of Jesus' crucifixion and to blame it on the Jews. The reason, of course, was that Christianity was going to have to exist under Roman rule for many years, which is why the New Testament contains nothing critical of the Romans, even though they were hated for their heavy taxation, and Pilate was hated for his brutality.

For the church, the Jews made an appropriate scapegoat because the Jews were a thorn in side of the early church. The Jews, of course, had far greater knowledge of Jewish laws and traditions than the largely gentile church, and were able to call attention to some of the errors being taught by the church.

The Biblical account of Pilate's offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas is pure fiction, containing both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

You can read this into it only provided that is what you want to find. Although this is a misunderstanding.

Who was responsible for Jesus death? They all were. The Jews, the Romans, everyone. Considering that most of the early believers were Jewish, and considering that Jesus Christ was Jewish. Yes the Jewish people had a far greater knowledge of LAWS and TRADITIONS. I agree. Yet all of these things are man made doctrines. The Jews are to this day waiting on the Messiah! They didn't recognize him when he was with them. So the so called errors Mr. Carlson is referring to is the fact that the early church knew that the Messiah arrived and was crucified and the Jews didn't. This assertion by Mr. Carlson is incorrect. The statement "is pure fiction", suggest that it is an opinion, not a fact. There are no historical inaccuracies, nor is this a contradiction, when one investigates church history and the original Greek language.

a. What had Barabbas done?

1. Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.

2. John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

Could it be that Barabbas was guilty of all three?

b. Pilate's "custom" of releasing a prisoner at Passover.

This is pure invention - the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesus' death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

The statement "pure invention" is another opinion, which is proven wrong with some historical investigating. This custom was a goodwill gesture to the Jews for appeasement purposes only. However the Jews did not exercise this so called custom nor did Rome. Now lets tell the whole story and do not take it out of context. Pilate's wife had a dream about Jesus. She told Pilate to have nothing to do with "that righteous man". Anyone that knows anything about the Romans and the pagan religions they have, know of there importance on dreams. There are several scenario's to this story. I'm sorry to say you are operating on pure human speculation. You are guessing. We do not know Pilate's mind during this event. Did his wife's dream have any weight on his decision? Possibly. Could Pilate actually have thought that Jesus was not deserving of crucifixion? Was Pilate scared of Jesus? It is obvious that Pilate was concerned about who Jesus was/is. Why after hearing someone say "he claims to be the son of God". why then did Pilate ask Jesus "Where are you from?". Surely Pilate thought he knew where Jesus was from?

Was Pilate scared that if he didn't grant the Jewish leaders their wish, that they would go over his head? It is obvious that Pilate wanted no part in this matter. By sending Jesus to Herod and the Barabbas incident. Why would a man who was supposed to be so cruel and heartless even care. It is obvious that Pilate had some alternate motive. Whether it was political we do not know. Although this seems to be a logical conclusion.

What really happened to Barabbas? Yes he was released but for how long? Was he immediately arrested again? For all we know he was crucified after the Passover.(see c.Pilate gives in to the mob). For all we know Pilate truly was fearful of this incident/Jewish leaders/Jesus Christ/his political career or job security.

Barabbas from what is gathered from text is interesting. He was guilty of three separate crimes. He was surely known as a scoundrel, to put it mildly. Pilate could have picked the worst prisoner he could find; possibly thinking that surely they would not want this wicked man released. Yet to his amazement they still chose Barabbas over Jesus Christ. The high priest and his cohorts obviously worked the crowd into a fever pitch.

The statement that releasing a prisoner at Passover was out of the question. This is incorrect. I would like to know the source that Mr. Carlson got this misinformation from.

This portion was explained above. No one is removing blame from anyone. It does sometimes make one question the skeptic, when opinion's are being implied as fact. Again no documented information (secular or Christian) exist to discredit the Bible here.

c. Pilate gives in to the mob.

The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilate's previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilate's method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.

On the surface it seems that Pilate gave into the mob. For the time he did. What happened to Barabbas? Do you really think that Barabbas was released and not taken into custody again at a later date? Possibly. Barabbas is not mentioned again. Barabbas was most likely crucified the first day after Passover. As soon as Barabbas was released he could have been murdered by roman guards. So to prevent a riot, Pilate gave into the crowd. Pilate never thought in a million years that the crowd would actually choose Barabbas.

5. Who put the robe on Jesus?

a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.

b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

this is a non-event. Because Luke does not mention the crown of thorns, then you imply it is not true. For all we know a robe change took place. Maybe Jesus robe fell off. Maybe the robe was also placed on Jesus again. None of us was present at any of these events, so we all can have opinions and reach conclusions based on and limited to the information we have.

B. THE CRUCIFIXION

1. Crucified between two robbers

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The Romans crucified anyone they wished to crucify. Was Jesus Christ a insurrectionist or a rebellious slave? Did Pilate think Jesus Christ was even guilty? The Romans crucified 1000's of people at one time. They were lined up the roads leading in and out of Jerusalem. We cannot say that only a certain crime was punishable by crucifixion. As you said the Romans were ruthless in crackdowns. IT IS NOT HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE ROMANS DID NOT CRUCIFY ROBBERS. Mr. Carlson's statement "It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers" is absolutely false. This is not historical fact. Again, this seems to be speculation reached without any historical data to back up this assumption..

2. Peter and Mary near the cross

When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical fact - the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).

Could Mr. Carlson please tell us where he gets his information? He is obviously retrieving this information from a unreliable source. Surely by now we can tell misinformation when it comes across the page. Where does it mention anything about people not being near a crucifixion victim. Nowhere in the Bible nor in secular writings. I have found none. Again what is Mr. Carlson's source? Someone was near the cross. Mark 15:36 states - and someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave him a drink. . . Sounds like to me someone was at the cross. This is an opinion from Mr. Carlson with no historical data to back up his assertion. Another point should be made - It was John, not Peter.

3. The opened tombs

According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening - historians of that time certainly know nothing of it - neither do the other gospel writers.

Matthew is written to the Jew (generally) so we should look there first for some clue as to what is going on...

Once we start looking around for clues in the Jewish background, a strange situation develops-the passage creates the opposite problem for us! In other words, the passage will seem to be so tightly-woven into Matthew's portrayal of the Messiah that we might have to ask why Mark and Luke didn't mention it!

Let's first make some notes about the passage...

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

A few quick notes about what we DO know:

1.Jesus dies with a loud cry. 2.The veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 3.There was an earthquake of some sort (common for that area). 4.The rocks split (a more severe earthquake) 5.Bodies of many (but not all) Jewish saints came back to life (of some type-natural or supernatural) 6.They come out of the tombs in which they had been buried. 7.They went into the "holy city" (undoubtedly Jerusalem) 8.They became visible to many people (but not all). 9.The events above concerning the raising/appearing of the saints occurred AFTER the resurrection (most probable punctuation/division of the verse-see standard commentaries).

And a few notes about what we DO NOT know:

1.How many were raised. 2.Whether they were in natural-but-mortal bodies (e.g. Lazarus), natural-but-immortal bodies (e.g. post-resurrection, pre-ascension Jesus), or supernatural/glorified bodies (e.g. post-ascension Jesus in Revelation). 3.How long they remained on earth (till Jesus ascended? Until they died?). 4.Whether they only appeared to believing Jews (cf. Acts 10.40-41) or anyone. 5.Why ALL the saints were not raised?

(Matthew is not particularly interested in satisfying our curiosity-instead, as we shall see, he is trying to confront us with the awesomeness of Christ's work!)

So, let's look at this passage from a few different data-points:

1.First of all, in a major section of Jewish thought of the day (i.e. the rabbinical strains that later became Mishnaic Judaism) the bodily resurrection of OT Jewish saints would occur when messiah came. They literally expected a bodily resurrection (like that in the passage under discussion) to occur at the revealing of the messiah...

Indeed, one rabbi was recorded as saying this:

"R. Jeremiah commanded, 'When you bury me, put shoes on my feet, and give me a staff in my hand, and lay me on one side; that when Messias comes I may be ready." (cited in Lightfoot, _Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in.loc.)

Much of such rabbinical lore had an element of truth in it; and this was no exception...the Messiah DID produce SOME resurrections of SOME the saints--but only as a first-fruits of His work...

So, in keeping with Matthew's Jewish-oriented message, it makes sense for him to record this action of the Messiah.

2.This event actually DOES mesh 'organically' with the general topics in NT teachings: Jesus teaching about resurrection to Mary in John; the Christ as first fruits in Paul; and Christ leading 'captivity captive' (OT saints in Sheol released at the TRUE atonement)...

3.These types of resurrection people (probably in normal form, like Lazarus was raised) form the basis for one argument of the first apologists of the faith, Quadratus. He was an very early 2nd century apologist (writing sometime during the reign of Hadrian, 117-138ad), and we have only one fragment of his (cited from GASC:36):

"But our Savior's works were permanent, for they were real. Those who had been cured or rose from the dead not only appeared to be cured or raised but were permanent, not only during our Savior's stay on earth, but also after his departure. They remained for a considerable period, so that some of them even reached our times."

Now it would be highly unusual for someone raised in 33 ad to live naturally another 90-100 years (to the times of Quadratus' writings) but this is not necessarily the scope of his reference to 'our times'...this latter phrase could often mean plus-or-minus 50-75 years, allowing SOME of these saints to die naturally again (as would have the resurrected Lazarus, the widow's son, etc.) after a few decades.

The point is that resurrections are not isolated phenomena--they were a bit more widespread than the few individual cases mentioned in the gospels would lead us to believe...Eutychus by Paul, the group at the Crucifixion--indeed, even Ireneaus--a half century later--could write of resurrections in Christian Churches (A.H. 2.32.4)...

Indeed, stories and legends of these risen saints circulated and were embellished over time. They show up in several of the NT apocryphal works (e.g. The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 7.1-2, Gospel of Nicodemus 17ff). For example, in this later work (Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate), there is the story of Simeon and his sons (living in Arimathea), who were raised at that time, whose tombs were still open (for inspection!), and who wrote sworn testimony to their resurrection. While many of these stories are no doubt fanciful embellishments of the passage in Matthew (apocryphal writings generally "filled in the gaps" left by the biblical writers), there may be some historical core behind such related stories as this one about Simeon.

4.Paul's argument in Col 2.15:" And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." MIGHT find a reference to this 'public' display of the resurrection power of Jesus.

5.Its tight coupling in the narrative with the torn veil, suggests that it too is part of the dramatic display of God's 'change of program' for His people...no longer is access to God 'covered with a veil' and no longer are His saints covered with 'the veil of death'...

6.It is this last point that tips us off to what Matthew is likely demonstrating/pointing out in this passage: that the rising/appearing of the saints is INTIMATELY CONNECTED with both the literary texture of the passage AND with the ministry of the Jewish Messiah...

