Are New Testament Reports of Christ’s Resurrection Like Discrepancies in Joseph Smith’s First Vision-2

[Music] are the New Testament reports of Christ's resurrection
like discrepancies found in Joseph Smith's first vision well welcome to the final edition in our series is
Christianity the Mormonism of Judaism where we are answering the claims of the Jewish rabbis who assert that
Christianity has a distorted Judaism in much the same way that we Christians believe that Mormonism has distorted the
teachings of Christianity as we have been seeing throughout this series Christianity has not distorted Judaism
rather it's the Judaism of the second century onward to today that has distorted Judaism it is the Judaism of
the second century that changed their views about the Messiah being the Son of God to try to get people not to believe
that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies in the Old Testament is the Judaism of the Middle Ages as we saw that changed their
definitions and their interpretations of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 to try to make it look like the Messiah
would not suffer that this is not a prophecy about a messiah who would come to redeem Israel as we Christians
believe and so Judaism has changed over the years but Christianity is consistent with ancient Judaism in asserting that
these prophecies are fulfilled in Christ when he came in the first century and we believe that Christianity came out of
ancient Judaism as revealed in the scriptures as consistent with the teachings of both the old and the new
testament scriptures now today we're going to be examining the evidence for the resurrection of Christ this being
our final video in the series I chose this topic to be the final video to end on because the resurrection forms the
basis of the historic Christian faith as the Apostle Paul said in first Corinthians 15 if Christ has not been
raised we are indeed the most miserable we are to be pitied if you will Paul was saying that the resurrection of
Christ that event the historicity and the reliability of that event forms the foundation of the Christian faith thus
it's very important it is of utmost important that we evaluate the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and the
reliability of the New Testament eyewitness accounts of the resurrection to be able to determine if we can trust
the claims of Christ and of Christianity so this is our final video in the series and this is the topic of discussion
today we are going to be examining not only the evidence for the resurrection of Christ but also the unfair claims of
the rabbi's where they try to equate alleged discrepancies within the resurrection accounts just differences
that we find between the gospel accounts of Christ's resurrection they try to equate that with Joseph Smith's first
vision accounts where he has multiple discrepancies that are irreconcilable we're going to be examining the alleged
discrepancies in the New Testament and we are going to find those discrepancies are not real true discrepancies their
differences in their accounts but those differences in the accounts when you put them all together actually agree with
one another that is what we're going to see here when we are addressing the claims of these Jewish rabbis who make
an unfair parallel with Mormonism on contrast we're going to be looking at the first vision accounts of Joseph
Smith and we're going to see that his accounts cannot be reconciled that he gave different versions of his account
and that those different versions cannot be put together to agree with one another but rather to disagree and to
discount the claims of Joe Smith just like Christianity which has a historical event at the basis of its
claims so Mormonism has the alleged historical event of Joseph Smith's first vision at
the basis of its claims so again in evaluating the claims of both Christianity and Mormonism we need to
look at the historical basis and are they reliable is the witness of Joseph Smith reliable are his first vision
accounts irreconcilable or can you reconcile them we're going to look at that we're going to apply the same
standard that we apply to Mormonism to Christianity and we're going to find that unlike the claims of the Jewish
rabbis who try to say that Christianity is the Mormonism of Judaism it's quite the opposite Christianity can stand up
under the examination of the evidence when you put everything all together but Mormonism cannot and that's why
Mormonism is a counterfeit but Christianity is the real thing as we find in Christ he has fulfilled the Old
Testament prophecies of the Messiah and has indeed resurrected to prove he is not a liar or a lunatic but rather he is
Lord Almighty these are the claims of what we are going to be looking at today and this is the conclusion that we will
end on with this video series now let's start with the first claim of the Jewish rabbis against the resurrection accounts
of Christ they start out by questioning the reliability of the New Testament gospel accounts and what I'm going to be
using as my reference in addressing their claims against the eyewitness testimonies in the gospel is a book cold
case Christianity by Jay Warner Wallace J Warner Wallace is a former homicide detective who served for many years
bringing evidence in cold cases to court he talks about the evidence for the resurrection accounts using the same
kind of reasoning kind of argumentation but he would present his cases in a court of
law I really appreciate what Jane Werner Wallace had to say when he was examining the accounts of the resurrection given
in the Gospels one of the things that he pointed out throughout his book is how when he would bring a case to court to
try to point to who could possibly have committed the crime he would present a variety of evidence that the detectives
would gather at the scene and these were called cold cases for the primary reason because they don't have first-hand
evidence that the criminal was not caught in the act and when he wasn't caught in the act you have to put
together the pieces at the crime scene to try to fill in the gaps of what actually occurred at the event that is
the job of detectives and as J Warner Wallace explains they would put forth a case against a particular individual who
they felt was the most reasonable person to have committed the crime and the job of the defense attorneys is to go
against those accusations by trying to find something wrong in the testimony they will question the integrity of the
eyewitnesses of those people who may have seen the event or may have seen some aspect of the event they'll
question the motives of the eyewitness and they will raise doubt as to the reliability of the eyewitness account
that's exactly what we see today in the accusations of skeptics and Jewish rabbis who assert that the New Testament
is a reliable just like defense attorneys will present evidence or try to make the case that they're that the
defendant wasn't present at the event or their defendant didn't actually couldn't possibly have committed the crime didn't
have the right motives or they'll try to attack the witnesses of the event bye-bye
awaiting that perhaps the witnesses had ulterior motives that would have led them to lie about who actually committed
the crime those are all things that defense attorneys do when they are attacking the evidence in favor of a
