Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Matthew and Luke both say the women went back and told the disciples about the resurrection. John says only Mary Magdalene did so. And Mark states the women didn't tell the disciples because they were afraid. Luke states that Peter went to the tomb after hearing the women's report, but John says Peter and John went to the tomb. John further states Mary went to the tomb twice, once alone without seeing angels, and later on with Peter and John when she did see two angels. The other writers say Mary went only once. Do the gospel resurrection accounts contradict each other?
This issue you bring up by detractors, is a really old saw and has been debunked over and over and over again. The above link, if anyone cares to educate themselves on the issue concerning the differences in the resurrection account, is what I consider to be a good explanation.
Correct.
This is where we disagree. Something that is the very foundation of the Christian faith and an event which rocked the world was just a careless attempt to cobble a story together? Hardly.
True. It is like 4 people witnessing a murder. One person saw the guy get out of a car and shoot someone.
Another got there just a little later and didn't see him exit a car but saw him murder someone. Another person got their a little later, didn't see him exit a car, didn't see him shoot anyone but saw him run from the scene, get into his car and speed away.
Matthew has Christ telling the disciples to bring the donkey and colt. The colt was young and needed its mother with it.
Mark tells us Christ wanted the colt. Both are true. Matthew didn't misinterpret anything. Zech.9:9 has it:
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and endowed with salvation, humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." The mother was brought along for the ride to comfort the younger one.
Joh 13:1 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus, being aware that His hour came that He may be proceeding out of this world to the Father, loving His own who are in the world, He loves them to the consummation."
Mar 14:12 And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, His disciples are saying to Him, "Where dost Thou want us to come away that we should be making ready, that Thou mayest eat the passover?
Luk 22:7-8 Now came the day of unleavened bread, in which the passover must be sacrificed." (8) And He dispatches Peter and John, saying, "Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may be eating."
Concerning Mark 14:12 "The first day of the unleavened bread" was not, as might be supposed, the first day of the festival of unleavened bread (Lev 23:7), but the day before, the day of the Passover proper. Similarly, the term Passover was often applied to the festival which followed.
No problem.
Except you have done what all inerrantists do---made up a story to try to conflate the differences. Your account is NOT biblical. The verses themselves tell the story as the writers understood it. Your article even states outright that the "major" viewpoints about the resurrection remain in all stories. That was what I was stating in my original post. More than that, I agree that other than the details the separate stories verify "something happened." It's what lends credibility to the accounts to make it less than a conspiracy. Perfection, however, supports conspiracy.
But lack of faith in God is the reason fundamentalists need a "perfect" Bible. They don't believe God is capable of accomplishing anything through fallible men. Except that is the theme of the entire Bible. God works through fallible men. Those who are upset with God's plan concoct a story of biblical perfection (which not even the Bible claims) in order to have an idol to worship.
It's easy to worship an idol. Much harder when one must delve through human mistakes. You are trying to be an atheist in reverse--claim the book is factual when it is a book about faith. If the book is perfect, it's not about faith, it's about your concocted version of fact versus that of a modern day historian. In fact, if it is perfect with no difference in the accounts or with your acceptance of made up stories to conflate the different testimonies, then the Bible is a complicity. No wonder you can't attract anyone to your religion any more. It's stupid, and you are seen as accepting stupid--not foolishness--foolishness is miles further up the ladder than stupid.
It takes no faith to believe in something you hold and grasp. It's why the RCC is caught up in idols of cross and statues of saints and prayer beads. Fundamentalists treat their Bibles in the same way. But it is not faith.
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him," Hebrews 11:6a
The Bible is an anchor around the necks of so many, dragging them down to the depths of the ocean, exposing them as no more than the idolators they are, condemning them for the LAW that they follow.
I can provide literally HUNDREDS of examples where details are wrong. And in every case a fundamentalist has created a fiction story, which if believed, makes the discrepancy appear to go away. Except you are using fiction to support what you think is perfect. How can it be perfect if it needs to be explained?
Good luck with your "stories" that are made up to make you feel better about an idol.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,946,704 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
There you did it again. Does he say "contradictions in the Bible"? Or "apparent contradictions"?
You should pay attention to what he actually says before you start ripping into him. If you can't get his words correct...why should we believe ANYTHING you say about the Bible? You misquoting him demonstrates your presuppositions about him, and the Bible.
Vizio, you outed yourself!