•The connection with the preceding image (i.e. the earthquake and rocks) shows up in the Jewish connection between the two in the thought of the day. So Raymond Brown, in his 1,600 page magisterial work on the Death of the Messiah, gives us the archeological background in DM:1123-1124:

The connection of the tomb openings with the preceding rending of the rocks is splendidly visible in the Dura Europos synagogue wall-paintings that portray the raising of the dead as part of the enlivening of the dry bones in Ezek 37--a 3d-cent. AD tableau that is very helpful in understanding how Matt and/or his readers might imagine the scene he is narrating. There in the splitting of a mountain covered by trees (almost surely the Mount of Olives rent by an earthquake), rocks are rent, thus opening up tombs burrowed into the sides of the mountain and exposing bodies of the dead and their parts. A figure is depicted who may be the Davidic Messiah (see Ezek 37:24-25) bringing about this raising of the dead. Earlier and contemporary with the writing of Matt there is testimony to the importance that Ezek 37 had for the just who died for their convictions about God. At Masada, where Jewish Zealots made their last stand against the Roman armies in AD 73, in the floor of the synagogue were found fragments of a scroll on which was written Ezekiel's account of his vision of the raising of the dead bones. Consequently, even apart from the Dura Europos picturization, Ezek 37:12-13 may be the key passage behind Matt's description both in this line and in what follows, for it offers the only opening of tombs (as distinct from the simple raising of the dead) described in the OT. The people of God are assured that they will come to know the Lord because: "I will open your tombs [mnema], and I will bring you up out of your tombs, and I will lead you into the land of Israel."

•Its connection with the messianic ministry of Jesus (of primary concern to Matthew) is also seen:

The coming of the kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus was understood not as the final manifestation of the kingdom (i.e., the culmination when the Son of Man would gather before him all the nations, assigning those who are to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, as in 25:31-34) but as an inbreaking inaugurating and anticipating it. Similarly, this raising of "many bodies" as Jesus dies is not the universal final resurrection but an inbreaking of God's power signifying that the last times have begun and the judgment has been inaugurated. [DM:1126]

•And finally, its connection with the presentation motif of Matthew (i.e. relating the events surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus to its OT background) is seen through the explicit Ezekiel imagery:

Matt's second motive in adding v. 53 was the fulfillment of Scripture. Above I pointed out how much Ezek 37 with its creative description of the enlivening of the dry bones influenced Jewish imagination in picturing the resurrection of the dead. The first part of Ezek 37:12-13, "I will open your tombs," probably shaped the third line of the quatrain of Matt 27:51b-52b, "And the tombs were opened." But the Ezek passage continues: "And I will bring you up out of your tombs, and I will lead you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord." Even as elsewhere Matt enhances the scriptural background and flavoring of material taken from Mark, so here scripturally he goes beyond the quatrain by offering in 27:53 the fulfillment of the rest of the Ezek passage: "And having come out from the tombs, . . . they entered into the holy city [of Jerusalem]." Another biblical passage may have shaped Matt's addition, especially the last clause "and they were made visible to many," i.e., Isa 26:19 (LXX): "Those in the tombs shall be raised, and those in the land [or on the earth] shall rejoice." Thus in what he has added to Mark (both the quatrain taken over from popular tradition and his own commentary on it), Matt has developed the theological insight. In apocalyptic language and imagery borrowed from Scripture he teaches that the death of Jesus and his resurrection ("raising") marked the beginning of the last times and of God's judgment...[DM:1140]

Thus the passage finds connection with (1) the Jewish milieu, (2) the messianic mission of Jesus, and (3) the OT prophetic writings about the Messiah. Far from being simply 'stuck on', it is very much a part of the Jewish context in which Jesus ministered and in which Matthew wrote.

Overall the passage makes the theological connections clear for the reader. Brown summarizes this well, noting that this small passage...

...offered a dramatic way in which ordinary people familiar with OT thought could understand that the death of Jesus on the cross had introduced the day of the Lord with all its aspects, negative (divine wrath, judgment) and positive (conquest of death, resurrection to eternal life).' [DM:1137]

[Also, from this analysis, it should be quite clear as to why it did not show up in Luke-writing to the Gentiles, and in Mark-an abbreviated version of Peter's core preaching (written down by a Hellenistic Jew). It would not have been relevant to their literary purposes.]

In this small section, we see also a microcosm of the future: judgment will come (and we will be held accountable-each of us) and yet God has graciously made a 'way of escape,' created by the awesome death of the Messiah Jesus (for you, for me, and for your friend...)

C. THE RESURRECTION

1. Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

2. Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

We cannot believe that the resurrection occurred unless the following is truly believed to be true. This is where faith comes in. You must have faith that the Bible is true. Without this; you are lost. I am not implying that there are no "hard sayings" or "difficult things" in the Bible. However, you must investigate these things. Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A person is showing his misunderstanding by claiming that Jesus Christ did not claim this fact. He came to this earth for the purposes he said he came for. He said what he said. Everything he said was true. Jesus Christ was crucified, placed in a tomb, and risen on the third day. There is ample proof of these events (see below)

I cannot make you believe the resurrection happened. I can give you the facts. I can give this information in secular terms and physical evidence only. I can attempt to convey the spiritual terms in very limited success. However every facet on the spiritual ramifications of the resurrection, could not be contained on the internet; as the internet could not hold all of this information. Only God can reveal this to you. Yet you must be willing. Those that do believe know exactly what I am talking about. All the rest do not get it. Hopefully one day very soon you will. This is not going away. You can sweep it under the rug in your mind. You can dismiss it as myth. You can deny it all. Yet without investigating this, you one day (I believe) will know it is true and then it is too late.

Another source that should be considered are the following books that deal with this subject.

The Case For Christ The Case for Christianity

by:Lee Strobel by: C.S.Lewis

When Critics Ask Hard Sayings Of The Bible

By: Geisler/Howe By: Several Authors

83. Did the women visit the tomb "toward the dawn" (Matthew 28:1), or "When the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding.

Matthew 28:1: 'At dawn...went to look at the tomb'.
Mark 16:2 'Very early...just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb'.
Luke 24:1: 'Very early in the morning...went to the tomb'.
John 20:1: 'Early...while it was still dark...went to the tomb'.

Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully: The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark's statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.

84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb in order to put further spices on Jesus' body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the gospel authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!

85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone "rolled back" (Mark 16:4), "rolled away" (Luke 24:2), "taken away" (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:1-6)?

(Category: misread the text)

Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying, 'There was a violent earthquake', the Greek of which carries the sense of, 'now there had been a violent earthquake'. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Jesus' body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.

86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus' body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told.

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod's residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.

With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Jesus was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.

We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Jesus had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.

87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:11-17)? And how did she react?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Jesus himself.

As all this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women, it appears that there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away 'afraid yet filled with joy...to tell his disciples'. It appears that their fear initially got the better of them, for they 'said nothing to anyone' (Mark 16:8). It was at this time that Jesus suddenly met them (Matthew 28:9,10). Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.

There are several apparent problems in the harmonization of the resurrection accounts, a few of which have been touched on here. It has not been appropriate to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering specific points. A complete harmonization has been commendably attempted by John Wenham in 'Easter Enigma' (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press). Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected from four authors writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What was Jesus' instruction for his disciples?' Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate this apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Jesus would give his disciples only one instruction.

This is another contradiction which depends upon the reader of Shabbir's book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding that Sunday morning resurrection. (I say Sunday because it is the first day of the week) The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Jesus on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb!? And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.

The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Jesus and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples

What is as clear today as it has been for almost two thousand years, is that NO BODY HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED! Only some empty clothes. There has never been any dispute by the Jews, or the Romans or the Christians over the fact that the tomb was empty. Everyone is agreed on this point. The alternative would have been too difficult to prove. What is so amazing about this simple fact are the implications behind the empty tomb. In order to understand these implications, it might be good to remind ourselves of the scenario surrounding the tomb. Consider the following:

According to archaeological evidence a two-ton STONE would have been used as a doorway for the tomb. This would have been wedged into a slanted groove above and to the left of the entrance to the tomb. Once the body had been placed inside the tomb, the wedge would have been removed and the stone would have been rolled over the doorway to block any potential grave robbers. Yet this enormous stone was found laying up and away from the entrance of the tomb (see Mark 16, and John 20). It has been suggested that it would have taken almost twenty men to have accomplished such a feat.
A Roman SEAL (made up of a rope slung across the surface of the stone, and attached to the sides of the tomb wall) would have been fastened, to warn away robbers (Matthew 27:66). The punishment for defacing a Roman Seal was death, carried out by being crucified upside-down. This seal was missing when the empty tomb was discovered.
Sixteen GUARDS would have been stationed at the sepulchre (Matthew 27:66). Four immediately in front of the tomb, and the remaining twelve in groups of four fanning out in a semi-circle. These were not Jewish temple guards, but Roman legionnaires; the most disciplined fighting force of their era; the "creme-de-la-creme!" They would have all known that the penalty for sleeping on the job was execution, by being burned to death with their own clothes. The scriptures tell us that these guards, upon realizing that the tomb was empty, did not go back to their barracks, but went to the Jewish priests. Why? Because they knew they would not be believed by their own superiors, and would have been executed for sleeping on the job. They went to the temple priests to have them plead their case for them. And we know that the temple priests bribed the soldiers to tell the people that the disciples stole the body (refer to Matthew 28:11-15).
Recently in the town of Nazareth, a MARBLE SLAB was discovered, written in the name of Caesar (thus dating it to around the time of Jesus). On it was inscribed the penalty of death for anyone robbing or defacing a tomb. Yet, we know that prior to this time the crime for grave robbery only warranted a fine. It seems a stiffer penalty was suddenly imposed in the 1st century, due possibly to the embarrassment of Christ's empty tomb.

* So we have an empty tomb, in which lay some empty grave garments. We have a two-ton stone moved up and away from the entrance, and the seal broken. On top of that we have sixteen of the best soldiers in the world befuddled as to how the stone, the seal, and the body could have been moved while they were standing on guard just a few feet away. On these points not too many people dispute.

There are however a few theories which are being bandied about by those trying to come up with excuses for the empty tomb. Some of them are quite comical. Let me just list them below:

The tomb was unknown to the disciples. Yet, Joseph of Arimathea must have known; as it was his tomb. The authorities and others must have known.
The women found the wrong tomb. If that were so, then did the whole world also find the wrong tomb? Because till this day no alternative has ever been produced.
The disciples and the women were only hallucinating. Why then did the Roman guards have to make such a fast retreat to the Jewish priests? Were they hallucinating too, at risk to their lives?
The body was stolen by the disciples. What then about the guards, and their witness? Can anyone imagine the timid disciples overpowering the Roman guards, moving the two-ton stone, and reviving a dead Jesus?
The Swoon theory is the favorite among some skeptics. Jesus, once in the cool cave, came to, with no wounds, and no garments. He then moved the two-ton stone, overpowered the guards and went about preaching a new religion!
The newest theory is called the Passover plot. Jesus, who knew he would be killed had himself drugged, and like the swoon theory, though wounded, came to, moved the stone, overpowered the guard, and changed the world?

