Why Jesus was not needed for redemption! (traditions, Mormons, punishment)

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Jathro

I don't think of it as The Truth - I believe I know certain things to be true. I have always been a person that valued reality over comfort - social or mental. I try to to employ methodologies that reduce error and bias but no one is perfect. I'll I can do is offer reason, evidence, arguments but if people can't or won't see or understand and want comfort over reality then there is nothing else to offer.

Yeah, me too.

[justbyfaith]

Originally Posted by Jathro

As I noted everything and anything can be 'explained' when you make stuff-up.

It is called "reading between the lines".

I have showed you the problems with who saw the risen lord first, Mary or Peter/the two disciples, the meeting of the eleven and the ten - when and where, and the ascension and the commission - where.

Who saw the risen Lord first is irrelevant to anything important; and there is no contradiction because the scriptures do not specifically say, "this one saw the Lord first"...and if they do, they do not say specifically that the other one saw the Lord first.

Never heard this one before - now contradictions actual substantiate the gospels. That's funny! I'm curious if you understand how they came to be - you do know that they were written at different times to different audiences. It is clear that they copied each other in many parts and then made there own stories around these borrowings. Some of these are the exact same word structure and vocabulary. A clear sign not of collaboration but copying.

Luke may have borrowed from other gospel accounts when compiling his work...

But if there was corroboration, I do not believe that there would be any contradictions...they would have worked to make sure that none existed...especially if they were trying to concoct a story.

In police work it is known that there are often discrepancies in detail when you look at different eyewitness accounts; so the fact that there are discrepancies in the gospel writings indicates that they were indeedb eyewitness accounts (Luke is an exception since he got his information secondhand).

No I don't fear death, but you go on with your faith I'm not here to cause you any angst. Some people are better off with their useful fictions and like comfort rather than truth/reality.

You should fear death because on the other side of it is the lake of fire for you if you continue to have unbelief concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's why I chose the post resurrection account, because it is the very heart of salvation. As Paul said If he is not risen then your faith is in vain. And as I have claimed there is no good evidence to believe he actually did and have also shown you the problems win the text itself.

So, what motivates you to seek to destroy other people's faith in Jesus Christ? I suppose that the saying is true that "misery loves company". I actually feel sorry for you.

As noted there is no harmony not even in other mundane things that you think are irrelevant because they are not salvific doctrines. But even those you would think God, who is inspiring the text through their authors, would care but obviously he did not - I guess according to you.

There is definite harmony in the scriptures on most every doctrine.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

It is called "reading between the lines".

Of course we both know that there is nothing to read there. We are not talking about hidden meanings inferred by your own need to avoid the obvious. And nothing you have said resolved anything I pointed out. You make generalizations about why there is no contradictions but fail to do proper exegesis.

Who saw the risen Lord first is irrelevant to anything important; and there is no contradiction because the scriptures do not specifically say, "this one saw the Lord first"...and if they do, they do not say specifically that the other one saw the Lord first.

This odd seeing that all the gospels thought it relevant and seriously important to have eyewitnesses of the risen the Jesus - the central and most important doctrine of your faith. And yet there it is - you running from the obvious again.

Mark tells you: "He appeared first [πρῶτον] to Mary Magdalene"

Now even if he did not use the word 'first' it would not matter because other details in the narrative create the contradiction. As noted you can't see it because you don't want to see it. Following the timeline and paying attention to who, when, where, etc. is relevant. I mean that's why it is in there and why according to your own doctrine of inspiration God put it there.

Luke may have borrowed from other gospel accounts when compiling his work...

But if there was corroboration, I do not believe that there would be any contradictions...they would have worked to make sure that none existed...especially if they were trying to concoct a story.

In police work it is known that there are often discrepancies in detail when you look at different eyewitness accounts; so the fact that there are discrepancies in the gospel writings indicates that they were indeed eyewitness accounts (Luke is an exception since he got his information secondhand).

This is not even the point here - it's a rabbit trail but you are still wrong even on this diversion. As I noted it has nothing to do with corroboration - they could not do that since they were written at different times and places for different people. But they did copy each others work and or sayings. And this is clear when looking at the text. They then gave there own stories around these core borrowings. That's why we are comparing them because they are found in each gospel. And by the way none of these are independent eyewitness accounts precisely because they copied each other and are anonymous works.