Here I always thought you were a closet Hovind type. Now there is no doubt about it.
Bet it feels good to get that one of your chest. How did your family accept it?
It is like 4 people witnessing a murder. One person saw the guy get out of a car and shoot someone. Another got there just a little later and didn't see him exit a car but saw him murder someone. Another person got their a little later, didn't see him exit a car, didn't see him shoot anyone but saw him run from the scene, get into his car and speed away.
And no one saw that the victim was the one driving the car, who merely defended himself?
Look at the story of the women at the tomb after the crucifixion. Matthew says two women were there, Mary Magdalene and another Mary. Mark says three women were there, adding Salome to the Marys. Luke says the Marys, Salome, and others were there. Finally, John comes along and says only one went to the tomb, Mary Magdalene. Matthew and Mark say there was one angel at the tomb while Luke and John say there were two.
Matthew and Luke both say the women went back and told the disciples about the resurrection. John says only Mary Magdalene did so. And Mark states the women didn't tell the disciples because they were afraid. Luke states that Peter went to the tomb after hearing the women's report, but John says Peter and John went to the tomb. John further states Mary went to the tomb twice, once alone without seeing angels, and later on with Peter and John when she did see two angels. The other writers say Mary went only once.
The oldest trick in the book in inerrantists reconciling these differing accounts is to just make multiple visits:
First, three women went, Mary Magdalene, another Mary and Salome. Later, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went back. Later after that, all the previous women went back again some for the third time, one for the second time and the others for the first time. Later, Mary Magdalene went back for the fourth time.
Far as telling the apostles, first they were too afraid to. Later they changed their minds.
Far as the young man and the angels, first it was a young man who went and was there while the three women came and told them, "He is risen". Later, one angel appeared to greet the two women who went back. One angel joined the other one, making two angels when then whole troop went back and when Mary Magdalene returned the fourth time by herself.
We could reconcile 40 visits by Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference at Potsdam in this manner. It's a piece of cake.
That all these differing accounts were written 50-100 years after the event by people not even there only adds to their veracity.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 01-03-2016 at 02:29 PM..
Except you have done what all inerrantists do---made up a story to try to conflate the differences. Your account is NOT biblical. The verses themselves tell the story as the writers understood it. Your article even states outright that the "major" viewpoints about the resurrection remain in all stories. That was what I was stating in my original post. More than that, I agree that other than the details the separate stories verify "something happened." It's what lends credibility to the accounts to make it less than a conspiracy. Perfection, however, supports conspiracy.
But lack of faith in God is the reason fundamentalists need a "perfect" Bible. They don't believe God is capable of accomplishing anything through fallible men. Except that is the theme of the entire Bible. God works through fallible men. Those who are upset with God's plan concoct a story of biblical perfection (which not even the Bible claims) in order to have an idol to worship.
It's easy to worship an idol. Much harder when one must delve through human mistakes. You are trying to be an atheist in reverse--claim the book is factual when it is a book about faith. If the book is perfect, it's not about faith, it's about your concocted version of fact versus that of a modern day historian. In fact, if it is perfect with no difference in the accounts or with your acceptance of made up stories to conflate the different testimonies, then the Bible is a complicity. No wonder you can't attract anyone to your religion any more. It's stupid, and you are seen as accepting stupid--not foolishness--foolishness is miles further up the ladder than stupid.
It takes no faith to believe in something you hold and grasp. It's why the RCC is caught up in idols of cross and statues of saints and prayer beads. Fundamentalists treat their Bibles in the same way. But it is not faith.
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him," Hebrews 11:6a
The Bible is an anchor around the necks of so many, dragging them down to the depths of the ocean, exposing them as no more than the idolators they are, condemning them for the LAW that they follow.
I can provide literally HUNDREDS of examples where details are wrong. And in every case a fundamentalist has created a fiction story, which if believed, makes the discrepancy appear to go away. Except you are using fiction to support what you think is perfect. How can it be perfect if it needs to be explained?
Good luck with your "stories" that are made up to make you feel better about an idol.
I worship my bible every day. I burn incense to it too and sacrifice human sacrifice to it too.
What proof do you offer that there is no flying spaghetti monster?
What proof do you offer that the writings we call the Bible are authentic historic writings?
Why would I want to try to disprove the flying spaghetti monster? We all know you believe in that. I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.
There is nothing more disheartening then a cheesy pizza without any meat.
Unless it's also got broccoli stalks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
