The 'Traffic Jam' at the grave on Sunday morning

According to some well meaning Christians, there was quite a confusion on Sunday morning when Jesus appeared. Atheists mock at Christianity because of it.

What have we as Christians to answer these unbelievers?

 

Ed Edwards is the one who used the expression 'traffic jam' on Sunday morning when Jesus appeared to Mary. It looks to me he avoids answering my objections -- too busy with other things, or something, he said. So I opened another thread in the hope someone else might have the guts to answer.

Now you ask me to give you examples. Can't you recognise one of the most 'popular' : Ed Edwards gave it! Now I am giving it again.

But I have a minute or two been banned from a SDA-forum where I asked the same sort of questions. What's wrong with us Christians, that we refuse to answer these difficulties? (I know what, but won't now tell, because it will set the whole discourse off course.)

I showed those Adventists the authenticity of Mark16:9f, and that it is impossible to escape its implications for Christianity. Next thing: Just blocked and thrown off board!!

I find it very difficult not to use strong words, so frustrated I get! Are you not able to give me a constructive answer? Why ask all sort of apologetic high sounding super-intelligent questions? Is it actually my integrity you want to bring under suspicion? Feel free to think and say whatever you think of me; I won't put up a fight or try to retaliate. I only ask this reasonable request: Answer my questions: Was there a 'traffic jam' that Sunday morning? And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did Mary or any other women or human being for that matter SEE Jesus rise from the dead? Because THESE are the implications of my questions which Christians seem either unable or too afraid to answer!

 

GE:
Yes, thank God, I did get answers. I have no doubt left in my mind about the perfect agreement in all the Gospel accounts of the truthfulness and actuality of the resurrection of \Christ from the dead: THIS PERFECT HARMONY IN THE GOSPELS IS ITS WITNESS AND PROOF.

This is what is so heart-sore; that when I tell Christians of it, they get angry at me, eye me with suspicion, tell me I spread hate and division, even blame me of perverting the Word of God. For self-gain! they have said. I ask you, what gain is in it but of the peace that Christ gives? But, as I always answer these people: "Because of the Resurrection stand I before you".

 

Marcia,
"I wouldn't call it a traffic jam, but there were the women who were there and the 2 angels, then Peter and John came to the tomb. The women saw the empty tomb and later Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and others."

GE:
"... there were the women who were there and the 2 angels..."
No. "(There) was Mary (who) had had remained standing after (there)". That's what John 20:11a says. It also mentions the 2 angels; right. They were sitting inside the tomb (not standing outside like Luke says), and Mary noticed them as she bent over to look inside the tomb. There were no other women there, THEN! Again, Mk16:9 says Jesus "appeared to Mary first" -- which implies He appeared to her while she alone was present.
But here's the important consequence not to miss: There were more than one visit of women to the tomb that Sunday's early morning!

 

Marcia:
"... there were the women who were there and the 2 angels, then Peter and John came to the tomb..."

GE:
No! Read after whom Peter and John came to the tomb, John20:1-10!!!

Here's a nice one to work out. See its implications, and find the explanation to almost every 'Easter enigma', (as Wenham described them).

 

Marcia:
"... then Peter and John came to the tomb. The women saw the empty tomb and later Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and others."

GE:
"The women saw the empty tomb ..." Ja, they did. But not while Jesus appeared to Mary, naturally. And ja, for sure, "The women saw the empty tomb and later Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene...". It implies? ... ... more than one visit to the tomb! Simple; yet unacceptable for most people!

"... later Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and others". True; but not exactly. Because, "first", Jesus "appeared to Mary"; "and later", to the "others". Easy enough; yet so difficult for the prejudiced mind.

 

Dear Ed Edwards,
Kindly note that I do NOT doubt OR question the resurrection of Jesus Christ in glorified body and flesh; it is antichrist that denies.

I question or study the things the unbelievers use as excuse for believing - one main thing being the utter confusion in the minds and apologetics of Christianity at large on ALLEGEDLY the subject of the Gospel-anecdotes specifically of the Saturday night and Sunday morning.

Your above post illustrates this very confusion. You refer to Matthew 28 from verse 1 up to and past verse 10 to explain circumstances mentioned in John 20:11 further.

