EASTER--Literally!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ima Knerd

Active Member
Mar 21, 2002
71
4
Here
✟525.00
Many believers get their "theology" not from the Bible, but from what others say about the Bible. Bible Study is actually "studying the Bible." If nothing else, this synopsis forces one to actually pay attention to what is there in the text!
------------------------------------------

Here is a chronology (not an accurate one, since the accounts are so different and contradictory) of the scirptural facts of Easter Sunday (April 9, 30 AD):

The Jerusalem Area--Morning

1. Jesus rises from the dead early in the morning (Mark 16:9). Mary Magdalene (alone or with other women) discovers the open tomb. Either she informs Peter and another disciple, who visit the tomb and find it empty (John 20:1-10); or she and the others meet one or two angels inside, who announce the resurrection (Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-6); or the women flee and say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8).

2. Later, outside the tomb, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone, who at first mistakes him for a gardener. He tells her to inform the disciples that he is ascending at that moment to his Father (John 20:17; Mark 16:9).

3. Jesus also appears to Mary Magdalene and another Mary, who grasp his feet and worship. Jesus tells them to send the brethren to Galilee, where they will see him (Matthew 28:10).

Afternoon and Early Evening

4. Sometime during the day Jesus appears to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34).

5. Jesus walks incognito through the countryside for almost seven miles with two disciples. He starts to eat dinner with them in Emmaus but disappears as soon as they recognize who he is (Luke 24:13-31; Mark 16:12-13).

Evening

6. Back in Jerusalem, Jesus appears to the disciples in a room even though the doors are locked. He tries to overcome their doubts by showing them his wounds and by eating broiled fish and honeycomb. He either gives them the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins (John) or does not (Luke), and either sends them out into the whole world (Mark) or tells them to stay in Jerusalem for a while (Luke). The disciple Thomas either is present (Luke and Mark, by implication) or is not (John). (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14-18)

7. Jesus ascends into heaven that night from Bethany (Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19).

Sunday, April 16, 30 AD.

8. Still in Jerusalem, Jesus appears again to the disciples behind locked doors, and invites Thomas, who now is present, to put his fingers and hands into the wounds (John 20:26-29). Over the next week, Jesus offers the disciples many other proofs and signs, not all of which are recorded in the Gospels (John 20:30).

Late April or early May, 30 AD.

9. Early one morning Jesus makes his "third appearance" (only according to John 21:14), this time to Simon and six others on the shore of Lake Galilee. He miraculously arranges for them to catch 153 large fish and invites them ashore for a breakfast of broiled fish and bread, which he has prepared. Jesus instructs Simon, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep," and discusses how Simon and the Beloved Disciple will die (John 21:1-23).

10. Jesus appears to the eleven disciples on a mountain, but some still doubt. He commissions them to baptize all nations and assures them, "I am with you always, to the close of the age." He does not ascend into heaven (Matthew 28:16-20). Thursday, May 18, 30 AD.

11. Back in the Jerusalem area, Jesus appears again and tells the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit (even though, according to John, they had already received the Spirit on April 9: John 20:22). Then he ascends into heaven from Mount Olivet, just west of Jerusalem (Acts 1:1-12). Sunday, May 28, 30 c.e.13. God sends the Holy Spirit upon the twelve disciples, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and about 107 other people (Acts 2:1-4; cf. 1:13-15, 26).

---------------------------------------------

If the believer takes the Bible as literal and inerrant, it is obvious the accounts cannot be harmonized into a seamless whole. Perhaps each gospel writer saw things differently. Mark, the earliest of the four gospels to be written, breaks off mysteriously after the women discover the empty crypt. At the very least, if God speaks inerrantly and the Bible is God's word, then our understanding of the Bible must also be inerrant in order for us to perfectly understand it. Another way to took at the accounts would be to see them in the realm of myths--myth meaning "the closest we can get to absolute truth"--according to the definition of anthropologists and serious mythologists. But this way runs counter to our secular sense or reason and rationality and it would be hard for many to imagine, let alone accept this.

Maybe it is not the case that the ancient writers told fanciful stories and we moderns are now smart enough to realize it. It is perhaps the case that the ancients told amazing, bold and imaginitive stories and we moderns became dumb and took them all literally!
 
It seems to me that historical events and their component parts are complex enough to be viewed and/or recorded quite differently. The Gospel writers edit with more freedom than we are comfortable with by today's standards and interweave their interpretive thots without leaving the solid historical core.
We have trouble harmonizing I believe not because of errors in their writings, but because we lack a knowledge of all the events to put it together satisfactorily. But isn't this true of all historical reporting? Any number of historians can quite accurately write about a single incident, or events or wars and still not say all that could be said!
I've seen some of the attempts at harmonization of the Resurrection accounts and they seem pretty decent to me, even if they are not the last word on this complex and fascinating issue. Thanx for bringing it up! Al
 
Upvote 0

Singleman

Alone but not really
Mar 6, 2003
42
0
Rocky Mountains
✟7,852.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It seems that the only real contradiction adduced by Aikido7 is the time of the Ascension, but this is based on his assumption that Luke 24:50-51 records the event as happening on the same day as the appearance in vv.36-49, rather than forty days later (as Luke states in his other book, Acts). But the text does not say that it was the same day; there are no time indicators at all. There is no  contradiction here, only a certain vagueness about the time frame. 
 
Upvote 0

Romanbear

Active Member
Jun 24, 2003
394
9
Denver Co.
✟579.00
Faith
Christian
I've also seen some interesting questions posed about the dating of Christ's birth in Luke (eg- the governer of Quirinius thing) and the whole chronology of Passion week.  Craig Blomberg (easier writing for a layperson like myself) thinks that this is a prime example of why the gospels aren't fudged or some kind of cover-up.  Cover-ups simply look too smooth.  I tend to think, like Allen2, that these represent different witness accounts (which at, say the scene of an accident, may diverge a bit but aren't untrue).

Bedwyr

ps- Since we're dancing around the idea of the synoptics, what do you think of the idea?  Go in for Q source?  Mark as Q source?  Totally independent accounts?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.