In eyewitnesses accounts it would be suspicious if your account was saying the same thing in exactly the same vocabulary and word order. If I tell you about a murder and the core details are the same using different words and details that is one thing but if 2 or3 witnesses says the exact same phrase to describe it you would be suspicious of exactly the thing you are saying they could not do or did not do.

But it is worse than that because they can't get the core right - Bethany is completely different than Galilee and Peter is not Mary - etc...

You should fear death because on the other side of it is the lake of fire for you if you continue to have unbelief concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Thankfully, there is not one shred of evidence for this atrocious and ridiculous doctrine. sending someone to a torturous existence for all eternity because they failed to believe is something so extraordinary is the height of arrogance and weakness of an egotistical character - not worthy of respect let alone worship. It is wholly unjust to punish someone for all eternity for crimes done in a finite body let alone failing to believe (which should not be a crime at all) in a dead guy rising from the dead.

So, what motivates you to seek to destroy other people's faith in Jesus Christ? I suppose that the saying is true that "misery loves company". I actually feel sorry for you.

I don't seek to do that -it's not my primary goal or purpose! Offering reasons and facts for my understanding that the Bible is not inspired nor reports actually things that are true or happened in history are my goals - if that destroys your faith then so be it - again truth is more important to me than comfort or useful fictions.

There is definite harmony in the scriptures on most every doctrine.

Not here in regard to the resurrection accounts of Jesus's appearances!

[justbyfaith]

Originally Posted by Jathro

Of course we both know that there is nothing to read there. We are not talking about hidden meanings inferred by your own need to avoid the obvious. And nothing you have said resolved anything I pointed out. You make generalizations about why there is no contradictions but fail to do proper exegesis.

This odd seeing that all the gospels thought it relevant and seriously important to have eyewitnesses of the risen the Jesus - the central and most important doctrine of your faith. And yet there it is - you running from the obvious again.

Mark tells you: "He appeared first [πρῶτον] to Mary Magdalene"

Now even if he did not use the word 'first' it would not matter because other details in the narrative create the contradiction. As noted you can't see it because you don't want to see it. Following the timeline and paying attention to who, when, where, etc. is relevant. I mean that's why it is in there and why according to your own doctrine of inspiration God put it there.

Point out to me where it says in scripture that Peter saw the risen Jesus first.

This is not even the point here - it's a rabbit trail but you are still wrong even on this diversion. As I noted it has nothing to do with corroboration - they could not do that since they were written at different times and places for different people. But they did copy each others work and or sayings. And this is clear when looking at the text. They then gave there own stories around these core borrowings. That's why we are comparing them because they are found in each gospel. And by the way none of these are independent eyewitness accounts precisely because they copied each other and are anonymous works.

They are certainly not anonymous...the author's names are given at the beginning of the works.

In eyewitnesses accounts it would be suspicious if your account was saying the same thing in exactly the same vocabulary and word order. If I tell you about a murder and the core details are the same using different words and details that is one thing but if 2 or3 witnesses says the exact same phrase to describe it you would be suspicious of exactly the thing you are saying they could not do or did not do.

If the eyewitnesses heard Jesus say what He said in a specific word order, it is not suspicious. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would bring His words to their remembrance.

Now which one is it...are they saying everything in the exact same word order or are there contradictions?

But it is worse than that because they can't get the core right - Bethany is completely different than Galilee and Peter is not Mary - etc...

There is an explanation. You can ask God what it is right before He casts you headlong into everlasting fire.

Thankfully, there is not one shred of evidence for this atrocious and ridiculous doctrine. sending someone to a torturous existence for all eternity because they failed to believe is something so extraordinary is the height of arrogance and weakness of an egotistical character - not worthy of respect let alone worship. It is wholly unjust to punish someone for all eternity for crimes done in a finite body let alone failing to believe (which should not be a crime at all) in a dead guy rising from the dead.

