I always wondered why the writers would even give a woman credit for being the first at the tomb and being witness to it? I know they probably done the burial rights thing, cleaning the body and so forth but to be the first to witness the biggest event, if happened, In the history of man is beyond me, especially in the limited role and say they had involving religion and spiritual matters.<quoted text>
So let's wrap this up.
In Mark, three women go to the tomb to find the stone rolled away and a young man -- a neaniskos -- inside.
In Matthew, two Marys go to the tomb. An angel -- an aggelos -- rolls away the stone and sits on it, apparently outside.
Then comes Luke. Unspecified women find the tomb empty. While there, two men -- two aner -- appear beside them.
And then there's John. In John, only the Magdalene is referred to as going to the tomb. No mention of any young man, men, or angel there. None. The Magdalene tells Peter and the character often referred to as the Beloved Disciple of the empty tomb. Only after they return to the tomb does anyone encounter anyone at the tomb. This time Mary encounters Jesus -- Iesous.
So much for no errors or contradictions, eh?
Sucks to believe in nonsense, huh?
The contradictions In how many women there were may not be contradictions at all, maybe just unimportant as the resurrection was what mattered?
Maybe the writers wanted to portray women as playing bigger parts In religion and having more say? To me that doesn't make since either, unless the people ( writers ) were going on basically Jesus' teachings which would Include women as equals and their say just as Important as anyone's?
Would not it be just like a God to leave a picture ( shroud of turin ) to an event that we can only experience at that "moment" ?