conviction of the criminal that's exactly what we see with skeptics and with Jewish rabbis who try to attack the
resurrection accounts they try to assert first and foremost that the Gospel writers didn't actually write the
Gospels that those those writers weren't actually eyewitnesses of the accounts of Jesus even though they assert that they
are mark for example which is considered one of the earliest if not the earliest gospel to have been written
they will assert that that was written sometime perhaps in the second century or very late first century and they'll
assert that it was written by somebody other than the Gospel writers somebody other than Mark or somebody other than
an eyewitness to Jesus Christ and that they will assert that mark would just had the name put on the book just to
make it look authentic that is one of their claims we're gonna examine that claim today the second claim that the
skeptics bring up against Christianity would be the idea of the integrity of the Gospel accounts they will question
if the Gospel writers really saw a literal vision of Jesus Christ a literal person appearing or whether it was just
some imagination that's one of the arguments that the Jewish rabbis bring up though assert that or everybody just
like Paul saw Jesus in the vision they'll assert that most of the people if not all of them we just saw Jesus and
the vision so it wasn't real but that's not true because when you read the Gospel accounts what do we read we read
Jesus appearing to Thomas and he says put your hands in my side feel these nail holes how do you feel something if
he's not physically present in the room we also see other accounts where Jesus ate food and walked with the disciples
that doesn't sound to me like a vision or an immaterial spirit appearing to them and then you
have another account when we just look at the testimony of Paul who was the last one to see Jesus and it does say in
the text that although the people that were travelling with Paul heard a voice they didn't see anyone but they heard a
voice so they did attest to having at least heard something when Paul went blind he had something physically
happened when he saw Jesus but then he spent a majority of his time among the eyewitnesses of Christ's
resurrection among the disciples themselves he was trained by the disciples so he was taught the true
teachings of Christ through eyewitness testimonies and then he goes on in first Corinthians 15 to explain that five
hundred people saw Jesus at once now if Jesus was just a vision appearing to the disciples or in just a small
little group like the rabbi's would have you believe the rabbi's would have you believe that was just Jesus's close
associates who had these visions just like people who lose a loved one quite often will you know hallucinate ideas of
talking with their dead loved ones and that is a common occurrence but to have five hundred people at once seeing Jesus
now that is something that stretches the reality of visions beyond credulity you can't make that just some you know
immaterial vision or or dream when 500 people at once saw Jesus and Paul even went on to say the greater number exists
even to this day at the time of his writing in 1st Corinthians 15 this doesn't sound like something that was
written in the second century if the people the greater number existed at the time to be able to validate what Paul
was saying in this letter is very hard to make the case that this was something written by non eyewitnesses that this
was not a testimony of eyewitnesses that this wasn't a valid fact when he had so many people who attesting to having
scene Jesus Christ the other thing that Jewish skeptics will bring up against the gospel counts is the idea of
discrepancies as I mentioned earlier just like Jay Warner Wallace brings up in his book here in cold case
Christianity what's the prosecuting attorneys when they bring up evidence against a
defendant the defense attorneys job is to pick apart that evidence and what they'll do is they'll try to get the
they'll try to get the the court to look at little pieces of the evidence that don't seem to line up to raise enough
ambiguity in the case so that he can't the the jury cannot give a conviction and that's exactly what skeptics do
today because just by Nature cold cases do not have a hundred-percent evidence backing every little detail in the event
so it's true just like pieces in a puzzle you can put together some of the pieces but you don't have all the pieces
on the resurrection of Christ and that's the same with the Gospel accounts we don't have absolutely every little piece
of the resurrection account accounted for within the Gospels so we have to assemble the picture and take each of
the gospel accounts and when you put them together causing the Gospels to be looked at as complementary to one
another not kind of Dichter eetu and one another but complementary that is when you're able to put together a case for
the reliability of the Gospels as giving a true account of Christ's resurrection and that is what we're gonna look at
we're gonna look at some of the details that skeptics bring up against the resurrection account and we're going to
show how those details can be reconciled if we put the gospel accounts together and so that's what we'll do in the
second part of our video and then finally we're going to examine Joseph Smith's first vision account and the
irreconcilability z– within his different versions of the account and show how there is no parallel between
Mormonism's historical event or alleged his storico event and Christian needs true
historical event of the resurrection of Christ which has been verified by many eyewitnesses and also unbelievers of the
first century who wrote about the life of Christ so let's dig into the evidence for the resurrection of Christ now now
as we get into the details of these accounts I'm going to be using a few resources to discuss first of all the
credibility of the eyewitness accounts I've already mentioned this cold case Christian ebook by Jade Warner Wallis
and I'm also going to be reading from Josh McDowell's the new evidence that demands a verdict this book is excellent
not only in dealing with the credibility of the New Testament and the reliability of the manuscripts of the New Testament
it also discusses the Old Testament and how we know that we can trust our Bible and as you can see it's a very thick
book it provides a lot of good information first of all let's look at what J Warner
Wallis provides as evidence of the biblical accounts of the gospel being valid eyewitness accounts we're gonna
look at a chart that he gives he kind of it's basically a graphic that he put together and this is found on page 256
of his Colt case Christianity book and here he talks about first of all the unintentional support for the Gospels
the Gospels agree with the kinds of things you would find in first century like the correct names the types of
names that we find given in the Gospel accounts fit first century names the most common names we find in the first
century are the kinds of names we find in the Gospel accounts appropriate language the language is consistent with
first century writings we find correct locations the non biblical corroboration and Jewish corroboration we see Jewish
writers and non Christian writers corroborating the types of events or even like the life of Christ Jewish