Jde 1:14, And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jde 1:15, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jde 1:16, These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

I don't seek to do that -it's not my primary goal or purpose! Offering reasons and facts for my understanding that the Bible is not inspired nor reports actually things that are true or happened in history are my goals - if that destroys your faith then so be it - again truth is more important to me than comfort or useful fictions.

It does not destroy my faith...but the fact that you say "so be it" to the concept that it might be destroyed indicates to me that you are not someone that anyone should be speaking to.

What kind of malice in you would motivate you to attempt to destroy in someone that which gives them everlasting life?

Not here in regard to the resurrection accounts of Jesus's appearances!

Still not seeing where your contradictions are.

You are going to have to be more precise if you really want to destroy my faith.

[justbyfaith]

Psa 105:14, He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes;
Psa 105:15, Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
Psa 105:16, Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread.
Psa 105:17, He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant:
Psa 105:18, Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron:
Psa 105:19, Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him.

These scriptures tell me that the word of God does not only produce faith (as per Romans 10:17)...

It also tries a person's faith.

God is testing you to see if your faith is genuine; and whether or not you will be tenacious and hold onto Him.

As it is written,

Act 11:22, Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Act 11:23, Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
Act 11:24, For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

Point out to me where it says in scripture that Peter saw the risen Jesus first.

That is irrelevant! The story line in the gospels must be that Peter or Mary saw Jesus first - unless they saw him together at the same time.

This is why I asked you if Peter went to the tomb more than once on Sunday morning because in one gospel Mary Mag. sees him first before Peter goes to the tomb and in another after Peter goes to the tomb.

They are certainly not anonymous...the author's names are given at the beginning of the works.

This shows me that you are not familiar with the textual evidence - those were added later.

If the eyewitnesses heard Jesus say what He said in a specific word order, it is not suspicious. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would bring His words to their remembrance.

You just got done telling me otherwise. You were saying that the discrepancies were evidence of not collaborating. Now the HS is making them look like they did.

Here are your words: In police work it is known that there are often discrepancies in detail when you look at different eyewitness accounts; so the fact that there are discrepancies in the gospel writings indicates that they were indeed eyewitness account...

Your are playing tennis without the net - changing the goal posts on the fly. You can't have it both ways.

Now which one is it...are they saying everything in the exact same word order or are there contradictions?

Both - depends on the text you are reading. Obviously a contradiction in time, place, etc. is not the same thing but other texts show that they borrowed from each other and copied the text verbatim. It's not either or when talking about the whole work.

There is an explanation. You can ask God what it is right before He casts you headlong into everlasting fire.

Ok, thanks! I'll do that!

It does not destroy my faith...but the fact that you say "so be it" to the concept that it might be destroyed indicates to me that you are not someone that anyone should be speaking to.

Again, ok! But get back to the defense of your belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead instead of telling me my hellfire destination and my unworthiness.

What kind of malice in you would motivate you to attempt to destroy in someone that which gives them everlasting life?

Nothing motivates me to do such. For this to be my motive I would actually have to believe that you have eternal life - which is obviously not the case. Again, you want to defend your stance on the resurrection or not? Or are you going to continue this nonsense? If the truth has the consequence of destroying anything so-be-it.

Still not seeing where your contradictions are.

I have told you a dozens times! It contradicts on who saw Jesus first and where Jesus ascended from to name a few. There is basically a chapters worth of material to read in each gospel.Go read it side by side as I suggested and reconcile those two first. I gave you the details surrounding each of those events in each gospel. Don't be lazy! I'll be nice and repaet one for you.

You said:

Luke doesn't give the story of Jesus giving the Great Commission but does relate the ascension.

Matthew relates the Great Commission but not the ascension. Mark does not relate where Jesus was when He ascended.

Matthew relates the Great Commission as being in Galilee.

Luke relates the ascension as being near Bethany. Correct but still a problem.

Mark does relate the ascension with the great Commission and as you noted Matthew has the great commission in Galilee. Thus contradicting Luke's ascension near Bethany. Since there is only one commission and one ascension - how does that work?

You are going to have to be more precise if you really want to destroy my faith.

No, it all there to see and read! You are going to have be honest intellectually and personally to see past your bias.

