Did Jesus resurrect according to Matthew 28:1-4?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Did Jesus resurrect according to Matthew 28:1-4?


I invite you to discuss my question.
Please, I would not like the 'when' of the time aspect(s) as such in Matthew 28:1 to be discussed in this thread; only whether the events and things involved according to verses 1 to 4 imply or prove that Jesus then rose from the dead or not; or if these verses want to tell about ONLY the human and earthly things mentioned and described.

I would appreciate references to acknowledged Bible commentators and exegetes on the subject.

Thank you for your interest.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matthew 28:1-4 in context,

… Told the angel the women, and explained to them … Now the very morning after their preparations [John 19:42 Luke 23:56a], the high priests and Pharisees conferring before Pilate, argued, But your highness, it is exactly as we thought, that that deceiver while he still lived, claimed, The third day am I raised up again! Therefore, we beg you to give instructions that the grave while the third day be secured and protected until its close, so that his disciples cannot come in the night and steal his body telling the people he was raised from the dead! The last deceit will be worse than the first!
Assured Pilate them, I give you your guard; go, protect the grave the best you can!
They hastened and secured the grave sealing the stone door and setting the guard. But – told the angel the women, explaining to them – despite, late the Sabbath Day as it mid-afternoon began to dawn towards the First Day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary set out to go have a look at the grave. Then, suddenly, there was a great earthquake as an angel of the Lord came down from heaven! Approaching, he cast away the stone, and sat on it. At his appearance clouded in lightning white as snow, the fear stricken guard like dead men lay convulsing. … But don’t you fear, women! Because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, BECAUSE HE WAS RAISED AS HE SAID!

Rose Jesus then? Was He raised when the angel opened his grave?

Or was it not Jesus’ resurrection from the dead?

Was it merely the Mary’s and the angel and the guard; and merely an earthquake and lightning and a stone moved?

How do certain authorities say it was not Jesus’ resurrection?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Authority no 1, 'B' ...

Quote:

Matt 28:1 "as it began to dawn" [Jews began the new day at sunset instead of midnight like most do]
Matt 28:2 Angel descended and rolled stone away
Tomb was empty, why, Christ had already risen and left the tomb before the time the stone was rolled away [v 7-9]
His Glorified body was not restricted by obstacles. [John 20:19-21]
Matt 28:3 no evidence that the women seen this but the guards saw the Angel [V4]
these verses prove along with many other verse that Jesus HAD RAISED from the death before time mentioned. [Mark 16:1-7 gives more details of this account---Luke also gives more account--along with John 16:1-18]
No commentators just pure Bible
End Quote


GE answers B,

Re:
“Matt 28:1 "as it began to dawn" [Jews began the new day at sunset instead of midnight like most do]”

What does that mean? …“as it began to dawn” is “sunset” or “at sunset”? …“as it began to dawn” is “the new day” or “as … the new day .. began”?
So you mean as the new day had begun, sunset, that at that moment, the earthquake occurred and the “Angel descended and rolled stone away”? In other words, _on Sunday_?!
And you claim, that is “just pure Bible”— “Matt 28:2”?!

No; it’s nothing like anything of it.

Re:
“… Matt 28:2
Tomb was empty, why, Christ had already risen and left the tomb before the time the stone was rolled away [v 7-9]”

Therefore “Matt 28:2” = “v 7-9”?! That means “the time the stone was rolled away” was the time “Jesus met _them_”, that is, more than one women?
Does it mean that “the time the stone was rolled away” was the time “the angel explaining to the women, told them … Come, see the place where the Lord lay!”?

You are saying, , when “Christ had already risen and left the tomb” was before “Christ had already risen and left the tomb”?!
Yes, that is what you claim, “His Glorified body was not restricted by obstacles. [John 20:19-21]”.

Yes; his body was a glorified body, nevertheless his was a body of flesh and blood that could be touched and that even had the places of his wounds in it still.

So in John 20:19-21 it nowhere says Jesus “appeared” like a ghost. It does not say _He_, appeared “behind closed doors”; it says the _disciples_ were together behind closed doors. John 20:19-21 says He “came” and like anyone else, “stood” inside among his disciples.

Look at Acts 12 from verse 12 on, where Peter “came to the house” and at first was left “standing” outside before they eventually let him in inside the closed door, and he later, again “departed”.

Just so was it with Jesus in John 20:19-21 and 26.
“The disciples were within the doors being shut.”
It is NOT stated Jesus entered through a miraculous ‘appearance’ through shut doors.
It simply tells what it tells (“No commentators just pure Bible”), that Jesus “came” = “came in” where “the disciples were” and “stood” = “moved in, between” them, and _illustrated_ to them how very REAL He was.

John does not try to show or prove Jesus’ “Glorified body was not restricted by obstacles” or that He possessed a dual reality of interchangeable spiritual and physical properties.

It already is a big mistake to suppose in Matthew 28 Jesus LEAVING the tomb, rather than supposing Him RISING FROM, the dead, INSIDE, the tomb.
And that is what Matthew 28:1-4 is about.
It is not about explaining an “empty tomb”; or when or how Jesus “left the tomb”; or by the farthest stretch of a sick imagination, about explaining “why” or how or that, “Christ had already risen before the time the stone was rolled away”.