writers wrote about a man who was known for his miracles and the course they attributed
his powers to the demons to Beelzebub as the Gospel accounts also explain but they do recognize both that Jesus lived
that he was killed for his beliefs and of course his claims to be the Messiah and so these kinds of collaborations are
found in the writings of non-christian and Jewish scholars of the day archaeology of course verifies many of
the events or specific places in the New Testament we also see that the Gospels were accurately delivered when we look
at the manuscript support for the Gospels it seems that they have been preserved and we covered this a lot in
our video series on textual variants in the New Testament so if you want to review some of that I did go into some
of those details in that video but as J Warner Wallace he reviews some of that same evidence for the textual veracity
of the New Testament in this book and then he talks about the evidence for the New Testament writers and the Gospels
having been written before 70 AD the general etta station is that many of the Gospels were written any time before 70
AD there's no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem either in the book of Acts which mentions several events that
occurred with the Apostles there's no mention of of the destruction of of Jerusalem or the the Gospel writers are
also silent about the major persecutions that came against the church in 61 to 65 so of these Gospel accounts or the book
of Acts were written after these events it seems kind of strange that at least acts would not have at least mentioned
these major persecutions of the Church none of the martyrdoms the Apostles are mentioned in the gospel or the book of
Acts and if we look so we find that pasa Paul who wrote to several churches in some cases
referencing churches that were later destroyed by persecution and so many people believe many scholars believe
that Paul wrote his letters sometime between you know 53 82 57 80 and he cites Luke's Gospel now how can Paul
cite Luke's Gospel if Luke's Gospel wasn't written until the latter part of the first century or the early second
century again these are some of the reasons why biblical scholars place the gospel writings in very early at least
by the middle part of the first century and then we see also mark seems to have been perhaps the first gospel account to
have been written and mark is relied heavily on Peters support for the his gospel as well in fact many people
believe Peter worked directly with mark in producing that gospel and Mark was a definitely an eyewitness with Peters
experience with Jesus so these are all things that support the new testament witness of Christ and finally in this
graph here Jay Wallace Warner talks about how the New Testament accounts are tested by the fact that they did not
have any ulterior motives for a conspiracy or for trying to propagate a deception that Jesus rose from the dead
and he points out they were not driven by financial gain they were not driven by sexual lust or relationships they
were not driven by a pursuit of power and these are the kinds of things that witnesses who are trying to propagate a
lie are usually driven by and when you don't have any evidence of any of this type of motive that would be behind the
New Testament writers propagating a lie or being part of a conspiracy to try to make it look like Yeshua Jesus rose from
the dead and when he suppose didn't if that were the case why would they go to their deaths why are there so
many examples of the horrendous deaths of the martyrs and even Apostle Paul you know undergoing stoning and shipwreck
and everything for the gospel of Christ he had absolutely nothing to gain for believing this idea that Jesus rose from
the dead or for teaching this idea if if they knew that this was false that they were part of this supposed conspiracy to
try to to proclaim something that didn't happen they have absolutely nothing to gain and
in fact when we look at the New Testament accounts what do we see the disciples were hiding in the upper room
and when they first heard from the woman that Jesus rose from the dead what did they do did they go oh wow this you know
let's check this out well they looked at the empty tomb but they didn't believe the woman they questioned their
testimony because they were not expecting him to rise from the dead and that wasn't because Jesus hadn't told
them he had warned them that he would die and that he would rise from the dead but they had forgotten about those
statements and they didn't want to believe that it didn't fit what they thought Jesus was going to do so there
was absolutely nothing to gain for promoting the a myth or a conspiracy that Jesus rose from the dead in fact
quite the opposite they promoted this idea at the expense of their own lives and that is one of the evidences that
seems to indicate that these new testament gospel writers were indeed eyewitnesses to the resurrection of
jesus christ to a real valid historical fact now let's look at something else that josh mcdowell gives as support for
the new testament gospel accounts i want to share some of the things that he has to say first of all he provides a chart
for the conservative datings for the gospel paul's letters being 52 66 notes Matthew 7280 mark 50 to 60 or 58
to 65 depending on you know which scholar you're going with Luke early dating of about the 60s and John eighty
to a hundred at the max conservative dating many points out some of the liberal dating that would you know put
these letters later than that time frame but one of the things that he knows is William Fox well operate one of the
world's foremost biblical archaeologist said we can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis
for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 AD two full generations before the date between 130 and 150
given by the more radical New Testament critics of today and that's definitely the camp that these Jewish rabbis fall
under they claim that the the majority of these writings in the New Testament and these gospel records in particularly
were rich and closer to the second century and so they go with these late dates but as this scholar says Albright
says there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80 so then he goes on
here it's this point in an interview for Christianity today 18th of January 1963 in my opinion every book of the New
Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and the 80s of the 1st century AD very probably sometime
between about 80 50 and 75 and that was his view opera concludes thanks to the quorum discovers the New Testament
proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers
between circa 25 and circa 80 AD many and that's Albright and he gives his reference here many liberal scholars are
being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament and that's the bottom line anyone who
with this evidence still believes the Gospels were written well after the time of any new testament or any eyewitness
testimony could be gained from them to be inserted into the gospel text really has to discard regard the evidence not
only the evidence of the Gospel writers who said that they were eyewitnesses of these events but also the internal
evidence of the gospel writings using first century language first century names the archaeological support and