[justbyfaith]

1) In Mark 16:19, it does not say that Jesus didn't go from Galilee to Bethany before He ascended and after He gave the Great Commission. There is a comma there wherein that may have taken place between the Great Commission and the ascension.

There is also a comma in Acts 9 so that Paul's testimony in Galatians 1 is also authentic; while that also might appear to be a contradiction by the same token as what you are purporting concerning these gospel accounts.

2) Again, where does it say that Peter saw Jesus first, in contradiction to the scripture where it says Mary Magdalene was the one who did that?

I think that it is possible that Peter was disciple #2 alongside of Cleophas on the Emmaus road.

3) The words spoken by Jesus is a different thing from details of what happened in the gospel accounts. If some of Jesus' words were related as being the same word order in the synoptic gospels, it is because the Holy Spirit brought those words to the disciples' remembrance. However, when it comes to events that took place and apparent contradictions between those events, it can be explained by the fact that they were eyewitness accounts.

And if Luke does say things about the events in a similar word order, it is because he got his information secondhand and was not an eyewitness; he may have indeed relied upon Matthew and/or Mark in the compiling of his gospel.

4) I don't acknowledge textual criticism that says that the author names came in later; I believe that all scripture is inspired by the Lord including the titles of the books; so, when the titles indicate the name of the author I believe that it is authentic.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

1) In Mark 16:19, it does not say that Jesus didn't go from Galilee to Bethany before He ascended and after He gave the Great Commission. There is a comma there wherein that may have taken place between the Great Commission and the ascension.

There is no comma in the earliest Greek mss.

Mark tells you he ascended and sat down at the right hand of God and they went out and preached everywhere. It also did not say he did not go to the Americas in a space ship and preached to the Cherokee - I guess we'll grant Mormonism now but also that he could have had a space ship too.

This is the height of grasping at straws. In your view he must have ascended from Galilee and sat down at the right hand of God then gone to Bethany and waited for them to arrive back in Jerusalem before descending back down to appear to them and give them another commission. Now you have two commissions and two ascensions. Or maybe he ascended out of sight then flew over to Bethany and waited there for a couple days for them to arrive back in Jerusalem. I can come up with more stories as well. Also, Luke tell us that Jesus commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until he sends the promise of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49). I feel sad for you! You are making a complete mess of it. But hey anything is possible with God, right, even nonsense I guess! Remember you said there was only one commission and ascension.

There is also a comma in Acts 9 so that Paul's testimony in Galatians 1 is also authentic; while that also might appear to be a contradiction by the same token as what you are purporting concerning these gospel accounts.

There are plenty of commas in Acts 9 - of course as noted - those are not there in the Greek mss.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the points I made about the passages I cited?

2) Again, where does it say that Peter saw Jesus first, in contradiction to the scripture where it says Mary Magdalene was the one who did that?[

Again, I did not say it says Peter saw Jesus FIRST (using that word). I said that following the narrative in Luke it is clear that he did after he visited the tomb. In Luke he appears to Peter prior to Mary Mag as seen in John.

As I noted earlier:

This is why I asked you if Peter went to the tomb more than once on Sunday morning because in one gospel Mary Mag. sees him first before Peter goes to the tomb and in another after Peter goes to the tomb.

I think that it is possible that Peter was disciple #2 alongside of Cleophas on the Emmaus road.

Yep, that is a possibility (and likely if Luke does not sound more stupid more than he already has) but that solves nothing. Mary sees Jesus after Peter goes to the tomb (John) and encounters Jesus on that road. But in Mark she sees him FIRST before she even gets to tell them of the empty tomb AND before Peter goes to the tomb.

3) The words spoken by Jesus is a different thing from details of what happened in the gospel accounts. If some of Jesus' words were related as being the same word order in the synoptic gospels, it is because the Holy Spirit brought those words to the disciples' remembrance. However, when it comes to events that took place and apparent contradictions between those events, it can be explained by the fact that they were eyewitness accounts.

