• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Finding Jesus's Empty Tomb

What's inconsistent about the empty tomb?

The tomb is empty because the dead man that's supposed to be occupying it was seen walking around, alive and well! :lol:

Exactly. The skeptics shouldn't miss the forest for the trees.
 
I have often head the empty tomb used as evidence that Jesus is God. This is based on multiple accounts of the experience of multiple eye witnesses in the four gospels. So I would like to hear a consistent account from someone on this forum of what exactly happened with the finding of the empty tomb by the women close to Jesus and the apostles. That is what I really want to hear, a consistent account from all four gospels.

This debate is only about the consistency of the four gospels that is it. So lets try to make an honest effort to tell a story of the finding of the empty tomb from all four gospels that does not contradict any of the four and brings their accounts together. I am asking for someone to do so because I tried and failed to do this. I looked online and could not find anyone who had done this to my satisfaction.

To make this easy, here are the chapters that talk about the finding of the empty tomb:
Matthew 28
Mark 16
Luke 24
John 20

I hope to have an interesting conversation!


It's not just that Jesus was God, everyone is. He quoted the old testament saying, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Of course you won't find consistency when stories are retold. because our human minds are flawed and different. The Father is the Ancient of Days and one who sits on the throne, if that's who you're searching for the first person of God or head. Jesus was His son, mediator, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, because they are one in the same. See that's the thing of it, God can be who and what He wants.
 
He is attempting to debunk Christianity, as he always does. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me make this clear for everyone. This thread is not about the truth of Christianity. It is about the consistency of the four gospels about the discovery of the tomb. It is a result of my attempt to create a chapter from all four gospels that is consistent with all four. That attempt failed.

I have many other reasons for not believing in Christianity and whether or not the gospels are consistent about the discovery of the tomb does not change my position. All I want to know is, can we get a consistent account?
 
I just answered your question. The accounts are consistent:

.....they all have one thing in common: the tomb is empty, Jesus had risen from the dead, and He was seen.





If you're going to discuss - you'll have to address that! There's no getting around that!

They are partially consistent as you have shown, but your account completely leaves out what happened with the other women and their experiences with the angels. That is a big part of the story. Why don't you try again and tell me the full story.
 
Ahh....I see your angle now. I've debated people of your ilk on gospel inconsistencies so many times its not worth mentioning. You are correct....there are inconsistencies among the four gospels...... in the number of women who were there, time of day, time of encounter on the road from Jerusalem, number of men or angels who appeared to the travelers., etc.... So? What's your point?

That was my point. They are not consistent about the tomb. Thank you for clarifying.

Are multiple accounts of an event by eyewitnesses required to be exact down to the minute details in order for the account to have credibility? Bottom line is they all encountered an empty tomb, all had later encounters on the road, and the four separate accounts of the days following Jesus' execution and burial were close enough to establish credibility for even the most demanding of historians or theologians.

Well, that is an interesting debate. You should make a thread about it.
 
Non-Christian weighing in on how humans work.
One person sees something "It was red on top blue on the bottom and five people were around it."
Second person "It was blue on top red on the bottom and there were three people around it."

So. Different accounts by different people will be different. If anything, it lends to the honesty of the authors to not have tried to correct the accounts to all read exactly the same.

I thought a few several posts ago you were going to go with "nobody historically recorded their account of looking into the tomb" to which I was just going to laugh. Because, you know, governments weren't just as corrupt then as they are now...
...but I think you went in a different direction.

We all know the accounts are different. But that is ok, not everyone is going to remember every single detail or get every single detail right. Can you tell me what happened at the tomb that does not contradict something in the bible?
 
What's inconsistent about the empty tomb?

The tomb is empty because the dead man that's supposed to be occupying it was seen walking around, alive and well! :lol:

No, I am talking about the discovery of the empty tomb and exactly what happened. I know what the general summary of the story is. I want a more specific account of the story. If you don't want to tell me you should probably post elsewhere.
 
It's been explained to you by another poster.

And I'm telling you, it's the central story that's important. Jesus was seen, alive and well.....that's the reason why the tomb was empty.
EVERYBODY'S CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT!