they have to disregard even the internal quotations of the Gospels amongst themselves particularly like the letters
of Paul quoting Luke you really have to stretch credulity to try to embrace the later dates that these Jewish rabbis and
skeptics [ __ ] for the Gospels so again if they're going to continue to postulate those concepts those idea that
the New Testament was written so far after the events in the life of time of Christ then you're doing so because you
have a bias against the New Testament not because of historical facts but because you don't want to bleed these
facts and indeed that's exactly the point the day Warner Wallace makes in his book here on Cole Crace Christianity
he talks about the fact that you know some of these skeptics will go so far as to look at the fact that the New
Testament Gospel accounts do not record the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and they'll say something along the
lines like well maybe it was excluded from the Gospels simply because they want the writers who made up these books
because that's what they think in these minds that these were written after well after the time of the of the eyewitness
accounts they will say well they were trying to prove that Jesus made a prophecy after the fact after it
happened so they wouldn't mention the destruction of the temple and again that's again the kind of excuse or kind
of argument a person would get when they don't want to believe the truth don't want to believe the evidence that
actually the earlier dating fits better with the evidence and it's the most reasonable conclusion for these Gospel
accounts to have been written as first hand eyewitness accounts or at least with the
strong influence like in the Gospel of Mark strong influence of Peters experiences with Jesus so that is the
evidence that we that we can see that supports the New Testament counts as indeed eyewitness accounts of the Lord
Jesus Christ and his resurrection now I want to talk about the next point here the Jewish rabbis bring up against
the a resurrection of Jesus Christ is they will point to alleged discrepancies between those accounts and I just want
to talk about a few of them here these are the points that were put together by Jews for Judaism you'll see the rabbi
featured there on screen and he argues that there's a discrepancy on the day that Jesus was crucified because you
have one account saying that it was a preparation day or the day before the Passover in John 19 through 21 and then
the other accounts the other Gospels say it was the first day of Passover now this is easily reconciled the Passover
Feast the whole area at several days that encompassed that holiday in the Jewish system if you say the preparation
day that was the first day of the Passover range not the specific day of Passover but it was a preparation day
when they would kill the Lambs and so these Gospel accounts that say the first day of Passover they're alluding to the
first day that that whole Passover holiday would begin and it would begin with a preparation day which was
essentially the first day of Passover so this is an easy reconcilable so-called discrepancy and it's not a real
discrepancy when you understand how they looked at that time frame in the Jewish system the next discrepancy they bring
up would be who carried jesus' cross in three of the Gospel accounts Matthew Mark and Luke they say the simon of
cyrene carried his cross and John ahead Jesus carrying his cross now I want you to know when you're looking at these
alleged discrepancies is there any indication that alike in the example of John does it say Jesus was the only one
who carried his cross or does it just merely repres carrying his cross if it just merely references him carrying his
cross it doesn't mean necessarily that Jesus carried his cross the whole way by the same token when you read in the
other Gospel accounts that Simon of Cyrene carry Christ's cross the the question that needs to be asked is was
he the only one that carried his cross and if you don't see any allusion to him being the only one to carry the cross
then you can easily reconcile these Gospel accounts with the idea that Jesus started carrying his cross and then it
became too heavy for him he was worn out from the beating and so then siren of Cyrene was compelled to carry his cross
for him so we can reconcile those accounts easily by looking at the Gospel accounts and putting them together as
complementary to each other not contradictory but rather filling in the gaps each one filling in different
aspect of the Gospel accounts and that's what we're going to see to here in the next section of alleged discrepancies in
the gospel account we have who was the first person to come to Jesus's tomb well yep mark 15 through 16 Mary
Magdalene Mary the mother and Salome Mary the mother of Jesus he says here in the chart I believe when I read the text
was actually Mary the mother of James but either way then you go to Matthews account
he says Mary Magdalene and another woman named Mary and then in Luke's account is Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of James
and Jonah and other women and then of course in John's account we have only Mary Magdalene being mentioned
as coming to the – how do we reconcile this well we're gonna reconcile that by putting all the accounts together in
just a minute I want you to to remember that thought so there's a question on who was the first to come to the tomb
who was actually at the tomb when these angels appeared how many angels actually appeared those are differences in the
accounts we're gonna look at that in just a minute I want to also look at some more of his claims what did the
woman see at the tomb mark 1415 a young man sitting inside the tomb Jesus has risen okay so you see a young man no it
was actually Mary thought it was a gardener or other people thought they saw angels okay Matthew 27 28 angels
sitting on the rock outside the tomb you have luke account two men standing inside the tomb and
that two men was actually two angels and many of our translations of this past these passages and then we have John and
men Mary first arrives at the tomb she sees no one when she returns later with two disciples she sees two angels okay
so we have all of these accounts how do we reconcile them we're going to now put those accounts together asking the
question who was first at the tomb who actually was there with Mary or without Mary was very there multiple times were
these woman's there multiple times did the what did the woman see did they see an angel did they see a man – this see
two angels where they actually see and then we're also going to ask the question of what time did these events
take place they will point out that some of the timeframe given in the Gospel accounts for example in Matthew says
that as it began to dawn that's when Mary Magdalene was at the tomb mark 16 says after the Sun has
risen and we have Luke very early in the morning the woman took spices and then we have John who is saying while it was
still dark so when did Mary Magdalene action get there when do the other women get
there were there several groups of women that came to the tomb we need to ask that question could that account for
some references saying that it was before the dawn or as it was beginning to dawn or very early in the morning
that's kind of a vague term that could be you know when it's dawning or after the Sun had risen we could also see the
