Luke 24:1-3

[mAlice]

1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

Where were the guards?

Mark 15.46

So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

If Mark could roll a stone against the entrance of the tomb, couldn't anyone else have moved the stone as well?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Did you forget about

Matthew 28:2
<sup id="en-NASB-24198">2</sup>And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for ^(C)an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away ^(D)the stone and sat upon it.

? That is why it is important to read the Bible, all of it, to get the entire account from all perspectives. Eye witness accounts of events today are different from different perspectives. That is why investigators have to interview all the witnesses as quickly as possible.

 

[mAlice]

Did you forget about ?

It doesn't fit. Some passages make it sound like the stone is too heavy to move, yet Mark rolled it into place by himself. What's the significance of an earthquake if one man, or a couple of women, could just roll the stone away?

 

[mAlice]

It just occured to me that this is one of those area's where the bible contradicts itself. In Luke it says when the women arrived, the stone was away from the entrance, nothing about an earthquake. In Matthew, the stoned is moved away by an earthquake.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It doesn't fit. Some passages make it sound like the stone is too heavy to move, yet Mark rolled it into place by himself. What's the significance of an earthquake if one man, or a couple of women, could just roll the stone away?

Mark did not roll the stone into place; it was Joseph of Arimathea.

The significance of the earthquake and the angel of the Lord is that those events are what caused the guards to "become like dead men". The angel is the one that rolled away the stone. The women did not even consider that they could roll away the stone since they were asking among themselves "who will roll away the stone for us."

 

[2ndAmendment]

It just occured to me that this is one of those area's where the bible contradicts itself. In Luke it says when the women arrived, the stone was away from the entrance, nothing about an earthquake. In Matthew, the stoned is moved away by an earthquake.

No contradiction at all. Read the accounts in each of the Gospels. They are different perspectives on the same event.

 

[mAlice]

Mark did not roll the stone into place; it was Joseph of Arimathea.

The significance of the earthquake and the angel of the Lord is that those events are what caused the guards to "become like dead men". The angel is the one that rolled away the stone. The women did not even consider that they could roll away the stone since they were asking among themselves "who will roll away the stone for us."

You're right, it was Joseph. My mistake.

It still doesn't work for me. Just like my interpretation doesn't work for you. That's okay, like you I'm only here to plant seeds.

 

[mAlice]

No contradiction at all. Read the accounts in each of the Gospels. They are different perspectives on the same event.

Written a hundred years or so after it supposedly occured.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Written a hundred years or so after it supposedly occured.

Matthew and John were written shortly after the events since Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus and His contemporaries. Mark and Luke were followers of Paul and slightly later. Mark and Luke may have been eye witnesses to the events but that is not revealed. They may have just been writing down what had been related to them by word of mouth. Luke was attributed as being a physician and would have been an educated man. Presumably his Gospel would appeal to the educated man of his day.

 

[mAlice]

Why would the women go to annoint the body of Jesus if they didn't have permission?

They wouldn't have. That said, there is no reason to believe the guards would not have moved the stone for them, so they probably never really discussed who would move the stone.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Why would the women not have had permission? The body had been given to Joseph of Arimathea who was also a disciple of Jesus. The Roman government no longer wanted Jesus' body. The guards had been placed by the Jewish chief priests and Pharisees, not the Romans. Pilate told them to set their own guards.

Matthew 27:62-66
<sup id="en-NASB-24192">62</sup>Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,

<sup id="en-NASB-24193">63</sup>and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'

<sup id="en-NASB-24194">64</sup>"Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."

<sup id="en-NASB-24195">65</sup>Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how."

<sup id="en-NASB-24196">66</sup>And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

Since Jesus had been buried in haste because He was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover, His body had only been wrapped but not anointed and prepared with oils and spices.