Several specific reconstructions/sequencing of the post-resurrection events (or appearances of Christ)

I have assembled here several harmonization's or sequences of appearances of Christ. Some are extended entries (e.g. Archer), some are short lists (e.g. Ryrie, Willingham), some are merely statements of how specific difficulties are to be resolved (e.g. Blom), and still others are detailed summaries (e.g. Harris). Most of these harmonization's will differ in some details, indicating the reality that there are MULTIPLE WAYS to harmonize the accounts! The Christian need not be concerned over whether or not THERE IS a defensible and "plausible" answer; the tough question is "of the 10 plausible reconstructions, WHICH ONE is the best, in my opinion?"--a radically different situation.

1. Casteel:

Such is the case with these Gospel accounts. With further study, the apparent contradictions disappear. For example, all four accounts are in harmony with the following sequence of events: Very early a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened; without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord's body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John. The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples. Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping, and Jesus makes His first appearance to her. Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus appears to Peter; He appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas.

[Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, pp.212-213]

2. Gleason Archer

The Women's First Visit to the Tomb

On Saturday evening three of the women decided to go back to the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, where they had seen Christ's body laid away on Friday at sundown. They wanted to rewrap His corpse with additional spices, beyond those which Nicodemus and Joseph had already used on Friday. There were three women involved (Mark 16:1): Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife (or mother) of James, and Salome (Luke does not give their names; Matthew refers only to the two Mary's); and they had bought the additional spices with their own means (Mark 16:1). They apparently started their journey from the house in Jerusalem while it was still dark (skotias eti ouses), even though it was already early morning (proi) (John 20:1). But by the time they arrived, dawn was glimmering in the east (te epiphoskouse) that Sunday morning (eis mian sabbaton) (Matt. 28:1). (Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1 all use the dative: te mia ton sabbaton.) Mark 16:2 addst hat the tip of the sun had actually appeared above the horizon (anateilantos tou heliou--aorist participle; the Beza codex uses the present participle, anatellontos, implying "while the sun was rising").

It may have been while they were on their way to the tomb outside the city wall that the earthquake took place, by means of which the angel of the Lord rolled away the great circular stone that had sealed the entrance of the tomb. So blinding was his glorious appearance that the guards specially assigned to the tomb were completely terrified and swooned away, losing all consciousness (Matt. 28:24). The earthquake could hardly have been very extensive; the women seemed to be unaware of its occurrence, whether it happened before they left Jerusalem or while they were walking toward their destination. There is no evidence that it damaged anything in the city itself. But it was sufficient to break the seal placed over the circular stone at the time of interment and roll the stone itself away from its settled position in the downward slanting groove along which it rolled.

The three women were delightfully surprised to find their problem of access to the tomb solved; the stone had already been rolled away (Mark 16:34)! They then entered the tomb, sidestepping the unconscious soldiers. In the tomb they made out the form of the leading angel, appearing as a young man with blazing white garments (Mark 16:5), who, however, may not have shown himself to them until they first discovered that the corpse was gone (Luke 24:2-3). But then it became apparent that this angel had a companion, for there were two of them in the tomb. The leading angel spoke to them with words of encouragement, "Don't be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified" (Matt. 28:5). Nevertheless they were quite terrified at the splendor of these heavenly visitors and by the amazing disappearance of the body they had expected to find in the tomb.

The angel went on: "Why do you seek the living among [lit., 'with'--meta with the genitive] those who are dead? He is not here, but He has risen [Luke 24:5-6], just as He said [Matt. 28:6]. Look at the place where they laid Him [Mark 16:6], the place where He was lying [Matt. 28:6]. Remember how He told you when He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man had to be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, crucified, and rise again on the third day" (Luke 24:6-7).

After the angel had said this, the women in fact did remember Christ's prediction (especially at Caesarea Philippi); and they were greatly encouraged. Then the angel concluded with this command: "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead!" Then he added: "Behold, He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Lo, I have told you" (Matt. 28:7). Upon receiving these' wonderful tidings, the three delighted messengers set out in haste to rejoin the group of sorrowing believers back in the city (possibly in the home of John Mark) and pass on to them the electrifying news. They did not pause to inform anyone else as they hurried back (Mark 16:8), partly because they were fearful and shaken by their encounter at the empty tomb. But in their eagerness to deliver their tidings, they actually ran back to the house (Matt. 28:8) and made their happy announcement to the disciples who were gathered there

Mary Magdalene took pains to seek out Peter and John first of all; and she breathlessly blurted out to them, "They have taken the Lord away from the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" (John 20:2). She apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord had risen again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all she could think of was that the body was not there, and she did not know what had become of it. Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out.

John 20:1 It was very early on the first day of the week and still dark, when Mary of Magdala came to the tomb. She saw that the stone had been moved away from the tomb

John 20:2 and came running to Simon Peter . . .

**************

Now, well before sunrise--it was still dark (which is a problem in itself, what is a Jew doing up before sunrise wandering around? By Jewish reckoning, it was still the Sabbath, and she should still be at home. This by itself indicates the writer is not even familiar with Jewish custom, let alone writing from any real knowledge of the events), Mary of Magdala goes to the tomb. Indeed, the way the first sentence reads, it's still dark when she GETS to the tomb, definitely un-Jewish, and she finds the tomb open.

______

This is a bit funny to me. The author says that it was still the Sabbath (at sunrise the next day) and then accuses the 'writer' of the passage of being unfamiliar with Jewish custom! Just about EVERYONE knows that the Jewish Sabbath ran from sundown to sundown (NOT sunrise to sunrise)--the Sabbath would have been over the previous evening. Had the Errancy post author been familiar with Jewish custom, he would not have made such a blatant error--and then, to top it off, he accuses the Gospel writer of being 'unfamiliar' with Jewish custom! I find this highly amusing, to say the least!

(Indeed, he even makes the accusation twice--the 'definitely un-Jewish' comment at the end.)

And, as for Mary 'wandering around' in the dark, this is no big thing at all. Ancient cities didn't go to sleep at sundown(!); they simply switched gears from work to private life. (Of course, there were always work tasks to be done after dark--from medical needs to extensive dinner catering to merchant book-keeping. The first-century Roman writer Martial has a line describing how the 'lamps see the wretches write'.)

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Marry of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices with which to go and anoint him.

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning on the first day of the week they went to the tomb, just as the sun was rising.

Mark 16:3 They had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?"
______

Now, the first verse of Mark raises some interesting questions of its own--where, at the crack of dawn, do you shop for anything in a society which still regulates its daily rhythms by the sun? Is there any information on daily life in the ancient world which makes this reasonable? Or is this an attempt to reconcile Mark with Luke, made by a later copyist? We can't go back and look, but it certainly seems suspicious.

Well, it shouldn't look suspicious, if one knows the historical and cultural background.

First of all, if the post-writer KNEW how the Jewish counted days (above)--from sundown to sundown-then he would NOT have said that she bought spices 'at the crack of dawn'...The Sabbath was over at sundown--long before the populace went to sleep.

Second, business was VERY brisk at the close of the Sabbath--even after sundown. (It is like our society today--after the stores are closed for some national holiday, there is a HUGE amount of business that occurs the FIRST HOUR the grocery store opens back up!). So Schanz (cited by A.B. Bruce, in. loc. in Expositors Greek Testament): "After sunset there was a lively trade done among the Jews, because no purchase could be made on Sabbath." [The same is true today in Israel.]

This trade would have been generally in the foodstuffs and private supplies (e.g. burial spices) rather that clothing and such, and would have been ESPECIALLY high at this particular point--after the Passover.

Jerusalem at this time had a population of roughly 25,000-35,000 people, but at the Passover this would swell by another 150,000(!)--bring the need for foods and private supplies to an exceptionally high pitch. Many of these visitors would have stayed over for the 'weekend' feasting and placed, therefore, huge demands upon the marketplace and distribution systems of the small city. [See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus, Fortress: 1969, pp. 77ff}

So, it really makes perfect sense and fits the known historical facts well...Nothing suspicious here but the poster...(grin)...

On to the second verse. Here's Mary of Magdala identified, AFTER sunrise, which at least recognizes Jewish beliefs of the era (and orthodox beliefs even in the present day) which at gives at least some confidence that this account at least came down from Jewish/Christian sources.

(Can you still hear me chuckling in the background at this?!!!)

But then there's verse 3. Now in John, Mary of Magdala went to the tomb while it was still dark, and already found it open. Here in Mark, she has been exchanging chatter with her companions ("They. . .to one another" certainly implies to this reader that all three women were exchanging conversation on the same subject), yet she has forgotten that she had just shortly before, on her nocturnal sojourn, found the tomb already open. Why didn't she tell her companions? Here, with the most important news ever for the human race, Mary of Magdala is being coy? Did she forget?

Or are the two gospels simply separated by time and distance and tradition that the story--as stories do--has changed?

See the problem the lack of adequate historical background causes? If the poster had known that the Sabbath ended at sundown, he would NOT have invented this 'contradiction'. John says that Mary bought spices the evening before the trip. John AND Mark describe the early morning trip by Mary and friends to the tomb. (On the way there, they were worried about the Stone--no one had been there yet, remember). Went they got there, the stone had been removed. At that point Mary heads back to where Peter and the disciples were.

Nothing odd here. No contradictions. Actually, nothing even to explain, once you get the time-keeping terminology down.

Which is the most parsimonious explanation? That the stories imply contrary factual situations because they were written hundreds of miles apart after diversification through different cultures, or that they are somehow telling different parts of a really odd story?

What's the explanation that's better than the simple parsimonious one I've offered?

The simplest explanation in this case is (1) NO explanation (none is needed--there is simply NO problem here to explain) and (2) the historically correct one (that understands the historical setting of time-keeping, after-dark limited commerce, and the social conditions surrounding the Passover).

Thanks again for sending this person's post to me...I can use this as an example in my "Common errors skeptics make in apologetics" section...this person is to be commended for trying to use the little data (although erroneous) they had (so few people 'engage' the discussions at all!), but this does not change the fact that the conclusions are wrong because the starting data was wrong...

One feature of the Resurrection narratives that indicates they were not late inventions of the Church is the striking fact that the first appearances of the risen Christ were not to the apostles but instead to women. As C. F. D. Moule comments:

Further, it is difficult to explain how a story that grew up late and took shape merely in accord with the supposed demands of apologetic came to be framed in terms almost exclusively of women witnesses, who, as such, were notoriously invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence [C. F. D. Moule, editor, The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ 1968, p. 9].