reference while it was still dark well if this event took place while it was still dark
it wasn't taking place after the Sun had risen so that does lead the idea lead to the idea that there were several times
that various groups of women were at the tomb and that is the position that I land on especially in reconciling the
different names that are thrown out who was at the tomb was it just Mary Magdalene by herself or was it Mary with
the other Mary or Mary the mother of James or was it Mary Magdalene by herself or what about these other woman
that are mentioned Joanna and Mary the mother James along with other women and many of these counts talked about the
other woman don't necessarily give their names so it kind of gives the idea that this is taking place with many different
groups of women coming to the tomb and somewhere in this mix you have the disciples also coming to the tomb
particularly Peter and John who ran to the tomb to see to find it empty so let me now explain what I believe actually
occurred and how I reconcile these accounts I reconcile them with first the idea when we read in Matthew 28 and in
mark 16 you have a reference to Mary Magdalene being the first to appear at the tomb it says in mark 16:9 now at
that point it doesn't specifically say that the first time Mary came to the tomb because I do believe she came to
the tomb more than once it doesn't say that this first time the Mary came to the tomb that it was after the Sun had
risen however it does say that when Mary Magdalene came with Mary the mother of James and Salome
Ian brought spices it says after the Sun had risen so it does kind of give the idea that maybe perhaps Mary came to the
tomb by herself while it was still dark and then the woman with spices came later perhaps they were not staying
together and they got you know a later start with the spices the ones who were bringing the spices and Mary just ran to
the tomb ahead of them it's hard to say exactly but that is kind of where I kind of lean to this idea that she might have
gotten to the tomb first before these other women did because it does say she that Jesus first appeared to Mary
Magdalene by and it does seem to kind of indicate she was by herself because we have no reference to the other woman
when we read John's account of Mary as well at the tomb while the tomb was still dark we also read in John's
account that when Mary Magdalene saw these angels it was two angels that appeared to her but when we read of the
account with Mary Magdalene when the other women with spices encounter the angels we see it's not the angels plural
but rather they see an angel so that's another indication that these were different times that Mary Magdalene
was at the tomb and that the other women were at the tomb and then what else can we see in this account if Mary Magdalene
got to the tomb before the other women came with the spices it is conceivable that when she got to the tomb she saw
the stone rolled away and the other woman soon followed and potentially arrived at the tomb but here we find
Mary stunned by the stone being rolled away and thinking that the body of Jesus might have been stolen that she
immediately leaves the women who came with the spices and runs back to tell Peter in John and so when she goes to
tell the disciples Peter and John what do we see what what actually happened I believe that at the sight of the empty
tomb Mary Julie left Salome and the other Mary who had come with the spices and add she
left them at the tomb and Mary left by herself to tell Peter and John that the body was missing and she's particularly
said we do not know where they have taken him now when she says we doesn't mean that the other woman were with her
when she was talking to Peter and John rather she's making allusion to the fact that those other women that arrived with
the spices arrived there along with her saw the tomb empty so she ran away to tell I believe Peter and John during
that time I believe while the other women were still at the tomb either there's two possible ways we can
reconcile either those women with the spices decided to leave for a period of time you know disillusion what do we do
we can't you know embalm the body and perhaps they came back later and had the encounter with the angels or they maybe
saw the angels when Mary was talking to Peter and John and going to get Peter and John and perhaps they had that
encounter with the the single angel who appeared to them and told them he's not here he's risen but Mary wasn't there to
hear that because she was going to get Peter and John and then perhaps when Peter and John ran to the tomb perhaps
that's when Mary followed them came back to the tomb this time by this time the woman with the spices had already left
and when they had already left with the news being told to tell the disciples that Jesus had risen and to meet them in
Galilee perhaps while they are heading back to tell the disciples that is when Mary and Peter and John show up at the
tomb Peter and John immediately see that the tomb is empty so they run back to the other disciples to share the news
while the women with the spices preceded them running back to the disciples and to say that the angel had appeared to
them meanwhile Mary doesn't know any of this she's left at the tomb alone here at her second time
the tomb and that's why we get here at the rising of the Sun this is when Mary's there at the tomb alone and now
she sees two angels who speak to her and tell her that she that he's not there that he's risen and she turns around and
sees a man standing there thinking that this is the gardener she asked him where the body of Jesus and then you know of
course Jesus we all know the story says that reveals himself to her and calls her by her name and she recognizes that
he's her Lord that he's resurrected from the dead and so here we see Jesus's first appearance being to Mary when she
was by herself and I think that just easily reconciles the differences that we see in the
Gospel accounts between the women with the spices that were perhaps with Mary the first time Mary maybe Mary got there
first but I believe the time when she was actually alone when the Angels appeared to her was after those one
moment the spices had left and after the disciples Peter and John had seen the empty tomb again they didn't know about
the resurrection of Christ and so there's no indication in the account that neither Mary or the disciples had
seen any angels prior to this coming to the tomb the second time in the case of Mary coming the second time and the
disciples coming there for the first time so that's how I reconcile those differences and then what else do we
have to to deal with we talked about the different time frame of the Sun again while it was still dark as it was
beginning to dawn the women with the spices at the tomb they first get there it's beginning to dawn but doesn't take
long for the Sun to rise and so as all of these events are transpiring no doubt the Sun came up and so here we have Mary
after the Sun had risen coming back to the tomb and perhaps it's also the time frame that these women who had brought
spices incurred the angels with the son risen up and then going back to the disciples all of this took some time
with them their paths crossing on the way to the Tumen and back and forth there's also some indication perhaps