Matthew is not John, and neither is Mark or Luke. And there is your only and only possible solution to the whole enigma of the day and time of Jesus' resurrection: Neither ongoingly, actually, presently, gives the actual occurrence of the resurrection! ALL imply the resurrection : in the past; only Matthew --- in verses 1-4 --- GIVES the day and time : Specifically of the resurrection; NOT of ANY visit to the tomb.

 

Matthew 28:1 does not give account of an actualised, accomplished visit to the tomb. It precisely states the INTENT "TO go see / have a look at the sepulchre TWO women ONLY as mentioned, literally, the two Marys, who, as mentioned, literally, "On Sabbath" "SET OUT TO SEE / GO SEE the tomb".

They obviously and undeniably DID NOT THEN actually see the grave or the event THEN happening THERE; they have just "set out" / "departed from" house, "When suddenly there was a great earthquake" - which PREVENTED their accomplishment of PURPOSE.

It is also undeniably clear they did not reach or see the grave because they only much later saw Jesus - they did not see Him RISING --- which they must have, reached they the tomb WHILE happened what happened "THEN SUDDENLY" ('kai idou'). They did not know the body no longer was in the grave even. They also learned that, AFTER the resurrection happened.

Therefore it is not allowed John 1:1 be identified with the event described in Mt28:1-4.

In Jn20:1 ONLY Mary is the observer; and she ONLY sees the stone "Rolled away". Do not read there what John did not write. Mary did not see inside the grave. She did not know the body was no longer there. She only assumed it was taken away. In fact, Mary BELIEVED the body was still in the grave, otherwise she would not "with (her) oils and spices prepared" on Friday afternoon, have gone to anoint the body, as Luke with so many words confirms she did, "when thick darkness" ('orthrou batheohs') just after midnight!

 

GE:
I have checked it up, and find it just another illustration of irresponsible -- or rather very careful precaution to accept the unavoidable conclusion of the Resurrection "On the Sabbath", with all the resultant confusion.
It's a very POOR attempt, botched up without a single 'parallel' tested.

 

All and every of such in fact DISINTERESTED attempts are based on the forced falsification of the first words of Mt28:1.

But that now is not yet of concern in this thread. Here I want to explain the ORDER of events of the Sunday morning.

 

To make the women the eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and grave is just as good or bad as the Seventh Day Adventists who make the guard the eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection from the dead and grave. It's incorrect and it is disrespectful of the Divineness of the Christ that was "raised in the Glory of the Father" which no man is able to see and live!
The matter becomes one of the Divinity of Christ, so serious is it.

 

GE:
".... None of the folks were at the tomb except the changing watch over the stone ...." That is true, obvious and undeniable!

".... on the Sabbath, just before sunset at the end of the Sabbath ...." is a contradiction. Before you have said 'sunset', which is neither on the Sabbath, nor on the First Day. Mt28:1 is the only Scripture that will tell you, not, "just before sunset at the end", but unequivocally, "In Sabbath's fulness of daylight being before the First Day".

One does not read anywhere "....the changing watch over the stone - they were changing watch and missed the whole thing...." They were not 'changing' because it is not written they were changing. And they did not 'miss the whole thing' because 'they were changing'. They missed the whole thing, for sure! but they missed it because they were struck down like dead = unconscious by the light of the angel. That is written! How much less able would they have been to have withstood the glory of the Father in whose glory indeed Christ was raised from the dead!

".... the angel (or was it two?) came to move the stone ....". No, Matthew clearly enough for anyone, says, "the (one) angel of the Lord", and the verbs used, "moved the stone" and "sat down", are in the singular. So it was one angel only.

".... When the angel .... came to move the stone, the guard was done asleep. ...." It never says the guard SLEPT! They never did sleep! They never SAID or 'admitted' they slept! They never proposed to say they slept; the high priests proposed they say so, "if asked". No one ever it seems asked them that silly question!

So there's a LOT "conflicted by the Bible" in your 'paragraph'. But I appreciated your proposals Ed Edwards, Thanks a lot. It sets our investigation moving!