If one rejects the traditional interpretation of the empty tomb as resulting from the Resurrection of Christ, one is obliged to supply a better alternative. Such theories have been often discussed-e.g., Frank Morrison, Who Moved the Stone? (1930, reprinted 1963); Daniel P. Fuller, Easter Faith and History (1965). We may briefly summarize these proposals and the objections to them.

Kirsopp Lake in The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1907) emended Mark 16:6 so that it read: "He is not here, behold (pointing to the right tomb) the place where they laid him." His ingenious theory that the women saw an empty tomb but the wrong one hardly explains their amazement and fear. Nor it is plausible in view of the fact that Jesus was buried in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, and that the women noted where he was buried (Mark 15:47). J. Jeremias has demonstrated that about fifty tombs were venerated by the Jews before the time of Jesus. In the view of such interest in the tombs of holy men, J. Delorme asks:

In these circumstances, is it possible that the original community of Jerusalem could have been completely uninterested in the tomb where Jesus was laid after his death? . . . Can the existence of this tradition at Jerusalem, centered around a specific place, in a relatively short lapse of time after the events, be explained as a pure legendary creation? Could one show an ordinary tomb as being the tomb of Jesus? Can one question without foundation known persons, the women designated by name and Joseph of Arimathea? ["The Resurrection and Jesus' Tomb: Mark 16, 1-8 in the Gospel Tradition," in P. de Surgy, op. cit., pp. 88, 101].

If the tomb where Jesus was laid was indeed empty, could his body have been stolen away by someone? To assume that the body was stolen one must first of all disregard the story of the guard posted at the sepulchre (Matt. 28:65, 66) . We need then to ask, Who would have stolen the body and why? The Romans had no reason to do so; they had surrendered the body to Joseph of Arimathea. It is illogical to suppose that the Jews stole the body, since they could easily have suppressed the nascent Christian movement and exposed the Christians' claim of Christ's Resurrection by simply producing his body.

Hermann Reimarus, whose works were published posthumously by Gotthold Lessing in the eighteenth century, did suggest that it was the Christians who removed the body and hid it somewhere. But this is psychologically incredible since the disciples would not only be perpetrating a fraud but also be dying for a deliberate deception. The neatly deposited grave clothes and napkin observed by Peter and John (John 20:7) are evidence against tomb robbery by ordinary thieves, as they would not have taken the time to tidy up the sepulchre.

G. The Impact of the Resurrection
Not even the most skeptical can deny the historical attestation of the faith of the early Christians in the Resurrection of Christ. This simple fact is of importance if we accept as genuine the numerous predictions of Jesus concerning his death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 22,23; 20:18, 19; 26:2; etc.). Charlatans such as Theudas (Josephus, Antiquities XX. 5.1), who claimed to have the power to divide the Jordan River, or the Gnostic Menander, who claimed his disciples would remain ageless, were quickly exposed by the failure of their claims. The Qumran community, which has some features in common with the Christian community, did not survive the destruction of its monastery by the Romans in A.D. 68 because the people had no comparable faith to sustain them.

Something earth-shaking must have transformed the despairing disciples. A. M. Ramsey (The Resurrection of Christ, 1946) reminds us: "It must not be forgotten that the teaching and ministry of Jesus did not provide the disciples with a Gospel, and led them from puzzle to paradox until the Resurrection gave them a key" (p. 40).

It should be obvious that the early Christians were completely convinced of the Resurrection. If this were not so, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain. By preaching the Resurrection of Christ they further antagonized the Jewish authorities and in effect accused them of slaying the Messiah (Acts 2:23,24, 36; 3:14, 15, 4:10; etc.). As H. C. Cadbury notes:

The effect of the belief in Jesus' resurrection on the early Christian belief in the wider resurrection experience can hardly be overestimated. It was the kind of assurance, contemporary and concrete, that the most ardent though speculative convictions of Pharisees or other non-Christian Jews could not have equaled ["Intimations of Immortality in the Thought of Jesus," in T. T. Ramsey et al., The Miracles and the Resurrection, 1964, p. 84].

Professor Lillie concludes:

The followers of a religious group do not preserve traditions of their leaders forsaking their master and behaving in a cowardly and despairing fashion unless these traditions happen to be true. The fact that the Gospel was boldly and successfully preached by these same followers is attested not only by the New Testament record, but by the historical fact of the growth of the Christian Church. It is indeed one of the few New Testament facts for which we have independent evidence outside the Christians' own traditions. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annals XV. 44) states that "a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment (by the crucifixion of Jesus) again broke out" [in D. E. Nineham et al., op. cit.].

I would argue that only the appearance of the risen Christ can satisfactorily explain how Jesus' skeptical brother James (John 7:5) became a leader in the early Church (I Cor. 15:7; Acts 15), how despondent Peter became a fearless preacher at Pentecost, and how a fanatical persecutor of Christians became Paul, the greatest missionary of the Gospel.

A Concluding Challenge

I have tried to show that theories attributing the Resurrection of Christ to the borrowing of mythological themes, to hallucinations, or to alternative explanations of the empty tomb are improbable and are also inadequate to explain the genesis and growth of Christianity. To be sure, the Resurrection of Jesus is unprecedented, but Jesus himself is sui generis, unique. As Tenney remarks, "Although the resurrection was without precedent. it was not abnormal for Christ.... He rose from the dead because it was the logical and normal prerogative of the Son of God" (op. Cit., p. 133).

The historical question of the Resurrection of Christ differs from other historical problems in that it poses a challenge to every individual. Christ said (John 11:25): "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." For the Resurrection of Christ to be more than a beautiful Easter story, each person needs to believe in his heart that God has raised Christ from the dead and to confess with his mouth Jesus as Lord.

A few years ago there was a popular song out called, "What A Difference A Day Makes_24 Little Hours." I was a disc jockey then, and I remember playing that record a lot. Like all popular songs, however, it quickly passed into my memory bank. Now I hear it only in my mind, and then only in times of national crisis. I hear it after the assassinations of political, social and religious leaders whose only "crime" was a desire to change society for the good. But lurking in the background was an assassin who did not care for their philosophy, their hopes and dreams.

These assassinated leaders wanted to bring peace where there was war, justice where there was injustice, prosperity where there was poverty, hope where there was despair, life where there was death. What a difference a day made to the hopes and dreams of the followers of the Abraham Lincolns and the Mahatma Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the Anwar Sadats, and, most recently, the John Lennons. As these men sought to teach and share their hopes, assassins' bullets claimed their short lives. All died, we would say, untimely deaths, their work unfinished. Their followers wept during the funeral processions, mourning with a sense of hopelessness and aimlessness as their heroes were laid in their tombs. There they yet lie, taken from the scene of human history, except in the memory of their faithful followers. What a difference a day made to them, 24 little hours, and they were plunged into despair and hopelessness.

At this time of year I cannot help but contrast the life and death of those political, social and religious leaders with the life and death of Jesus Christ. During his short life of only 33 years he came upon the world scene when he was 30, the one of whom John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"--the hearts of the Jewish people were filled with the hope that he was the Messiah. Here was the one who would bring love, joy and peace, and finally, the kingdom of righteousness, where peace would prevail forever.

But Jesus' life was cut short. Some religious leaders in Israel l decided they did not like his message of righteousness. They did not like the way he was drawing the crowds. They did not like his attack upon their self- righteousness. Indirectly, they planned to assassinate him, using the Roman government and courts. The first charge they brought against him was blasphemy, a religious charge, because he said he was the Son of God. The second charge was treason, for, in response to Pilate's question, "Are you the king they say you are?" he replied, "You said it." He had convicted himself.

He was brought to trial on a Thursday night. He was mocked, beaten and spat upon. By 12 o'clock noon on Friday they had him nailed to a cross. In three hours he was dead. His brokenhearted followers took down from the cross this man they had loved and followed. They had stood in wonder at his actions among them, the love he shared, the message he brought. They took their dead leader and laid him in a borrowed tomb. Then they went away, each to his own home, brokenhearted. What a difference a day had made in their lives.

The next day was the Sabbath. In the synagogue, his disciples must have prayed, their hearts overcome with grief, their hopes and dreams shattered. Some women who were his followers had collected perfume to anoint the body of Jesus when the Sabbath had ended; perfume to keep away the smell of death. What a difference a day makes.

The following day was Sunday. What a difference this day would make in the lives of the apostles, in the lives of the women who went to the tomb, and in the lives of all who would later follow the disciples. What a difference this one day would make in our lives today.

In chapter 24 of Luke's gospel there is described one day, a Sunday of 24 hours. Here we get a picture of the emotions and actions of the followers of Jesus Christ over a period of twelve hours. We have illustrated for us a sense of their enlightenment, a slow dawning of the reality they are going to face. It is a fascinating story that has much to teach us.

"Why do you seek the living among the dead?"

1. Early Dawn (Luke 24:1 - 12)

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel; and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. (But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at that which had happened.)

It is early dawn. The women have gotten up early to go to the tomb--Mary Magdalene, the woman who had seven demons cast out of her, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James. These women had followed Jesus, helping out of their substance to promote his ministry. When they arrived at the tomb, however, they found it empty. The stone had been rolled away, and they saw only the grave clothes. As they surveyed the tomb, perplexed, they saw two angels dressed in dazzling white. The angels said, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here for he has risen. Remember how he spoke to you while he was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise again?" The angels were actually rebuking the women. They were saying, "He told you many times that he must be crucified but on the third day he would rise again from the dead. What are you doing here? It's the third day. Did you expect to find the living in a graveyard?"

The women ran back to the disciples and shared excitedly with them this great news: "He has risen from the dead. He is risen like he said he would." The men, logical beings that they were, said, "Nonsense. Wives' tales. Foolishness. Silly women." But Peter (and other passages say John also) ran to the tomb to check out the women's story. They were probably thinking, "It's not very logical, but they are our sisters. We ought to placate them." The men looked into the tomb and saw only the linen wrappings Iying there. Peter went to his home, marveling over what had taken place. He did not understand. He had some problems with it, despite the testimony of the women and the testimony of the empty tomb. What a difference a day is making.

The scene now shifts to early afternoon.

What do you do when your leader dies?

2. Early Afternoon (24:13-24)

And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. And they were conversing with each other about all these things which had taken place. And it came about that while they were conversing and discussing, Jesus Himself approached, and began traveling with them. But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. And He said to them, "What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?" And they stood still, looking sad. And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?"