there may have been another group of women that showed up at the tomb after Mary went back to the disciples after
the woman with the spices had gone to the disciples and reported these things that Jesus had risen from the dead
perhaps that is when we see these other women that came to the tomb and like Johanna and some of the others that are
not mentioned and we also want to keep in mind here when the the women are at the tomb and they do encounter first
that angel that told them that Jesus had risen these women with the spices it specifically says in mark's account says
go tell his disciples and Peter he is going ahead of you to Galilee and there you will see him just as he told you I
find it interesting that in mark's account he specifically says go tell the disciples and Peter that seems to
indicate to me that perhaps the angel being well aware that Peter and John had seen the empty tomb that perhaps that's
why he emphasized go and tell the disciples and Peter so overall when we put all of the
accounts together and basically lay them out like you would the pieces of a puzzle you can kind of fill in the
missing pieces of the puzzle that are not given in the Gospel of counts and see how they essentially reconcile when
you lay them over and see how the Gospel accounts actually complement each other some accounts giving more information
than other accounts are like in the case of John he provides a whole lot more information that's not carried in
Matthew and Mark and Luke's account where encounter Jesus and saw the two women a lot more details the disciples
running to the tomb that's not given in the other Gospel accounts but that does not make them caught a dick tree rather
it makes some complimentary and as we can see we can easily reconcile these accounts now I want to just take a
moment here and look at a little bit more of some of the alleged discrepancies that are also given how
about like what is said to the woman or what I said to Mary she's told not to test Jesus because he hasn't ascended to
their father and we read about in Hebrews that Jesus had to after he made purification for sins he had to enter
into the holy place in heaven so we read that in Mary's account in John but then we also read later on that
when the disciples were in the Upper Room and Jesus appears to them that is when they were allowed to touch him in
fact Jesus told Thomas to put his finger in his side I also want to point out that when the women are told to tell the
disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee we see that in a couple of the counts they're told that but in one of
their accounts in mark it says the woman told no one after they had talked spoken with the Angels and left the tomb well
the even though the text doesn't say it we can conclude that just like we read in the other accounts where the
disciples said they did not believe the testimony of the woman the woman did tell the disciples about the
resurrection of Christ but it's said they told no one on the road on their journey back to the town to the upper
room so again we have to just take all of these pieces and put them together as a puzzle piece realizing that the text
is complementary not contradictory and then I want to address a few more let's look at like what was said on the sign
the Jewish rabbis bring up the argument the signs had differences in the different accounts we have the king of
the Jews or this is Jesus the King of the Jews all we have this is the king of the Jews or in John's account this is
Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews now when we take all that put – and put it together we can see how John provided
more information than the other accounts did and all together we can come up with that conclusion of what was actually on
the site this is Jesus the King of the Jews Jesus of Nazareth that's not a contradiction that's complementary none
of the statements in the Texas that this is the only tax that was on the sign and that's a very important point to look
for if these were to be legitimate discrepancies that could not be reconciled we have to read things like
this is the only appearance of Jesus to the disciples or this is the only appearance of Jesus to women at the tomb
and that is simply not stated in the text so we can conclude that there is just reasonable to conclude that there
were different accounts of the woman at the tomb appearing to the the angels were appearing to these women or in the
case of Christ he appeared to Mary Magdalene first and then he appeared to different groups of the disciples like
on the road to Emmaus or let's say in Galilee they're told to meet him in Galilee Acts actually tells us it acts
1:3 that there are many more occasions of Jesus appearing to people the disciples of women many more than what's
recorded so we have to see how the text gives allowance to you know maybe some ambiguity that isn't
fully stated in the text but that can be easily reconciled the disciples are told to wait in Jerusalem but for the coming
of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't mean that it didn't also see Jesus in Galilee it doesn't mean that there weren't
occasions you know in these other places where Jesus appeared so again all of these statements that we see in the
gospel you have to take them as pieces of a puzzle and realize that just as in cases that are given at the court for
cold cases where we don't have all of the evidence we just have to take all the evidence that we do have and draw a
reasonable conclusion with the evidence and that reasonable conclusion given the eyewitness testimony of the disciples
these writings claiming to be eyewitness testimonies being consistent with first century verbage language it all seems to
fit that these are legitimate eyewitness accounts and there is no evidence to the contrary there isn't a case of another
account being written that was danger the first-century saying that those Gospel accounts were not a witness
accounts nobody contradicted these statements when Luke wrote out and said that this is an eyewitness account of
most excellent Theophilus he was not contradicted by a Theophilus saying oh no I hear somewhere that your account is
not valid nobody ever come addicted that in fact the church fathers actually regarded
these Gospel accounts the early church fathers regarded them as authentic there is no indication anyone questioned the
authenticity of this so again that all again lends support to these accounts being valid so the important thing I
want to I want to point out is that for these accounts to be irreconcilable you have to see statements like only this is
the only one who held you who carried Jesus's cross or you know when Jesus was giving wine and myrrh in one account
some wine with gal or sour wine you know none of those accounts say he was only given sour wine or you know when we see
the time frame of Jesus's crucifixion which unfolded over a course of several hours one account saying at nine o'clock
another account given more of a noon time frame it probably unfolded over that full length of time so it wasn't a
discrepancy when you look at the two different counts given different time references for the crucifixion and you
know you just many of these arguments are just so easy to basically see how they don't show any
discrepancy just by simply laying them all out and saying well let's take that all the pieces here and let's put them