Who cares so much as to how it was discovered, when we can't deny that Jesus is alive after all!
We can try to poke holes as to how the empty tomb was discovered - what does that accomplish? None.
It doesn't refute the fact that it's empty! Jesus apparently rose from the dead and walked away from that tomb.
There were multiple witnesses in different places!


Small details as to how it was discovered, will tend to have variations that it got passed from one mouth to the next.
That's just normal - that happens, even today!


Anyway....that's all I can say.
I don't see the point of discussing small details (and disregarding the most significant part of it).

This thread was about simple telling me what the bible specifically said about the discovery of the empty tomb. Think of this as a crime scene investigation of the empty tomb trying to gather details from the witnesses and trying to put the testimony together so I can say what the bible says what happens. That is all I want to know. If you don't think this is important to you then why don't you post somewhere else instead of trying to debate about the historicity of the gospels? Why don't you make a thread about that and debate it?
 
It's not just that Jesus was God, everyone is. He quoted the old testament saying, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Of course you won't find consistency when stories are retold. because our human minds are flawed and different. The Father is the Ancient of Days and one who sits on the throne, if that's who you're searching for the first person of God or head. Jesus was His son, mediator, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, because they are one in the same. See that's the thing of it, God can be who and what He wants.

So you can't tell me what exactly happened at the tomb that doesn't contradict one of the gospels? If not then you have answered my question.
 
This thread was about simple telling me what the bible specifically said about the discovery of the empty tomb. Think of this as a crime scene investigation of the empty tomb trying to gather details from the witnesses and trying to put the testimony together so I can say what the bible says what happens. That is all I want to know. If you don't think this is important to you then why don't you post somewhere else instead of trying to debate about the historicity of the gospels? Why don't you make a thread about that and debate it?

A crime scene investigation? Really? Apples to oranges. This is not a modern crime scene, it is an historic event which occurred nearly 2000 years ago. As such, it is not (nor should it be) subject to the same requirements of a modern crime scene which would be necessary for conviction. Why would you hold this historic event to a higher evidential standard than any other event in history which is deemed credible by historians? Take the Battle of Thermopylae for instance......we generally accept the story of the Hot Gates and of brave King Leonidas and his Spartans as factual based on the accounts presented by one single source....Herodotus, the "Father of History"....who happened to be around four years old at the actual time of the battle. Why the double standard?
 
Last edited:
They are partially consistent as you have shown, but your account completely leaves out what happened with the other women and their experiences with the angels. That is a big part of the story. Why don't you try again and tell me the full story.

Like I've said, the Apostles were not exhaustive. They didn't give a blow-by-blow account!
It is part of the story, but the details is not a BIG part of the story.

Whether there are more than one angels, or whether who saw an angel first and where, or said this and that.......
...........those details don't change the fact that the tomb was empty, and many people in various locations had seen Jesus, alive and well.


But since you're obviously intrigued,


Here are some explanations for that!

Matt 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, John 20:1-2, 12

An angel of the Lord on the stone (Matthew 28:1-2)--"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it."
A young man (Mark 16:5)--"And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed."
Two men (Luke 24:4)--"And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel."
Two angels (John 20:1-2, 12)--"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2And so she *ran and *came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him . . . 12and she *beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying."

There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2). The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12). Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue, and it isn't the only one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one. This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb.


https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-many-men-or-angels-appeared-tomb




Were there one or two angels or men in the tomb, and were they standing or sitting? (Matthew 28:1-7, Mark 16:2-7, Luke 24:1-8, John 20:11-13)

Matthew's account of the angel rolling away the stone probably occurred while the women were en route to the tomb, so that only the guards saw the angel sitting on the stone. John's account of Mary Magdalene and the angels is a separate event; Mary had likely gone back to get Peter and John before the other women encountered the angels.

Clearly there were two angels, as described in Luke and John. The second angel may or may not have appeared to the guards, but did appear to the women entering the tomb. It's likely that only one angel spoke, hence Mark only mentions one angel. While Mark and Luke refer to men instead of angels, the men are wearing white or "dazzling apparel" (ESV) and their appearance causes the women to be greatly distressed, which is consistent with Matthew and John's descriptions of the angels (as well as other descriptions in the Bible of people encountering angels, e.g. Dan 8:15-17, Lk 1:11-12, Acts 1:10-11, 10:30).