It is not just Jesus' words. Sorry but you are fumbling all over the place here. As you pointed out in your analogy of 'police work' when someone has discrepancies yet the core and main facts are alike there is more confidence in NOT collaborating. But when I pointed out that it was not discrepancies that are the problem but copying of exact phrases to describe and event (apart from the contradictions which happen around core facts like Bethany/Galilee etc.) which does show suspicion and less confidence - that is in your analogy the police would be very suspect that they did either collaborate or borrow/copy someone else testimony. Hello!

You then tried to get out of this by invoking the Holy Spirit. Which completely misses the point of YOUR OWN analogy.

And if Luke does say things about the events in a similar word order, it is because he got his information secondhand and was not an eyewitness; he may have indeed relied upon Matthew and/or Mark in the compiling of his gospel.

He did! And any scholar worth anything knows this. But again the main points are not the discrepancies or the copying (which only mitigates against the independent source or witness nonsense that people put forth) but the contradictions.

4) I don't acknowledge textual criticism that says that the author names came in later; I believe that all scripture is inspired by the Lord including the titles of the books; so, when the titles indicate the name of the author I believe that it is authentic.

You believing it does not make it so.

[justbyfaith]

Originally Posted by Jathro

There is no comma in the earliest Greek mss.

Mark tells you he ascended and sat down at the right hand of God and they went out and preached everywhere. <snip>

This is the height of grasping at straws. In your view he must have ascended from Galilee and sat down at the right hand of God then gone to Bethany and waited for them to arrive back in Jerusalem before descending back down to appear to them and give them another commission. Now you have two commissions and two ascensions. Or maybe he ascended out of sight then flew over to Bethany and waited there for a couple days for them to arrive back in Jerusalem. I can come up with more stories as well. Also, Luke tell us that Jesus commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until he sends the promise of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49). I feel sad for you! You are making a complete mess of it. But hey anything is possible with God, right, even nonsense I guess! Remember you said there was only one commission and ascension.

There are plenty of commas in Acts 9 - of course as noted - those are not there in the Greek mss.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the points I made about the passages I cited?

I was not talking about literal commas as a punctuation mark, but of a place in scripture where certain details are not reported and you can fill in the blank with those details as they are related by other scripture passages.

And no, in my view he gave the Great Commission at Galilee and then went up towards Bethany with the disciples where He ascended.

It is also not grasping at straws by any means but is a solid explanation.

But if you want to continue in unbelief, I don't think that any amount of evidence that refutes your apparent contradictions is going to bring you to faith!

Again, I did not say it says Peter saw Jesus FIRST (using that word). I said that following the narrative in Luke it is clear that he did after he visited the tomb. In Luke he appears to Peter prior to Mary Mag as seen in John.

As I noted earlier:

chapter and verse please where it says that Jesus appeared to Peter prior to Mary Magdalene.

This is why I asked you if Peter went to the tomb more than once on Sunday morning because in one gospel Mary Mag. sees him first before Peter goes to the tomb and in another after Peter goes to the tomb.

I believe that when Peter saw Jesus, it was not at the tomb.

Yep, that is a possibility (and likely if Luke does not sound more stupid more than he already has) but that solves nothing. Mary sees Jesus after Peter goes to the tomb (John) and encounters Jesus on that road. But in Mark she sees him FIRST before she even gets to tell them of the empty tomb AND before Peter goes to the tomb.

Peter did not see Jesus at the tomb.

It is not just Jesus' words. Sorry but you are fumbling all over the place here. As you pointed out in your analogy of 'police work' when someone has discrepancies yet the core and main facts are alike there is more confidence in NOT collaborating. But when I pointed out that it was not discrepancies that are the problem but copying of exact phrases to describe and event (apart from the contradictions which happen around core facts like Bethany/Galilee etc.) which does show suspicion and less confidence - that is in your analogy the police would be very suspect that they did either collaborate or borrow/copy someone else testimony. Hello!

You then tried to get out of this by invoking the Holy Spirit. Which completely misses the point of YOUR OWN analogy.

Give some examples of when the authors of the gospels copied exact phrases to describe the same event.

He did! And any scholar worth anything knows this. But again the main points are not the discrepancies or the copying (which only mitigates against the independent source or witness nonsense that people put forth) but the contradictions.

What contradictions?

You believing it does not make it so.

You not believing it does not make it not so.