Two of the disciples are having a problem with believing the story. In this they are like the followers of any other assassinated leader. What do you do when your leader dies? These two decided to take a walk to Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem. As they are walking, they are discussing the events that had occurred. Perhaps they are saying, "If Jesus had only run from the garden, what a different day that would have been. If Jesus had not said to Pilate, 'You said it.' But, of course, we ran too. We all left him. We couldn't even help him when we wanted to. If, if . . ."

While they are iffing, the Lord appeared to them, but he prevented them from seeing who he was. I believe he did that so he could teach them who they were, so they could see how much they needed him and how much he could teach them.

That is the point of teaching which Jesus will take up with them in a few minutes.

How often do we get caught up in the grief of life, not understanding what God is doing. We hear the truth, but the eyes of our heart are not enlightened. We don't understand so we settle for the physical or the historical interpretation of what is going on in our lives, never seeing beyond that to the spiritual realm.

Jesus will now quietly begin to work on these two disciples to get them to see who he is. "What has been happening in Jerusalem," he asks them. They say, "Are you serious? You don't know what's going on? It's hard to believe that. Well, to begin, there are three things we would like to share with you. First, stranger, we want to tell you about the prophet who was." Verses 19-20:

And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of death, and crucified Him.

"First, we'd like to tell you about Jesus. There were many Jesuses, but the one we want to talk about is the one who lived in Nazareth, up north. Second, he was a prophet who was, past tense. He was a mighty man of God who made the Scripture shine forth so that we understood who God was, who we were, and what God wanted of us. It was always an exciting adventure to be with him. But, unfortunately, he is the prophet who was."

They continued, "Once we even thought he might be the prophet Moses talks about in Deuteronomy. He was mighty in deeds. My, the good works he did among us! He was the one of whom John the Baptist, through his disciples, asked, 'Are you the one we should look for or is there someone else?' Jesus replied to that question, 'Go tell John that the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.' And this prophet was mighty in speech too. Why, he talked like one who had authority, not like the scribes who are always quoting somebody else. And he was mighty in the sight of God. Twice we heard the Father say from heaven, 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.' The people loved him, but the supreme court delivered him up to the sentence of death. They crucified a good man, a prophet. Our dreams have been shattered."

The disciples viewed the cross as a failure: "He almost made it, but he failed. He got caught on two stupid charges and they nailed him to a cross."

Writing about the crucifixion, Ralph Earle says:

True, it was the world's blackest hour, but also the world's brightest hour. It was the blackest hour because human hatred came to its fiercest focus. It was the brightest hour because divine love came to its fullest flower. At Calvary, hate was seen in all of its heinous horror, but there also love revealed the heart of God. Calvary stands at the crossroads of human history. At the cross, all the sins of the ages were placed on the heart of the sinless Son of God, as he became the representative of all humanity. From the cross salvation flows to every believing soul. This is the gospel, the greatest good news the world had ever heard.

And these disciples missed it.

Next, the two disciples shared with Jesus their broken dreams. Verse 21:

But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.

"We thought that this man whom we followed for three years would redeem us from the yoke of Rome, like God redeemed Israel from Egypt, from the Canaanites, from the Philistines and the Babylonians. We were hoping he would bring in his kingdom and we would live like were designed to live, to be the salt and light, the true vine of the whole world. But our hopes were shattered three days ago. If he was the prophet, the Messiah, if he was the Son of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and if he was going to rise again from the dead, where is he? It's already been three days." Now let us tell you about the empty tomb," they said.

Verses 22-24:

"But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had
also seen a vision of angels, who said that He was alive. And some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also . .
had said; but Him they did not see."

They said, "We left Jerusalem because we didn't know what to make of these events. We've been so very sad about it ever since. Our dear friend Jesus is no longer among the living. "

The disciples could not see beyond the physical circumstances; they could not see the reality of what God was trying to teach them for three years, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Jesus had told them over and over again that he had come to suffer and die and then rise again. They could not see that the cross cancelled the sin, the guilt and the shame of humanity forever. But thanks be to God for the empty tomb! Our hearts should be filled with praise and thanksgiving because of it, for without the resurrection the crucifixion would have been in vain. It is the resurrection that validates the atoning death of Jesus. It is the resurrection that proves that Jesus' death for our sins has been accepted by God the Father. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Without it there would be no forgiveness of our sins and no salvation; there would be no hope now, no hope later, no life now, no life later, a life which he had promised would be filled with joy, peace and righteousness. The great joy of Easter is that Jesus rose from the dead.

I was raised in a faith that believed in mourning over death. I remember several years ago when my mother died. I arrived in Pennsylvania from Texas for the funeral on an Alfred Hitchcock-type day, a day of wind and hail and thunder and lightning, a day when the skies were black with crows crying out in the rain. My relatives, who were dressed in black, met me and we drove to the funeral home in a black--car cortege amidst the thunder and the lightning, the rain and the crows. At the funeral home the people dressed in black sat by my mother's open casket. But over to one side was a group wearing bright-colored clothes, talking animatedly, touching one another and even laughing quietly now and then. My little Italian Aunt Mary said, "Ronnie, what is going on over there? Don't they have any respect for the dead? Is there no dignity left? Are they making mockery of your mother?" "No, Aunt Mary," I said. "They are not making mockery of my mother. My mother is not here, she is risen to be with her resurrected Lord. Those people are rejoicing over the resurrection of my mother."

For Christians, death is not a time of mourning, but of joy. We mourn for our dear ones who have died because we loved them, and now we miss them. But I am convinced from the Scriptures that if we were to ask them, "Do you want to come back and be with us again?" they would say, "Are you serious? I like you, but...leave the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, leave my new body, leave where I no longer weep, where I no longer get sick, where I can eat and eat and eat and never have to go on a diet? Come back? No." My Aunt Mary spent the rest of her life mourning. What a waste.

The resurrected Lord listened to his disciples, trapped in their blindness, their grief, their perplexity and their incredible unbelief. Then he moved them from the physical events to a higher spiritual plane, a plane of reality, and exposed them again to the truth written by the prophets concerning his suffering and glory. What a difference this day is making.

The Disciples Skipped the Suffering And Went Right To The Glory

We are now moving into late afternoon on this Sunday.

3. Late Afternoon (24:25-27)

And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Jesus is saying, "You don't understand. Your hearts were not open to believe me when I told you who I was. I am the Son of God, but you missed out when you didn't see that the Messiah must first suffer and then enter his glory. You skipped over the suffering and went right to the glory. For the remainder of our walk together I am going to take the Scriptures and explain to you my place in all of them so that you will understand."

"Do you remember where Exodus talks about the Passover Lamb? I am that Passover Lamb. Do you remember where Leviticus talks about the Atoning Sacrifice? I am that Sacrifice. I am the Smitten Rock in Numbers; I am the Prophet to Come in Deuteronomy; I am the Sheep that is led to slaughter in Isaiah; I am the Savior in Obadiah; I am the Anointed One in Habakkuk; I am the Mighty One to save in Zephaniah; concerning the glory to come, I am the Branch of Righteousness in Jeremiah; I am the Plant of Renown in Ezekiel; I am the Stone that smote the image in Daniel; I am the Ideal Israel in Hosea; I am the Hope of the People in Joel; I am the Heavenly Husbandman in Amos; I am the Resurrection and the Life in Jonah; I am the Restorer in Micah; I am the Publisher of Peace in Nahum; I am the Desired One of all nations in Haggai; I am the Headstone of the House of God in Zechariah; I am the Son of Righteousness with healing in his wings in Malachi." What a lesson! He talked to them about how he was revealed in the Psalms, in Proverbs, Ruth, the Song of Solomon and all the other books.

"I'm here on every page," he said, "but first I had to suffer, and then enter my glory."

The truths he shared with the disciples are very important for us, because the Suffering Servant, then, is the Son of God, and the Son of God, then, is the Messiah, and the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth. What a difference this day is making.

It is early in the evening now.

4. Early Evening (24:28-32)

And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He would go farther. And they urged Him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over." And He went in to stay with them. And it came about that when He had reclined at table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?"

On reaching the village, the disciples asked Jesus to stay with them. As they were eating, he broke the bread and passed it to them. Then at last their eyes were opened, but just as they realized who he was, he disappeared. They thought about their walk with him and how their hearts burned within them on their journey as he shared the Scriptures with them. For the first time, through the teaching of Jesus, they understood what the Scriptures meant. They could not wait to share with the other disciples the good news that they had spent the whole afternoon with the resurrected Jesus Christ.

The Bible is the most published book of all time. I am sure you have a foot-high stack of Bibles in your homes. Bibles are freely available everywhere_in hotel rooms, in libraries and at bus stops. But to read the Bible is not to understand it. The Bible must be taught by the Spirit of God to hungry heart,. The Bible is not a magic book. It is the Word of God, but until we come to it in belief we will never understand it; it will be just one more history book. We need the Spirit of God to open our eyes and show us who the Christ is. Then our hearts will start to burn within us, and we will desire to learn more and more of this Lord and Savior.

Now it is evening. How the day has been moving along, and what a difference this day is making in their lives.

5. Evening (24:33-36)

And they arose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them, saying, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon." And they began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread. And while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst.

The disciples could not wait to get back and share the news with the others. This time they walked, not complaining, not wishing, not hoping, not in despair, sadness, hopelessness or aimlessness, but with their hearts burning within them. But they had to wait to share their experiences that evening, because by this time Peter was sharing what he had seen.

Finally, the two disciples said, "Can we tell you what happened to us? Well, we were going down the Emmaus road..." They started to share their story, excitedly interrupting each other and confirming the truth of their experiences. The women too, I'm sure, had a chance to speak up at last. Mary Magdalene would have said, "Yes, I touched him. I talked to him earlier this morning, but you wouldn't believe me." As their joyous talk fills the room, the resurrected Jesus stands in their midst.

What Had Begun As A Gloomy, Confusing Day Ended As The Greatest Day in Human History

What a difference that day made in the life of the disciples. Twelve hours went by before they finally came to realize that Jesus had risen. What had begun as a gloomy, confusing day ended as the greatest day in human history.

What a difference that day has made in the lives of all who have put their faith in Jesus since that first Easter. What a difference that day could make to so many of you here who think that Jesus was a prophet who was, that the Easter story is a great story which you ought to read to your children once a year. What a different life you would have if you would but go to the Lord, and, with your unbelief, tell him you do not understand but that you want your heart enlightened to see if what he says is true. Ask him to open the eyes of your heart and to burn upon your heart the truth of the Scriptures so that you too can see that he is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

What a difference that will make in your life. If you allow Jesus to be your Lord he will come into your life, he will forgive your sins, he will take care of your guilt, he will take away your shame and your fear, and he will give you his Spirit of life and power to live your life as God intended it to be lived. You will join with us in eternity when we listen to those two disciples tell us their story this time: "Yes, we were going down a road one day, and were we ever discouraged. Then Jesus appeared. . . What a difference that day made in our lives. . ."