all together like in a puzzle and we see again they are not contradictory they are complementary that is simply not the
case with what we have with Joseph Smith's first vision account the resurrection
stories for example had many people and many different times at many different events and many different places
occurring the the they're either seeing an angel they're seeing Jesus and there's nothing in those accounts let's
say that these were the exact same events but rather different events these are different people different groups of
women were at the tomb at different times whether you know before the Sun was up or after the Sun had risen those
were different events those are not the one in the same event that is simply not the case with Joseph Smith who couldn't
figure out how old he was when the first vision occurred was he 14 15 16 there are differences in his own accounts
about these events and what he told his followers which by the way there were absolutely no other witnesses of the
first vision Joseph Smith was the only one so getting his own story confused there
is no excuse for that when he can't figure out whether it is Jesus who told him that his sins are forgiven or
whether he read it in the scriptures that his sins are forgiven that is a discrepancy that is Iraq of
soluble this is not the case of two occurrences of Christ talking to Joseph Smith and telling him one thing or
perhaps not telling him because he was reading it in the scriptures I mean there are differences in the first
vision accounts did Joseph Smith learn of the apostasy through his first vision account or did he learn it through
searching the scriptures those are the differences we see we see Joseph Smith saw two personages in one of his account
the father and the son in another account of the same event justice Lewis said that he saw the Lord
of glory and there's no mention of the father and so then you know you have to ask well who did he actually see did he
see the father or did he not see the father now you have the case where Marana visits Joseph Smith in the 21st
of September 1823 but then in another account is a 22nd of September okay not a big deal maybe got
mixed up on what day but then it's 18 22 that's a whole year difference when this angel supposedly appears and in some of
the accounts it's not the angel Moroni he appears drunk to Joseph Smith it's the angel Nephi he couldn't even figure
out his own angel who appeared to him in the bedroom and we also have discrepancies in this you know whole
first vision in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon story with the whole idea of an 1820 a revival that supposedly
spurred Joseph Smith to ask which churches to join well if we go back to the newspapers of that time frame there
was no activity no revival in the area that Joseph Smith was in at this time until 1824 but yet Joseph Smith claims
they had this Perce vision in 1820 again it doesn't agree with the historical record we find 1st New Testament
accounts the Gospel accounts agree with the historical record but the historical record of Justice mistake do not
validate just miss claims nor do they validate his first vision accounts or his alleged
time frame that he gives for these events for example Joseph Smith says that when he encountered the angel
Moroni three years after his first vision the angel Moroni tells him that he cannot receive the gold plates for
another additional four years now if you put that together you have the first vision supposedly in 1820 he then meets
the angel Moroni in 1823 or perhaps it's the angel Nephi again there's discrepancies in the his own accounts
but 1823 he meets this angel supposedly more on eye and then he doesn't get the plates for another four years
that's a total of seven years for the time he has his first vision to the time when he can obtain the plates now let's
just think about this for a minute if you have Joseph Smith not getting the plates for seven years after the first
vision and then you read in Joseph Smith's account that he is seeking God to know what church to join and we read
from close apostles and John a Witsel records this in his book apostle he records that Joseph Smith was not able
to he actually started to pray about what church to join because his brother Alvin had died then whinnied brother
Alvin died while his brother Alvin died in 1823 in the fall of 1823 Joseph Smith claims to have had his vision his first
vision in the spring so now we have another discrepancy the historical account seems to put the first vision in
1824 not in 1820 we have the revivals occurring in 1824 we have Joseph Smith praying about what church to join after
Alvin's death which would again put the timeframe for this in 1824 now we got a problem because according to Joseph
Smith's own testimony it's seven years from the time of the first vision before he can receive the gold plates in order
to translate the Book of Mormon so add those seven years to 1824 the spring of 1824 and what do we get 1831 the first
year justice missed to obtain the goal plates to translate the Book of Mormon now if you have the
good book of mormon being published in 1830 but he doesn't receive the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon
until 1831 we have a major problem with a chronology of the first vision account of Joseph Smith again there is
absolutely no comparison between Joseph Smith's first vision account and his story and the foundation that is given
for Mormonism and that of the New Testament gospel accounts that are reconciled with both archaeology
non-christian Jewish support for the life and the teachings of Jesus Christ we see all of this supporting and
corroborating the New Testament accounts the Gospel accounts and then when we tie the gospel accounts their testimonies
together recognizing that they fit like pieces in a puzzle that we can fill in some of those gaps by realizing that
there were many occasions where Jesus appeared to his disciples and many occasions were the Angels appear to
women at the tomb then it's easy to reconcile the alleged discrepancies and see them not as discrepancies not as
reasons to deny the the resurrection account of Christ which forms the basis for the Christian faith so again there
is no comparison with Mormonism Christianity is not the Mormonism of Judaism rather Christianity is ancient
Judaism restored according to the Bible it's Christianity that is taught in the Bible we can see the support for
Christianity in the ancient teachings of the ancient Jewish rabbis and we see the support of Christianity and Christian
beliefs from the Old Testament Scriptures going forth into the New Testament where we see the eyewitness
testimonies of Christ being validated both by the historical record the archaeological record and ultimately by
the the testimony of the eyewitness accounts who saw Christ saw the resurrected
and chose to devote their lives to him even though it costs them everything I hope this course has been encouraging to
you in your faith as a Christian and if you're a Jew watching this watching these videos I hope you consider the
claims of Christ and the claims of the New Testament and come to know Yeshua Jesus as your Lord and Savior now as we
conclude our series I like to leave you with a few resources that you can use for further study as I just merely
touched on some of these topics dealing with Judaism and there are objections to Christianity I highly recommend dr.