Therefore, it is contrary “Bible” and only the “commentary” of one B, “Matt 28:2 Tomb was empty, why, Christ had already risen and left the tomb before the time the stone was rolled away [v 7-9]”

Yes, there is “no evidence” in “Matt 28:3 that the women (have) seen this” just as there is no evidence “that the guards saw …” “this”, or, “that the guards saw the Angel [V4]”— or, that the guards or the women saw the Resurrection happen. In verse 4 the evidence shows that “at the appearance of the angel approaching like lightning, the fear stricken guard lay convulsing like dead men.” They saw nothing. They were like dead men, unconscious --- “like lightning” does to men … lightning leaves men lights out.

It was GOD who rose from the dead; it was GOD who raised Christ from the dead, and “NO MAN can see God … BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER … and live.” That, my friend, is “no commentators just pure Bible” for you.

Re: B,
“… these verses prove along with many other verse that Jesus HAD RAISED from the death before time mentioned.”

This is just pure commentator B NO Bible.

“…before time mentioned” in Matthew 28:1?
Denied! The “time mentioned” in Matthew 28:1 is far from the time mentioned in “Mark 16:1-7”, and NO SINGLE of the “details of this account” in “Mark 16:1-7”, “gives” ONE SINGLE of the “details of this account” in the WHOLE of Matthew 28!

And likewise NNE SINGLE of the “details of this account … Mark 16:1-7” or in the WHOLE of Matthew 28 gives or resembles ONE SINGLE of the “details” “Luke” or “John 16:1-18 … gives account” of.

This is just pure rotten commentating of one bombastic B; NO Bible in as much as one detail.

B:
I will not argue your false beliefs and your twisting.
Thanks I will stick with Truth.

GE:
Good, with _your_ ‘Truth’— please do! It would be a sorry day for pure Bible Truth when you join.

 

[billwald]

Say again? <G>

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Say again? <G>

GE:

How do certain authorities say it was not Jesus’ resurrection "when there was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord desceded" Matthew 24:1-4 ?

 

[billwald]

Do grubby little details of history matter in the big picture?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Do grubby little details of history matter in the big picture?

GE:

Well, what do you say "in the big picture", Did Christ rise like the "angel" of verse 5a "explained to the women and told them" (in Matthew 28:1-4)? Or do you prefer not to commit yourself to the confession of Jesus' Resurrection, "Late in the end of the Sabbath ..." etc.?

 

[billwald]

I have no problem believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. I don't care which version of the resurrection is correct. It isn't important.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no problem believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. I don't care which version of the resurrection is correct. It isn't important.

what is important is that God physically raised jesus back from the dead to be alive now in His glorified body as the risen lord!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

what is important is that God physically raised jesus back from the dead to be alive now in His glorified body as the risen lord!

GE:

Yes; but what is important for me, now, is, does Matthew 28:1-4 describe the events and circumstances and place of God raising Him from the dead?

 

[billwald]

Matthew's report probably accurately represents Matthew's observations. We now know that eye witness evidence is generally the least accurate evidence.

 

[Yeshua1]

GE:

Yes; but what is important for me, now, is, does Matthew 28:1-4 describe the events and circumstances and place of God raising Him from the dead?

describes the scene AFTER He was already raised from the dead!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have no problem believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. I don't care which version of the resurrection is correct. It isn't important.

GE:

You say you don't care, but dream up incorrect 'resurrection versions' to your own satisfaction. As long it is 'my way', it's 'important'; if it is not 'my way', if it is all truth and not faulty, it is not to care about.

Wonderful christianity! You have it, billwald; you have it, lock stock and barrel.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

describes the scene AFTER He was already raised from the dead!

GE:

At least you perceive the sense in my question; it is better than preconceiving a faulty, untrustworthy, misleading and lying report from Matthew like some here prefer to regard as more important and all that is worth to care about.

Now, what do you suggest was Matthew giving account of --- or more exactly - -- "the angel" that "explained to the women". What do you say, Yeshua of BB, what was he talking about, the angel?

What do _you_ believe and, ON WHAT GROUNDS?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

describes the scene AFTER He was already raised from the dead!

GE:

WHERE DOES Matthew 28:1-4 CONTINUE FROM?!

“Because [‘de’] the morning WHICH was after The Preparation ...” – “... which was the Fore-Sabbath” which was the morning of the Seventh Day Sabbath of course –, “... they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch ... _BUT_ [‘de’] late in the Sabbath ... BEHOLD, there was a great earthquake and the angel of the Lord ...” etcetera.

THEREFORE, WHAT HAPPENED _THEN_??!! Does Matthew “describe the scene AFTER He was already raised from the dead”?!

Huh?! Then the angel “EPLAINED” sweet blow all “to women and told them”, “old wives tales”!

Don’t give me that! You have to do better than talk the nonsense you surmised from no precedence or consequence!