Are there contradictions in the Easter story?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- #SundayDriveHome #sdh
Ride home from church with Pastor Wolfmueller, and hear his meandering thoughts on the Sunday, the Scriptures, and the world.
If you hear something interesting, mention the time in the comments.
Don't forget to subscribe.
The bookstore (where almost everything is free): www.wolfmueller...
To sign up for Pastor Wolfmueller's free weekly email of theological awesomeness called "Wednesday What-Not", visit www.wolfmueller.... (Every month we give away a free book to a subscriber!)
All the theological awesomeness ends up on the blog: www.wolfmueller.co
I love this scene you have described for me! He is risen!
I imagine the angel saying "He's not here....." and then if the angel had on glasses he would give that teacher look over the tops of the glasses and he would finish, "...Like he said."
Same here.
Χριστός ανέστη! Αληθώς Ανέστη!
Nicely explained! Another interesting alleged contradiction is how many times the rooster crowed on the night before the crucifixion. It would be edifying to get your help on how to best respond to critics on that. The issue does not bother me at all, as it does not matter at all how many times the rooster crowed . . . yet some want to make a big deal about it.
Right. If one person said it crowed and didn't say how many times and then another says it was thrice, no big deal. Right?
@@BrianJuntunen Right, because the only difference is that the second person chose to elaborate exactly how many times the rooster cried. The first one simply mentioned the the of event: a rooster cried, could have been once, could have been three, four or a million times. The second testimony is what makes us certain the rooster specifically cried three times.
From what I remember, it took approximately 4 days to go from Jerusalem to the Galilee by the direct route, so it is not really a surprise the disciples reached the Galilee only a week after Jesus told them to go there.
Pastor Woelfueller is totally awesome! Thanks!
The women at the tomb went and proclaimed and bore witness to the Kingdom of Christ, "He is risen", an act of a prophet, therefore fulfilling the proohecy of Joel 2:28-29...."And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
The best example of Lectio Divina I have ever seen. You are awesome, Pastor Wolfmueller.
This is a wonderful narrative. Thank you for it.
You asked for thoughts on why the angels appeared to the women and not the men... I once read that women, in that culture were considered unreliable as witnesses in court because they were emotional women. Only the testimony of men was accepted. To me, that Jesus appeared to women first is one more piece of evidence that the story wasn't made up. If the disciples made up the story as a myth or legend, out of some excited expectation that Jesus would rise, they would have made themselves the heroes of the story as the first eye-witnesses. They wouldn't have made themselves look like the bumbling doubters they were, and they certainly wouldn't have had women be the first eye-witnesses. God planned it this way to build the incredibly strong case that this is reliable historical eyewitness evidence. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!
That makes sense to me.
That makes a ton of sense.
Thank you for telling us why we didn't see the Luther book in the back ✝️
My thinking on why the angels and Jesus appeared to the women first is that women seem to be more faithful than men... As in tend to have more faith. I think us men tend to be more caught up in our own reason and strength and our desire to be in charge. Such as the disciples arguing about who will be the greatest. Today, women generally tend to be more faithful in the church as well, statistically speaking.
Could be, but I think the criterion of embarrassment plays a major role here: Besides being more faithful than the disciples, who would have believed the testimony of over emotional women in the 1st century AD? Nobody would have invented that story if he was lying because it contains details that makes the listeners less inclined to hear the story or regard it seriously.
I like Pastor Wolfmueller's theory that Mary left the tomb to go to Peter and John, while the other women remained, but I'm not sure it works. In Luke's account, it very much appears that Mary was with the other women when the angel spoke with them, as it is written:
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. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened (Luke 24:8-12)
More importantly, however, it seems the Peter and John learned about these things at the same time as the other Apostles.
Here is my proposed harmony of the events:
The tomb is found empty by the women and the stone is already rolled away. The angels speak with them and the women leave to report it to the Apostles. Jesus meets them on the way and they worship Him. They tell the Apostles, who don't believe them and instead think they're hysterical and probably tell them so. Peter and John go with Mary to the tomb. John goes in. Peter goes in. They both leave. [here's where it gets weird] Mary has had a long day and is weeping and left alone by Peter and John, at the tomb again after most the Apostles had likely ridiculed her for what she reported. She goes into the tomb and is greeted by two angels. She asks them what they did with Christ's body. They don't answer, but instead Jesus approaches her and she supposes Him to be a gardener (possibly she's been crying so much she can barely see Him) and asks Him where Jesus' body has been taken. He says, "Mary!" and then she recognizes Him and He sends her back to the Apostles.
The main issue in harmonizing these events is that it's weird Mary seems to doubt the Resurrection after the angels tell her and after Jesus appeared to her and the other women. However, I think it's possible she was just so tore-up from the emotional rollercoaster she was experiencing. I've seen people be more discombobulated over less. Something nice about this theory though is it means that after the Apostles (minus Thomas) heard from Peter and John and were believing, Mary got to come back and tell them again she'd seen the Lord, this time with them believing her. I wonder if they apologized to the women after they saw the empty tomb.
I don’t think men apologized to women in the culture of that time.