Michael Browns books this is Volume one of answering Jewish objections and here he talks about
general and historical objections I highly recommend that you read the series he has a five volume series
Volume one kind of deals with you know Jewish arguments like why didn't Jesus bring peace on the earth if he's the
Messiah because the Messiah is supposed to bring peace on the f:n kind of deals with a lot of their objections general
objections to the Messiah in volume 1 and volume 2 he deals with the sacrificial system and the claims of the
Jewish rabbis that we don't need a blood sacrifice I kind of touched on some of these things in one of my videos dealing
with you know Psalm 40 and sacrifice and offering you would not desire but a body you prepared for me that caught their
and my video on that but I highly recommend dr. Michael Browns books because he gets into a whole lot more
depth than what I can get into in this small little series I also recommend the vol 3 deals with the Messianic
prophecies and the Jewish interpretation of those prophecies and particularly things like the New Testament quotations
of the Old Testament that would be like you know Matthew's quotations and Isaiah 7:14 and I see a 9
many other passages of the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament does a really good job in volume 3 of
addressing those again in much more depth we kind of touched on some of these things in the video series but not
nearly to the level that you can get when you get a good 5 volume series from dr. Michael Brown addressing Jewish
objections l this is volume for answering Jewish objections to Jesus Michael Brown in this book deals with
New Testament objections that the rabbi's bring up against the New Testament and I saw some of the things
that he covered in here like the genealogies that are given of Jesus by Matthew supposedly the rabbis claim
those are those are kind of dick tree he addresses those claims and shows you how they're not contradictory this is just
some of the examples of the things you can see these are pretty thick volumes these are not you know small little
books he covers also you know as the New Testament self-contradictory and just really their objections to the New
Testament as a whole he addresses in this volume and then also answering [ __ ] objections to Jesus vol 5 this is his
most recent volume and he goes into more depth with rabbinic arguments addressing the traditional Jewish objections in in
the areas of you know rabbinic teachings and again a whole lot more understanding and depth that he has on Judaism then of
course I do in 1 year of research he's spent his lifetime studying Judaism and Michael dr. Michael Brown is indeed a
real authentic Jew I mean he was born a Jew and then of course became a Messianic Jew when he found Christ so he
really addresses things from a deep understanding not only having grown up Jewish he also has spent a significant
amount of time getting his doctorate in Near Eastern languages I forget how many languages he knows but I mean he can
actually read the source documents that I have to rely on English translations when I
was doing my research dr. Michael Brown could actually go to the source and so he does that in these volumes and like I
really like this chapter he has here in the appendix on unequal weights and measures and he shows the
inconsistencies of the one standard that the Jewish rabbis will apply to the New Testament if they applied that same
standard to try to write off the New Testament if they played that to the Old Testament they would not be able to to
hold their arguments and that's the reality though to apply one standard of the nest estimate that is just not even
a reliable standard to use for any work of antiquity let alone work that is regarded as Scripture and the Jewish
rabbis don't apply those same measuring standards to their Old Testament so again unequal weights and measures a
critique of methodologies of the anti missionaries those of the anti-jewish the anti-christian Jewish rabbis that
attack Christianity so again if anyone understands how to deal with Jewish objections is certainly
as dr. Michael Brown in addition to his five volume books he also has a couple YouTube channels the real Messiah is one
of his channels and ask dr. Brown because I would highly recommend that you check out those channels for his
answers to rabbinic objections there in the video format and you know I do have some differences with dr. Michael Brown
when it comes to some of his theological positions on non-essential issues and a few other things he gets a little more
charismatic than I'm comfortable with but when it comes to Judaism he really is the expert in that area now another
book that I would recommend to if you're not wanting to get quite as in-depth into researching Judaism perhaps you
know five volumes is a bit intimidating I would recommend then get refuting rabbinic objections to Christianity and
Messianic prophecies by eating bar he's believed the director of one for Israel that YouTube channel and also he's
working right in Israel with Jews who have come to know the miss oh Jesus and he's doing quite an amazing
online ministry to Jews and so he has this book out this is a fairly recent I believe he just came out with this book
I think it was 2019 don't quote me on let me look more quick oh yeah 2019 so it's a fairly new publication I really
found this book helpful especially when I was starting my research I've spent a lot of time in this book few issues that
I had was some of his sources that he would cite he was so familiar with them and that he didn't always give full
citations to the sources I had to do have been at digging probably anybody familiar with Judaism wouldn't have had
as much trouble digging up those sources but I kind of did because you know he might mention a rabbi but not exactly
tell you where that quote is actually found so that was a little frustrating but overall the quotes I was able to
source and find in my research definitely definitely helpful and in some cases he said enough in the book
that I knew kind of where to dig to get the answers I was looking for so I really I do really appreciate his work
here in this book and hopefully in subsequent editions he will maybe correct some of those citations so again
these are the sources that I use in my research in addition quite a bit of YouTube videos I checked out online
anything free that I could find especially as I was studying on a tight budget to begin with so but I ended up
you know breaking down and buying these volumes because dr. Michael Brown is so in-depth in his research in these
volumes and it's really a good library to have even if you're not studying Judaism it's a good library because it
addresses a lot of common objections that people have to the gospel and also give real it provides a real good basis
for understanding the roots of our our Christianity the Jewish roots of our Christian so again check out dr. michael
brown's resources and there are other really good ministries as well and we'll be giving you lis
if you go check out my website article on is Christianity the Mormonism of Judaism just the the regular article
have all kinds of links to free resources online that you can use to understand in more depth there's other
Messianic Christians or she used to say Messianic Jews who have done a significant amount of research in you
know just understanding how the New Testament quotes the Old Testament and so I can't remember all the rabbi's
former rabbi's I don't even want to call rabbi fruit and bomb I think his name he's written some some work and I have a
link on my website to that as well in that article so again there's so much available that all you need to do is do
a little more digging when you have questions that you can't answer just dig a little deeper and pray and the Lord
will lead you to answers because Christianity is a reasonable faith given the evidence there's enough evidence out
there if you have a heart to know truth and you have a heart to to believe to have faith then you can certainly find
enough evidence to support that faith so thanks again for watching this series I hope you are blessed in your walk with
Christ and if you aren't a Christian or if you aren't a Messianic Jew who has come to know Yeshua Jesus I encourage
you to check out the scriptures and to read those scriptures with a heart to know the truth and ask God to reveal his
son Yeshua Jesus issue the Messiah to you and I trust you will see that Jesus fulfills those roles all right as
Messiah you can trust him you can know that he's forgiving you of your sins if you come to him and ask him to forgive
you for what you've done wrong and make him your Lord and Savior and I can assure you that in coming to know Yeshua
Jesus you can have that peace and that assurance of salvation that you cannot find in any other religion or any other
type of thing that you pursue to find answers to that deep it deepest longing in your
soul to know to know the truth and to know who God really is [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] you you

Source : Youtube
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Webmaster