Our Heavenly Father, thank you for the joy of Easter; thank you for those who love you and have by faith come to you as children, asking you to forgive their sins and set them free to be your children. "For as many as believe on you, you gave the right to become the children of God." Father, if there are people here this morning who do not know you as Lord, people who think Easter is just one more story, we pray that you will move in their hearts so that they might cry out to you, "Forgive us our unbelief. Let us see what these Christians can see, and give us the new life they are talking about." We pray that you will bring them to yourself so that they might enjoy life as it was intended to be lived. We ask in our resurrected Jesus' name, Amen.

V. THE ASCENSION

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

In Luke there is no writings stating that Jesus ascended the same day. This could be implied; provided this is what you want it to imply. However verse 50 does not say that this is the same day. Just because it does not say what day it was, does not mean it was the same day.

In Acts 1:9-12, this passage does not say that this event occurred on the Mount Olivet. You need to read verse 12 again. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet. Nowhere does it say with certainty that the ascension took place on the Mount Olivet. Yes, this could be implied. However lets think about this. Luke and Acts was written by Luke. The same Luke. Does anyone really think that if this man was trying to deceive us, or inventing a story, that he would contradict himself? That would be ridiculous.

It is obvious that Luke felt no need or worried that this was a discrepancy. The fact is Jesus ascended to the Father 40 days after his resurrection in Bethany.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

A. THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW

According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the Mosaic Law into the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would have abhorred the Jews of Jesus' time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts 10:9-16 were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul regarding the Law (which was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law) and to make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles.

This is a misunderstanding. Jesus was talking about the spiritual law. He was NOT including the physical law which was man made rituals and doctrine. Do a comparison of the spiritual law prior to Jesus Christ against the Spiritual law after Jesus Christ. Nothing changed. The physical law for example was not changed concerning sacrifices. A sacrifice is still required. Yet Jesus was the sacrifice for all. So the need for performing animal sacrifices was not needed. That would equal to you going and buying a car, paying the man for the car. You get in the car and as you leave the car lot; the man at the exit charges you again for the car. And you pay it? No need because you say I paid inside and here is my receipt. Jesus has already paid.

As for Mr. Carlson attempting to claim that these scriptures were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul is incorrect.. Mr. Carlson is stating his incorrect opinion's as facts. I really do not see where this conclusion can be proven from anything in the Bible.

To conclude; this is a misunderstanding. We all should investigate these contradictions using reliable sources. This is very important. Any source that is based on pure speculation should be taken with a grain of salt. However if a source is acknowledging the fact that it is a hypothetical analysis, this could be accepted, provided that it follows precept upon precept and verse upon verse. The Bible does not contain any contradictions. Sometimes there "seems" to be a contradiction when after investigating historical data which is accurate, these contractions are easily explained. Pray to God for understanding and it will be given to you.

B. NO SIGNS, ONE SIGN, OR MANY SIGNS?

At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

1. In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation."

2. In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

3. In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" (John 6:2).

I think you may have missed the point of this and the timing of the events. We have Jesus stating that no sign will be given that they the Pharisee's will see. Jesus was referring to a sign that everyone would see. his resurrection.

3 Days and 3 Nights? This is one of the easier ones...the Jews counted PART of a day or night as a WHOLE day or nite, so part of Friday, all of Sat, part of Sun would be 'three days and three nights'--it was a Hebrew idiom of the day...
We do the same thing of course...if I say I worked at the office all day, 'all day' normally doesn't mean 24 hours...it means most of the daylight hours or whatever...
This fits with the other predictions that says 'on the third day'...

C. SON OF DAVID?

Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages which have Jesus quoting Psalm 110:1 to argue that the Messiah does not need to be a son of David (Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44).

1. This contradicts many Old Testament passages that indicate that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. It also contradicts official church doctrine.

2. In Acts 2:30-36 Peter, in what is regarded as the first Christian sermon, quotes Psalm 110:1 in arguing that Jesus was the Messiah, a descendant of David.

Jesus was implying in Matthew 22:41-46 as in the other two scriptures cited; that the Pharisee's thought that the Messiah was a son of David and nothing else. The Pharisee's were blind to everything except the physical law. There is no contradiction.

D. THE FIG TREE

After Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem a sees a fig tree and wants some figs from it. He finds none on it so he curses the tree and it withers and dies (Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).

1. Since this occurred in the early spring before Passover, it is ridiculous of Jesus to expect figs to be on the tree.

2. Matthew and Mark cannot agree on when the tree withered.

a. In Matthew, the tree withers at once and the disciples comment on this fact (Matthew 21:19-20).

b. In Mark, the tree is not found to be withered until at least the next day (Mark 11:20-21).

1. As for Jesus expecting figs on the fig tree is incorrect. Once again with a little investigation one can find the truth to this dilemma . Mark expressly says "it was not the season for figs".

A fig tree primer: Towards the end of March the leaves appear on a fig tree. In a week or so the foilage is complete. Coincident with this and sometimes even before this, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a type of early forerunner. They grow to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to there own maturity they drop off. These precursors of the tree fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later. So, as Mark says, the time for figs has not yet come. But if the leaves appear without any taqsh, that is a sign that there will be no figs. Since Jesus found "Nothing but leaves"- leaves without any taqsh - he knew that "it was an absolutely hopeless, useless fig tree", and said so.

2. a & b This fig tree so called contradiction is so minor it is hardly worth the space to comment. However since someone could possibly refuse Christ for something so minor; we will continue to answer all supposed contradictions.

Matthew states: And at once the fig tree withered.

In Mark the fig tree had already withered when they passed it the next morning.

His discourse with his disciples, upon occasion of the fig-tree's withering away which he had cursed. At even, as usual, he went out of the city (v. 19), to Bethany; but it is probable that it was in the dark, so that they could not see the fig-tree; but the next morning, as they passed by, they observed the fig-tree dried up from the roots, v. 20. More is included many times in Christ's curses than is expressed, as appears by the effects of them. The curse was no more than that it should never bear fruit again, but the effect goes further, it is dried up from the roots. If it bear no fruit, it shall bear no leaves to cheat people. Now observe,

1. How the disciples were affected with it. Peter remembered Christ's words, and said, with surprise, Master, behold, the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered away, v. 21. Note, Christ's curses have wonderful effects, and make those to wither presently, that flourished like the green bay-tree. Those whom he curseth are cursed indeed. This represented the character and state of the Jewish church; which, from henceforward, was a tree dried up from the roots; no longer fit for food, but for fuel only.

Matthew Henry Commentary

As we see, it is implied that at once means while they were standing there. Again I must stress that neither I nor Mr. Carlson was present two thousand years ago. This is so minor that we should move on.

E. THE GREAT COMMISSION

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.

b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles.

The statement that it took the church over 200 years of fighting over the doctrine of the trinity is totally incorrect. One only needs to read a reliable book on early church history to see the sometimes twisted ideas that some people had about what the Bible actually meant. You are skimming over what Jesus Christ said about Baptism and the trinity.

1. Remember that Jesus Christ was the word. The word was God.

2. Mr. Carlson states that Jesus said this was for the Jews only. Yet he himself has typed the following scripture: go therefore and make disciples of all nations (emphasis added)

In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus Christ was talking about sending his disciples on the first missionary trip. Where do you get that for eternity it is for the Jews only? It was to be offered to the Jews FIRST. Because they were God's chosen people. Then the gentiles.

As for Matthew 15:24 the same applies. This woman was a "Gentile". Jesus Christ told her that he was sent for the lost sheep of Israel. Yet her daughter was healed at once. There is no contradiction at all. Read anywhere in the Bible; it was offered to the Jew First.

I would be interested to know how Mr. Carlson arrived at this conclusion. No editing was done when comparing the original documents from the earliest copies to the present day, with the exception of modernizing the grammar. A good example of editing to fit one's doctrine is the Jehovah's Witness Bible and the Jesus seminar's reworking of the Gospel.

F. ENOCH IN THE BOOK OF JUDE

Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of "Enoch" from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God. The Book of Enoch was used in the early church until at least the third century - Clement, Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with it. However, as church doctrine began to solidify, the Book of Enoch became an embarrassment to the church and in a short period of time it became the Lost Book of Enoch. A complete manuscript of the Book of Enoch was discovered in Ethiopia in 1768. Since then, portions of at least eight separate copies have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is easy to see why the church had to get rid of Enoch - not only does it contain fantastic imagery (some of which was borrowed by the Book of Revelation), but it also contradicts church doctrine on several points (and, since it is obviously the work of several writers, it also contradicts itself).

The book of Enoch is not nor has it ever been part of the Bible. This section of Jude is showing the warnings of history to the ungodly. Mr. Carlson is incorrect here. The book of Enoch was not used in the early church. It is not impossible that some factions read it. It was not part of the Bible. If you read James very closely, he seems to me to be saying Enoch the man prophesized these things. Not the book we see now. It is possible that this was stated because of later additions were already creeping into the book of Enoch.

G. THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as "did not understand the voice..." However, the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is the same word that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word "understand" occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo."

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.

When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.

(Haley p.359)

When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men 'stood speechless' after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following God. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions.

(Haley p.359)

Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul doesn't worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story.

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of Saul.

In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a detailed account of his meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ and his conversion.

In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of Paul's case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one part of a sentence, "I lived as a Pharisee," as opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27.

Mr. Carlson obviously does not understand the language used. The English language has for example the word love. In English the word love is applied to several things. "I love you", "I love ice cream", "I love my dad", "I love my friends". Obviously love is capable of having several meanings. There are several words in the original text of the Bible that mean the same thing on the surface, yet on closer examination of the language, a word can have several different meanings. In the Greek language there are several different words for love. Each one has a different meaning. One is used for a wife, one for this and that. Depending on what the writer is writing about. If Mr. Carlson really understood this language (Greek) he would never even suggest these statements.

H. JESUS CALLS THE DISCIPLES

1. In Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, Peter and Andrew are casting nets into the sea. Jesus calls out to them and they leave their nets and follow him. Jesus then goes on a little further and sees James and John mending their nets with their father. He calls to them and they leave their father and follow him.

2. In Luke 5:1-11, Jesus asks Peter to take him out in Peter's boat so Jesus can preach to the multitude. James and John are in another boat. When Jesus finishes preaching, he tells Peter how to catch a great quantity of fish (John 21:3-6 incorporates this story in a post- resurrection appearance). After Peter catches the fish, he and James and John are so impressed that after they bring their boats to shore they leave everything and follow Jesus.

3. In John 1:35-42, Andrew hears John the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God. Andrew then stays with Jesus for the remainder of the day and then goes to get his brother Peter and brings him to meet Jesus.