Were the angels standing or sitting? In my harmonization above, the angels appeared when the first group of women entered the tomb and were standing, but had seated themselves when the second group entered.


Accounts of the Resurrection
 
Last edited:
No, I am talking about the discovery of the empty tomb and exactly what happened. I know what the general summary of the story is. I want a more specific account of the story. If you don't want to tell me you should probably post elsewhere.


The account are specific.....but written with varying emphasis.




Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”


Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.


In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not.
Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.


https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by distraff View Post
No, I am talking about the discovery of the empty tomb and exactly what happened. I know what the general summary of the story is. I want a more specific account of the story.

You don't like the way the authors wrote their books......you want it a certain way (more specific).


You don't want to accept the explanations as to why they vary in minor details. You want a story specific enough to satisfy you.


How on earth do you think to achieve that? :lol:
 
The point of this debate is to come up with a consistent account of the empty tomb. If you are unable to do so, don't pretend like you think it is so easy to do it is not worth demonstrating. If you do not want to engage in what this thread is about then why don't you find yourself another thread?

the consistent account is already there. there is no reason to continue to rehash the issue over again.
if you don't believe it then that if your choice to do so.

I don't have to do something that has already been done. that is what I am trying to tell you, but you don't care about that.
this is another one of those I gottcha you can't prove it threads.

you don't tell me what to do. if you don't like people telling you what already exists to your question and are unwilling to accept that
why do you continue pressing until someone tells you want to hear which is the real issue.
 
A crime scene investigation? Really? Apples to oranges. This is not a modern crime scene, it is an historic event which occurred nearly 2000 years ago. As such, it is not (nor should it be) subject to the same requirements of a modern crime scene which would be necessary for conviction. Why would you hold this historic event to a higher evidential standard than any other event in history which is deemed credible by historians? Take the Battle of Thermopylae for instance......we generally accept the story of the Hot Gates and of brave King Leonidas and his Spartans as factual based on the accounts presented by one single source....Herodotus, the "Father of History"....who happened to be around four years old at the actual time of the battle. Why the double standard?

There is a difference. We probably don't accept any supernatural claims surrounding that battle. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example if I said I found a cat in my yard today, you would probably just take my word for it unless you knew I was a dishonest person. Now if I claimed that I found tiny elves in my yard, you would ask for evidence.
 
The account are specific.....but written with varying emphasis.

I don't care about emphasis. If different books are talking about different parts of the story that is not a problem. If different books contradict each other about important parts of the story that is a problem.


Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”


Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.


In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not.
Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.


https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/

Ok, that is interesting. This does not tell me what happened at the tomb.
 
Now, you can just imagine the investigation/inquiry that followed! The soldiers guarding the tomb had a lot to answer to.

Where is the body?

Who took the body?

Why is the body gone?

Etc..,

An even more important question is why Jesus is the only dead body to be reanimated in the history of the church. Did he have no soul or was he the only one to experience eternal life? I find it hard to believe that Jesus was soulless.
 
Like I've said, the Apostles were not exhaustive. They didn't give a blow-by-blow account!
It is part of the story, but the details is not a BIG part of the story.

Whether there are more than one angels, or whether who saw an angel first and where, or said this and that.......
...........those details don't change the fact that the tomb was empty, and many people in various locations had seen Jesus, alive and well.

Those are the three claims made by the religious text of Christianity. You regard it as fact since you are Christian, I don't. As a rule of thumb I don't just trust someone who makes a supernatural claim because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


But since you're obviously intrigued,


Here are some explanations for that!

Matt 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, John 20:1-2, 12

An angel of the Lord on the stone (Matthew 28:1-2)--"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it."
A young man (Mark 16:5)--"And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed."
Two men (Luke 24:4)--"And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel."
Two angels (John 20:1-2, 12)--"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2And so she *ran and *came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him . . . 12and she *beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying."

There is no discrepancy at all. An angel of the Lord moved the stone and was sitting upon it outside (Matthew 28:2). The two men (Luke 24:4) were angels (John 20:12). Mark 16:5 presents the only potential issue, and it isn't the only one at all. If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one. This one was on the right. Therefore, we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb.


https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-many-men-or-angels-appeared-tomb




Were there one or two angels or men in the tomb, and were they standing or sitting? (Matthew 28:1-7, Mark 16:2-7, Luke 24:1-8, John 20:11-13)

Matthew's account of the angel rolling away the stone probably occurred while the women were en route to the tomb, so that only the guards saw the angel sitting on the stone. John's account of Mary Magdalene and the angels is a separate event; Mary had likely gone back to get Peter and John before the other women encountered the angels.