I have always been amazed about why Jesus appeared first to the women and not the men. Women, who had been second- class people, have now been elevated: (1) Zechariah was struck dumb for questioning the birth of John the Baptist, yet Mary was not struck dumb for asking how Jesus' conception would take place. (2) God worked through a woman, not a man, to bring our Saviour into the world. (3)Women were recorded as part of Jesus' followers with names recorded, in books written by men. (4) Women have the honor of being the first humans to see the risen Lord! What better way for Jesus to show our worth. (5) Women were the first to believe that He rose from death! This alone should be all women need to know that we have worth!
Thank you for sharing your insights. I much appreciate your teaching. ( I am not a radical feminist, but just interested in fairness.)
Important like Jesus story survivel by oure lifes.
Happy Easter! what is traffic like around those parts?
Can you explain why in one gospel Jesus carries His cross the entire way, but in a different gospel Simeon carries it part way? Thank you!
And the different times of day He was crucified, and how long He stayed on the cross, plus who was at the foot of the cross, and the words He spoke. All different in the different gospels.
Matthew and Luke both mention Simon carrying the cross part of the way, which suggests Jesus collapsed at one point. John doesn't mention Simon at all, but says "και βασταζων τον σταυρον αυτου εξηλθεν εις τον λεγομενον κρανιου τοπον ος λεγεται εβραιστι γολγοθα"
(John 19:17) and translates literally as "and carrying His cross He went out to what is called 'skull place' which is called in Hebrew 'Golgotha'" (John 19:27). So it says He was carrying it when He went out, but it doesn't necessarily mean He carried it the entire way to Golgotha, just that He had it when He went out.
@@doriesse824 The words He spoke isn't an issue because He said all of them and the Gospel writers were simply writing the ones they chose to write, just as with all the Gospels, which is why they're not thousands of pages long. The women at the cross is mainly a problem for Catholics, because it's very likely that all the accounts are speaking of the same three women. Here's John's account:
"...standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene"
(John 19:25)
Mark records:
"There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome"
(Mark 15:40)
Matthew records:
"Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee"
(Matthew 27:55-56)
First off, it's possible these are totally different lists. There were more women there than recorded and these are just some of them, so it's possible they recorded different women out of the larger group. Personally, I think it is the same three women in all.
All three mention Mary Magdalene by name.
Mary the mother of Christ (as in John) is likely Mary the mother of James and Joses/Joseph (as in Mark/Matthew).
Klopas weirdly means uncle, so Mary the wife of Klopas (as in John) could also be Salome (as in Mark) and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (as in Matthew), suggesting Zebedee is Christ's uncle. It's possible also Salome was just a nickname cause, you know, they had so many Marys.
The Catholics don't like this, because it means Mary the mother of our Lord had other children, James and Joseph, who are mentioned as Jesus' brothers in Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3.
The time thing is tricky, though "the sixth hour" John mentions that Jesus was before Pilate could be 6am, because the Romans counted hours from midnight in legal matters. However, they usually only counted from midnight in legal matters, so it is kinda weird John would use that notation, but again, it is a legal matter he's talking about.
Hopefully that is some help to you and not too terribly long. Best wishes
Crying his cross at all sounds odd to me. The man had just been brutally flailed by the Roman soldiers. The cross itself was no tiny thing as it had to support a body and the upright had to be long enough to put at least three feet of it into the ground so it wouldn’t fall over. Add another say eight feet and Include the cross piece which had to about six or seven feet long and you have one heavy chunk of lumber. For a man almost beaten to death and in extreme pain with a crown of thorns cutting into his scalp and forehead . That would be a tall order to achieve and carry it anywhere never mind the uphill climb to Calvary. Of course Jesus wasn’t an ordinary man so that would be the only way to account for that in my mind.
Pastor, atheists didn't just "used to do this", they still do. My experience is that folks spend more time and intellectual capitol on what's happening next weekend than they do considering the accounts of the most significant person in human history and His consequence on their lives. I don't mean that as judgement or as harshly as it sounds, as our day and age of instant access to knowledge and quick results breeds this sort of thinking. I do find however, a quote from Maimonides to be quite apropos: "You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation". Of course you are also correct that in the sense of contemplating scripture first as history, where reason is "prior" to revelation in evaluating its authenticity etc (ie epistemologically)...and then once those are shown, revelation is prior reason in terms of the meaning and consequence (ie ontologically) as the word of God.
I can’t watch the videos when he’s driving 🫣
I think the reason Jesus appeared to the women is maybe just simply because they went to the tomb as was their duty to prepare his body for the grave. A few of the women were related to Jesus by marriage, I believe. There had to be a witness the tomb was empty and the disciples were still in shock and grief as to what had happened.
It is also part of the wonderful foolishness of the Gospel. One of the early critics of Christianity asked a very reasonable question. If Jesus was really raised from the dead, why didn’t he just walk into Pilate’s palace and announce himself? Pilate would have immediately accepted his deity and taken him to the emperor who would have also worship him! But that’s not how the Gospel works, is it? 😊
The Bible is an everything book.