All skeptics seem to latch on to this story. The question becomes; why in the world would these men (the disciples) write there respective gospels and have obvious discrepancies? If you would really think about this as a whole, the following facts arise:

IF this was all a lie and the disciples were trying to start a fake religion, Don't you think that they would make real sure that all the stories jived?
ALL the disciples with the exception of John were martyred for faith in Jesus Christ. Many men have gone to death for believing in something they think is true. Name one that has been willing to die for believing in something that they know is a lie. Common sense tells us these men thought that ALL of these events really happened. Especially considering that they claimed to be eyewitnesses.
We do not know the exact chain of events that lead to the disciples following Jesus. We never will.

I. SHOULD THE TWELVE DISCIPLES TAKE STAFFS?

When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them.

1. In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

2. In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a staff.

This question highlights one of the MAIN sources of 'mistaken contradictions'--morphological similarity.

What this means is that when two authors use the SAME word-form, somebody decides that the two different authors meant the SAME word-meaning. Let's look at the passages in question:

•Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take ("ktaomai") no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. (Matthew 10.9-10)

•These were his instructions: "Take ("airo") nothing for the journey except a staff -- no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. (Mark 6.8)

•He told them: "Take ("airo") nothing for the journey -- no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. (Luke 9.3)

At the surface, the 'contradiction' seems obvious: Matthew and Luke SEEM to agree that Jesus prohibits the disciples from taking a staff, while Mark SEEMS to allow them to take one...At first blush--assuming all the 'takes' mean the same thing(!)--SOMEBODY must be wrong!

So, we have two sets of contradictions here: Matthew vs. Mark (different word forms for 'take'), and Luke vs. Mark (same word forms for 'take').

So, let's try to determine what those word-forms mean for the authors:

•Matthew uses the word 'ktaomai', meaning 'acquire' (a logistics function).

This is NOT Matthew's word for 'financial purchase'. He uses the term 'agorazo' for that (a term also sometimes used by Luke, by the way). For example,

As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy ("agorazo") themselves some food." (14.15)

"`No,' they replied, `there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy ("agorazo") some for yourselves.' 10 "But while they were on their way to buy ("agorazo") the oil, the bridegroom arrived. (25.9-10)

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy ("agorazo") the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. (27.6-7)

Matthew does not use this "purchase/procure" word, but the more general one for 'locate and obtain'. Accordingly, the prohibition in Matthew is against HUNTING FOR and securing/obtaining a staff (presumably because of the urgency and haste of the trip--as indicated in all versions; much of this saying probably would have been standard prophetic hyperbole--perhaps indicated by the strong 'take nothing' in some of the passages--since most of them would have already had walking sticks).

•Mark uses the word 'airo' which is a MUCH broader word, generally indicating 'pick up and carry' (physically, as in luggage/baggage), as in other passages in Mark:

Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up, take ("airo") your mat and walk'? (2.9) [the notion is 'pick it up off the ground and carry it away']

On hearing of this, John's disciples came and took ('airo') his body and laid it in a tomb. (6.29) [the notion is 'lifted the dead body and carried it out']

"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself ('airo') into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. (11.23) [the notion is 'pick yourself up and carry yourself away'!]

Let no one in the field go back to get ('airo') his cloak. (13.16) [the notion is 'retrieve it']

So, Mark is specifically ALLOWING them to 'pick up and physically carry' their walking staff (presumably the one they would each probably have already)

•Luke seems to be dependent on Matthew here--as evidenced by the grammatical construction, and seems to have used a broader word ('airo') for Matthew's tighter 'acquire' ('ktaomai'). Luke is very similar to Matthew--the verbs in both passages are imperatives (vs. Mark's use of a subordinate construction and subjunctive mood). But Luke CANNOT use Matthew's verb (ktaomai) in this passage, because 'ktaomai' means something DIFFERENT for Luke (and presumably his readers). Ktaomai in Luke is focused more on "PURCHASED/Financially OWNED things". For example,

I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get (ktaomai).' (18.12) [the notion is of financial income.]

(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought (ktaomai) a field; (Acts 1.18) [the notion is specifically that of 'purchase'. Notice too that Luke uses ktaomai, but Matthew uses 'agorazo' for the same act in his account of the purchase!]

Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy (ktaomai) the gift of God with money! (Acts 8.20) [the notion is clearly that of purchase.]

Then the commander said, "I had to pay (ktaomai) a big price for my citizenship." (Acts 22.28) [the notion is clearly a financial transaction.]

[The only possible exception is Luke 21.19 where the sense is 'win', which has some transactional notion in it, of course].

So, for Luke, it would make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE for his readers to 'see' Jesus forbid the disciples to "buy money" (!)...a very misleading and only marginally coherent notion.

What this means is that Luke HAD TO find ANOTHER, DIFFERENT word that could convey 'locate and acquire' OTHER THAN Matthew's word ktaomai.

Luke selects 'airo', a more general term.

•And just as 'ktaomai' did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew; so also the word 'airo' DID NOT (often) MEAN the same for Luke and Mark! (which dissipates the contradiction).

That Luke probably did NOT mean the same sense of 'airo' as Mark did (removing the problem) is suggested by a similar issue in Luke 10.4. In that passage--the sending of the 70--Luke uses the verb "bastazo" (which has a narrower range than airo) which for Luke means 'bear, carry' [== the same sense as Mark's 'airo'].

Mark uses airo 21 times for physical 'picking something up to move', and uses bastazo only once--referring to a man already in the PROCESS OF CARRYING a pitcher.

One interesting piece of comparative data is that in ONE description of the 'taking up and carrying the cross', Mark uses airo (8.34; 10.21), but Luke uses bastazo (14.27). What this strongly argues for is that Luke's bastazo = Mark's airo (at least sometimes). These words still overlap some, but it is sufficient for our purpose to show that they generally diverge.

In other cases Mark's airo is the SAME as Luke's airo. But this identical-usage ONLY OCCURS in the Triple Tradition--passages which are shared by ALL three of the synoptic writers:

•the Healing of the Paralytic [Mt 9.1-8; Mr 2.1-12; Lk 5.17-26]

•The Parable of the Sower and The Seed, (and the explanation, except Matthew uses the word for 'seize') [Matt 13.12,18-23; Mr 4.15-25; Lk 8.12-18]

•the Taking up of the Fragments [Mt 14.20; Mr 6.43; Lk 9.17]

•Take up the Cross [Mt 16.24; Mr 8.34; 10.21; Lk 9.23]

Although the word airo is used by both Luke and Mark in these passages, in the Triple Tradition it is often understood that the gospel writers did not have as much flexibility in redactional word-choice-changes as they might have had in other sections. So, similarities in word choices in the TT would not indicate shared semantic 'preferences' but in shared source-stock of the accounts.

•So, can Luke's airo be used in the sense of Matthew's ktaomai (='acquire')? If it can, then the issue is resolved, since we know that Mark's airo is NOT the same as Matthew's ktaomai, and that Mark's airo is closer to Luke's bastazo that to Luke's airo. So, the last piece of the puzzle is why Luke used airo in 9.3. We know why he didn't use ktaomai (it would have mislead his readers) and we know why he didn't use bastzao (because Matt and hence Luke, was not talking about Picking up and CARRYING luggage--an immediate act, but about LOCATING/ACQUIRING/SECURING something--taking a longer period of time to do, delaying the mission).

Well, airo is CERTAINLY used that way in Luke 17.31 ("On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. "). Notice that the SAME MOTIF of HIGH-URGENCY is present; under the extreme urgency, no one should 'take the time to collect materials for a journey--leave with WHAT YOU HAVE!'.

[There are other places in Luke where airo is used of acquire-without-procure...It is also used in Luke 6.29 of those that 'seize' one's cloak (definitely acquire, without purchase or luggage-carrying). Other 'seize' passages are 11.22, 52; 19.24, 26; 23.18. Passages in which acquire-without-purchase is present is 19.21,22.]

So, where this seems to net out:

1.In Matthew, Jesus tells them to not 'make preparations'--the trip is too urgent to 'acquire belongings for the trip' (cf. Luke 17.31). No hesitation--start NOW with what you already have at your disposal!

2.In Mark, Jesus tells them to 'pick up the walking stick that is sitting beside them, start CARRYING it, and then to get moving!'...no hesitation--start walking NOW!

3.In Luke, Jesus tells them the same thing as in Matthew--do not 'make preparations', but Luke has to use a different word that Matthew. Although he uses the same word form as Mark does, the meanings are different--as can be seen from their independent uses of the same word-form. So Matthew's ktaomai equals Luke's airo (in this and in other passages), and Mark's airo equals Luke's bastazo (in this and other passages).

Notice also the general principle that we must ALWAYS ask what an author meant by a word, and not simply what OTHER authors' meant by it. Audiences and Authors differ, and with the significant semantic ranges of common-use words, we must always do this level of consideration to be as honest as possible with text.

[I might also point out that the resolution of this issue provides some support for the neo-Griesbachian hypothesis--that Luke uses Matthew, but did NOT use Mark. It is easy to see from the above argumentation how the phenomena in Luke is derived from Matthew--the grammatical construction is identical, only the verb is changed due to different usages. But IF Luke had had MARK in front of him as well, then Luke would probably have found another way to say it--simply to avoid the appearance of such an obvious conflict in the verb forms. The fact that the problem even surfaces--coupled with the substantial similarity between Luke and Matthew--is evidence that Luke did NOT have a finished text of Mark in front of him.]

So, the morphological similarity of the words, in this case, would have misled interpreters if they did not pay attention to the usage patterns of the authors. As it stands, there is no disagreement between the accounts--in fact, they strangely appear to be saying the say exact thing--"Hurry up and get moving!".

J. THE APOSTLE PAUL GETS CONFUSED

In Romans 7:1-6 the apostle Paul tries to compare a Christian's "dying to the Law" to a woman who marries again after her husband has died. In doing so, Paul gets hopelessly confused about whether the Christian corresponds to the wife (by being released from the Law), or corresponds to the husband (by having died). One scholar has referred to the passage as "remarkably muddle-headed." This just goes to show that, although a brilliant man, Paul did have his bad days.

I do not see any contradiction or confusion in this passage. I'm sorry but Paul is not confused. Mr. Carlson does not understand what Paul means.

Before Jesus Christ, man had the law. The law has died. (basically man's doctrine, rituals etc...) Now there is no excuse except the flesh (sin). I do not know what scholar you are referring to, but he seems to be a little "muddle-headed" on this point. Paul, possibly had good and bad days like all of us, yet this was not reflected in his writings. Let's move on.

K. THE SECOND COMING

1. During the disciples' lifetime

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples' lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem - some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?

Paul's answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned - "we who are alive, and remain..." The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained "asleep in Jesus" until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus' return grew longer, the location of Jesus' kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately "depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23).