Clearly there were two angels, as described in Luke and John. The second angel may or may not have appeared to the guards, but did appear to the women entering the tomb. It's likely that only one angel spoke, hence Mark only mentions one angel. While Mark and Luke refer to men instead of angels, the men are wearing white or "dazzling apparel" (ESV) and their appearance causes the women to be greatly distressed, which is consistent with Matthew and John's descriptions of the angels (as well as other descriptions in the Bible of people encountering angels, e.g. Dan 8:15-17, Lk 1:11-12, Acts 1:10-11, 10:30).

Were the angels standing or sitting? In my harmonization above, the angels appeared when the first group of women entered the tomb and were standing, but had seated themselves when the second group entered.


Accounts of the Resurrection

According to you the women encountered an angel inside the tomb, so according to you Mary Magdalene did not go inside the tomb. Now why would Mary go around telling everyone that Jesus was gone without first verifying that has body was not there by going into the tomb? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Also, why does Mark say that the women told no one? Matthew says that the women including Mary Magdalene told the apostles about finding the angels at the tomb and the angel's message.
 
An even more important question is why Jesus is the only dead body to be reanimated in the history of the church. Did he have no soul or was he the only one to experience eternal life? I find it hard to believe that Jesus was soulless.

You watch too many zombie movies! :lol:




How does the idea of a zombie compare to Christian belief about Jesus’ resurrection? Ultimately, there are no similarities, mainly because what the Bible presents is not a reanimation but a true return to life. When Jesus was resurrected, His physical body was perfected and glorified. Jesus lives today in His resurrection body, which does not decay, has no appearance of death, and is forever immune from death, injury, and sickness. In no sense is Jesus still dead. “I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever!” (Revelation 1:18).

So, no, Jesus is not a zombie. Jesus was resurrected, not just reanimated. After His resurrection, He conversed with His disciples, performed miracles, and proved Himself to be, in every way, fully alive.


Is Jesus a zombie?
 
You watch too many zombie movies! :lol:




How does the idea of a zombie compare to Christian belief about Jesus’ resurrection? Ultimately, there are no similarities, mainly because what the Bible presents is not a reanimation but a true return to life. When Jesus was resurrected, His physical body was perfected and glorified. Jesus lives today in His resurrection body, which does not decay, has no appearance of death, and is forever immune from death, injury, and sickness. In no sense is Jesus still dead. “I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever!” (Revelation 1:18).

So, no, Jesus is not a zombie. Jesus was resurrected, not just reanimated. After His resurrection, He conversed with His disciples, performed miracles, and proved Himself to be, in every way, fully alive.


Is Jesus a zombie?

Why don't the rest of us get "perfected bodies" and rot in the ground instead? I thought he promised us all the same as him? What good is a body in heaven?
 
Those are the three claims made by the religious text of Christianity. You regard it as fact since you are Christian, I don't. As a rule of thumb I don't just trust someone who makes a supernatural claim because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The supernatural claim came with extraordinary evidence(s) - multiple people saw and talked to Jesus Christ, and also witnessed the Resurrection!

That these extraordinary evidences were not witnessed by you, does not mean they didn't happen.
You can question them and be skeptical all you want.....however, so many skeptics have been in your shoes before, and did their own investigation into this: many of them ended up becoming Christians.



According to you the women encountered an angel inside the tomb, so according to you Mary Magdalene did not go inside the tomb. Now why would Mary go around telling everyone that Jesus was gone without first verifying that has body was not there by going into the tomb? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Also, why does Mark say that the women told no one? Matthew says that the women including Mary Magdalene told the apostles about finding the angels at the tomb and the angel's message.

It's already been explained, distraff. :shrug:
 
Why don't the rest of us get "perfected bodies" and rot in the ground instead? I thought he promised us all the same as him? What good is a body in heaven?

Ask Him yourself when you face Him.
 
Back
Top Bottom