|
Post by michelle on Feb 8, 2007 20:57:29 GMT -8
1/25/06:
In Matthew's account of the empty tomb there is an earthquake that happens when the angel of the Lord rolls the stone away from the tomb. Is there any historical documentation to back this up? This seems like something significant enough that the other gospels might want to mention it. My guess is that since there was the earthquake when Jesus died (am I remembering correctly there are historical documents that support this?) there would also have been aftershocks. I guess those would not necassarily rate mention by historians or the other gospels writers since there were probably many small earthquakes in the days/weeks after Jesus-quake.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 19:20:39 GMT -8
1/25/06: There is no extra biblical attestation of this event, but I think Strobel says it makes sense that if there was an earthquake during Jesus' death, then there could easily have been aftershocks after his resurrection. Even though this event isn't attested to, the other two events (darkness and something happening in the Temple) are, as explained on this site, which also given some additions thoughts about the earthquake: www.xenos.org/teachings/topical/essentialjesus/gary/essential-15.htm
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 19:21:34 GMT -8
1/26/06:
It's interesting to note that "some doubted" even in the final scene of Christ's ascension (28:17). This would have been even after some of the resurrection appearances.
For some reason in Matthew we aren't told of any of the Judean appearances, only this one in Galilee. Kinda bothersome to the modern reader. Did he just assume his readers knew about the other ones? Is he just saying that some doubted here to 'sum up' the doubting that actually happened earlier in the first appearances?
I, personally, think he's just telescoping elements from all the appearances into one big appearance in Galilee, kinda like Luke does at the end of his gospel by having Jesus ascend at the end of Easter Sunday and then later having him ascend again 40 days later (in Acts 1).
It's troublesome to me at times why Matthew only speaks of Galilean appearances and Luke only speaks of Judean, BUT,
Mark (if you include it's 'add-on' chapter) alludes to a Galilean appearance and speaks of the Judean ones
and
John speaks of appearances in both places
I often wish it was clearer, to be honest. But, as it is, it's like peicing together a puzzle.
|
|