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.

Jesus Christ NEVER said he will return in the disciples lifetime! "This generation" was meant this generation that sees these things will not pass away before the second coming. Jesus Christ was talking about the events prior to the second coming. This generation did not mean the generation that was alive during Jesus time, but whatever generation sees these things mentioned will see the second coming.

When Jesus was referring to the kingdom of heaven, exactly what does Mr. Carlson think Jesus was referring to? Was it a physical kingdom on this earth? Let's see; Jesus Christ said "my kingdom is not of this world". So it is not of this world. He did not say it is not of this world yet? did he? He did not say one day, later or soon? Well lets look at what the kingdom of heaven is.

Behold the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Some of you here will not taste death till you see the kingdom of heaven

I am paraphrasing the above. Well these men he was talking about have died. Where is the kingdom of heaven? (the skeptic ask. The non-believer ask). It has arrived! Yet so many are unaware of this fact, which is very sad.. How? you ask? why?

With screwed up doctrine, non-belief, no faith, lack of knowledge and misunderstanding the original meaning of the scripture in question. I believe a pretty good case has been made for the existence of God, Jesus was here, he was who he said he was, he does what he say he will do and he is coming again. It does not matter what you believe. If you believe it is not true, it still is going to happen. The kingdom arrived with Jesus Christ and many then and now do not or did not realize it. Because you don't know God. So in the end you are going to Hell. You will know then. Hopefully you will see the light before you die. I Pray to God that your eyes will be opened.

2. The earth in the Book of Revelation

Revelation 1:7 says that when Jesus comes with the clouds, everybody on earth will see him. Some Christians have said that this will be literally fulfilled because the event will be broadcast by satellite over all the world's TV stations (We interrupt this broadcast...). Actually, the passage reflects the flat-earth cosmology of the time, as does also "the four corners of the earth" in Revelation 7:1 and 20:8.

Here, and in many gospel passages, Jesus is spoken of as coming with or on the clouds. This is because the Bible's view of heaven is "up" and Jesus has to pass through the clouds to get back, just as in Acts 1:9 Jesus ascended up through a cloud.

Mr. Carlson has not done a very good job of reading his Bible. So the earth is flat? So the men of God thought the earth was flat? I suggest you read the following scripture carefully.

Job26:7 He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing. 8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; And the cloud is not rent under them. 9 He incloseth the face of his throne, And spreadeth his cloud upon it. 10 He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, Unto the confines of light and darkness. 11 The pillars of heaven tremble And are astonished at his rebuke.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in; 23 that bringeth princes to nothing; that maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. (emphasis added) (Taken from the American Standard)

Isaiah 40:22[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (emphasis added) (Taken From The King James Version)

For those that are ignorant of this are willingly ignorant; the light shines in their faces, but they shut their eyes against it. Now that which is here said of God is, (1.) That he has the command of all the creatures. The heaven and the earth themselves are under his management: He sits upon the circle, or globe, of the earth, v. 22. He that has the special residence of his glory in the upper world maintains a dominion over this lower world, gives law to it, and directs all the motions of it to his own glory. He sits undisturbed upon the earth, and so establishes it. He is still stretching out the heavens, his power and providence keep them still stretched out, and will do so till the day comes that they shall be rolled together like a scroll. He spreads them out as easily as we draw a curtain to and fro, opening these curtains in the morning and drawing them close again at night. And the heaven is to this earth as a tent to dwell in; it is a canopy drawn over our heads, et quod tegit omnia coelum—and it encircles all.—Ovid. See Ps. 104:2. (2.)

Matthew Henry Commentary

No one knows when or how Jesus will return. I am very sure that Jesus Christ will not need the media of any type to announce his second coming. We ALL will know. People knew that the earth was round, you can read above and see this was true (i.e. 1.2.3).I suppose to leave the earth we could dig through the earth and come out the other side. So we could say down. Yet to those on the other side of the earth it would be up. Or since they are facing down should these people say "look at that airplane flying down in the sky". Yet how many times does it say which direction heaven is in the Bible? Hundreds. Soooo the earth is round. The oldest book in the Bible (Job) hints at it. The book of Isaiah confirms this thought was none to men of God. And the only way they could have known is from God.

3. The Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel is included here because, after the Book of Revelation, Daniel is the book most studied with regard to the second coming. Christians are very impressed with the detailed prophecies in Daniel that have been fulfilled. Anybody would be, if they believed that Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile, as the book of Daniel says.

However, the book itself makes it possible to pinpoint the date of its writing as 167 BC. How? Because up to that year all of Daniel's detailed prophecies came true. After that year none of them did. But how was Daniel to know that shortly after he wrote his book one of the greatest events in Israel's history, the Maccabean revolution that defeated Antiochus Epiphanes, would occur?

Mr. Carlson seems to be implying that he has deciphered when the book of Daniel was written? This line of thinking and basing it on the wrong events is incorrect. Anyone can guess when the book of Daniel was written. Daniel is much older than this. I would like to know what your source is for this incorrect conclusion.

VII. THE CAUSES OF THE CONTRADICTIONS

There are four primary causes for most of the contradictions listed above:

A. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

The gospel writers (especially Matthew) tried to show that Jesus was the Messiah by having him fulfill Old Testament "prophecies," sometimes with absurd results (as in the case of the "two donkeys" and the "thirty pieces of silver").

This has been answered above and on page one.

B. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS' AND PAUL'S GOSPELS

The gospel that Jesus and his disciples proclaimed to the Jews was in accordance with what the Old Testament predicted about a human Messiah reigning over a restored kingdom of Israel, a kingdom of peace and righteousness. The people of Israel were to repent as personal righteousness was necessary to become a member of the kingdom.

In contrast to Jesus' gospel was the gospel preached to the Jews and gentiles by the apostle Paul, which Paul refers to as "my gospel" and "the gospel that I preach" to differentiate it from what was being proclaimed by the disciples. In Paul's gospel the human Jewish Messiah became a divine saviour of all nations, the restored kingdom of Israel became a heavenly kingdom, and admittance to the kingdom was based on faith rather than personal righteousness.

The two gospels caused great animosity between Paul and the original apostles, an animosity that is played down in the books of Acts and Galatians, but which still shows through in several places. When Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were scattered or killed, and the opposition to the gospel of Paul was largely eliminated. The gospel of Paul was incorporated into the gospel of Jesus, in many cases supplanting it.

Yes if EVERYONE believed Jesus Christ. Believed he was the Messiah, and did what he said. However this was not going to happen. If one reads the Old testament you would see exactly how the Messiah would be treated. And as with everything that came out of Jesus Christ mouth - came to pass.

As for Paul; you are mistaken). Paul was not stating he was preaching a different gospel. This was the same gospel that was preached by Jesus Christ and his disciples.

Paul's gospel proclaims personal righteousness. Jesus Christ proclaims personal righteousness. Paul stressed exactly the same as Jesus. Man CANNOT achieve personal righteousness on his own doing. Show me where Jesus or Paul said you could. Show me where Jesus or Paul or any of the disciples proclaimed this. You can't; it does not exist.

Jesus Christ said:

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Paul said:

Romans 3: 21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; 26 for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.

What is the difference? Seek first "HIS KINGDOM" AND his righteousness. How do you seek His Kingdom? How do you seek righteousness? Jesus does not say here yet says elsewhere. Paul is telling you how. It is as plain as the nose on your face. through faith in Jesus Christ. We cannot accomplish this on our own. It is impossible. So we need some serious help to even attempt this feat. Paul shows us again for those that didn't quite get it. through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness . You will never know how to get or do anything unless someone or something shows you. This is fact. If no one showed you how to walk or walked around you, You probably would not walk. So if you want to achieve personal righteousness, you have to know what you are trying to achieve. What is the goal? for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. So Paul seems to be saying the same thing as Jesus is saying; using different phrases. Yet the meaning is the same.

As for Paul and the other disciples; your phrase "caused great animosity between Paul and the original apostles" is false. They had disagreements yes. They had heated arguments yes. You are speculating once again. Show us how you arrived at this Mr. Carlson. Show us proof of this.

How can you say that in AD70 the Jewish Christians were scattered or killed. Another speculation with no basis whatsoever. This is incorrect, which is due to misunderstanding the original meaning. Lets move on.

C. THE DELAY IN JESUS' RETURN

As time went by without Jesus returning, the apostle Paul was forced to rethink things he had written about earlier, including the state of dead believers and the nature of the kingdom.

I do not see what this statement is based on. This seems to be a conclusion reached on pure speculation/opinion.

D. CREATING A HISTORY FIT FOR A GOD

When Jesus was changed from a Jewish "son of David" sitting on David's throne to a divine "son of God" sitting on a heavenly throne, it became necessary to invent a godlike biography for him. Thus the troublesome virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.

This first statement is false, as has been proven above. Mr. Carlson uses the term "troublesome" yet this is due to misunderstanding the Bible.. The problem stems from his non-belief in the super natural/miracles. Nothing was invented. Come to God and you will not need me attempting to explain these things to you. However I have tried.

The list of contradictions in this paper is by no means complete, the examples being chosen primarily from the gospels. The examples given above, however, more than prove the point that the Bible is most definitely not, in any sense, the Word of God. The church has made imaginative (and often absurd) attempts to reconcile these contradictions. None of these attempts have the ring of truth - instead they have the ring of desperation.

How can the physical understand the spiritual? By God. There are hundreds of contradictions on the surface when reading the Bible. Especially if your are reading for discrepancies only. I pray that Mr. Carlson will one day see the light. Surely people would investigate this subject more, prior to believing a biased analysis of the Bible as fact.

I hope I have not come across as spiteful to Mr. Carlson. This was not my intention. However one is left with amazement at some of the things Mr. Carlson stated in this article. I invite anyone to investigate my answers for correctness. So I hope I have not ruffled anyone's feathers in my responses to Mr. Carlson. I am sure he is an OK guy yet his attacks on Christianity and my defense of the Gospel, should not imply that I have hard feeling for Mr. Carlson personally. I have hard feeling for his views on distorting the Gospel. Distorting who and what Jesus Christ was and is. Stating his opinions and not stating that they are opinions instead of implying that they are facts. Trying his best to discredit every facet of Christianity. This seems to be due to the true meaning of the Bible being misunderstood. Mr. Carlson sounds like he has read the Jesus Seminar writings. I wish Mr. Carlson no harm. It is a shame he has read the Bible for the purpose of contradictions only.

I invite Mr. Carlson to respond to this rebuttal of his web publishing. This will be e-mailed to him.

I invite Mr. Carlson to any forum that he wishes to respond to my rebuttal.

Return to "DOUKNOW.NET" Home Page

Paul Carlson <pjcarlsn@ix.netcom.com>

. Home . Contact Us . About Us . What We Believe .