Originally Posted by justbyfaith

I was not talking about literal commas as a punctuation mark, but of a place in scripture where certain details are not reported and you can fill in the blank with those details as they are related by other scripture passages.

Filling in blanks in not going to reconcile the points I brought out. You were making up stuff that was not even in 'other passages' to account for the problems - so stop this nonsense.

And no, in my view he gave the Great Commission at Galilee and then went up towards Bethany with the disciples where He ascended.

It is also not grasping at straws by any means but is a solid explanation.

Sorry that fails! And I showed you why and you did not do anything to reconcile the problems.

Did you not read the passages - Jeez! Matthew, as YOU SAID, has the great commission in Galilee. Well Mark has the great commission and tells you that he ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. Either there are two commissions or there is problem here - YOU ALSO SAID that there was only one commission. Still a problem.

Now, going to Luke, he has the ascension near Jerusalem with a commission. You have too many commissions and ascensions. And you have Jesus traveling with the disciples for days to get back to Jerusalem from Galilee. Your view is not in the Gospels.

And you still have not answered me this for the 3rd time:

Mark does relate the ascension with the great Commission and as you noted Matthew has the great commission in Galilee. Thus contradicting Luke's ascension near Bethany. Since there is only one commission and one ascension - how does that work?

Let's make it easy for you:

The great Commission is in Galilee (Matt. and You)

The Ascension goes with the Great Commission (Mark)

Thus the Ascension and the Commission must be in Galilee (Matt. and Mark)

The Ascension is in Bethany (Luke)

Now reconcile that since there is only one commission and ascension without assertions and making stuff up -use the Bible .

But if you want to continue in unbelief, I don't think that any amount of evidence that refutes your apparent contradictions is going to bring you to faith!

You have not given any 'evidence' of anything. You assert your beliefs which are not in the texts by grasping at straws. You have done nothing to alleviate the problems.

chapter and verse please where it says that Jesus appeared to Peter prior to Mary Magdalene.

I believe that when Peter saw Jesus, it was not at the tomb.

Correct Peter did not see him at the tomb but shortly thereafter - after he left on his way back.

John 20

Verse 1 - Mary M. goes to the tomb.

Verse 2 - She goes to tell Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Verses 3-10 Peter and the other disciple go ahead of the others to the tomb and then return to their homes.

Verses 11-14 Mary stood outside the tomb (here we see that she followed them to the tomb again). She ends up seeing Jesus with the two angles at this time. Obviously she arrived after Peter.

All on Sunday morning!

Luke 24

Verses 1-11 The woman (Mary M. among them) go to the tomb and then return to tell the eleven. They did not see Jesus.

Verses 12- Peter runs to the tomb to see for himself.

Verse 13-34 The story picks-up with two of them on the road to Emmaus. Verse 24 tells us that there was more of them that went to the tomb ( they told Jesus this). They end at evening time (Sunday/Monday) eating with Jesus but afterwards he vanishes from them and they leave that very hour back to Jerusalem to find the eleven. They tell the eleven what had happened and that he also appeared to Simon - verse 34. So shortly after Peter went to the tomb he saw Jesus. This was on Sunday morning. So here we see that Peter sees Jesus first as there is no mention of the woman seeing Jesus. It's obvious Luke is presenting Peter as the first along with Paul in I Cor.15.

Now Mark, verse 9 - says that early on Sunday he appeared to Mary M. FIRST.

According to Luke Peter sees Jesus first and no mention of woman seeing Jesus, John has Mary seeing Jesus after Peter goes to the tomb, and Mark has her seeing him first when she went to the tomb and returned and told them and they did not believe.

If you can't see the problems here then you have no hope!

Give some examples of when the authors of the gospels copied exact phrases to describe the same event.

Mark 2:14; Matt.9:9; Luke 5:27

Mark 6:35-37; Matt.14:15-16; Luke 9:12-13 (John has the same story but tells it in his own words)

Matt.11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22

Matt.3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9

In the Greek it is much clearer how close each of them are. Also, you must realize that Jesus spoke Aramaic - think about that! Also, note that you can't say that on one hand when they have the same story but tell it in a different way (like John) that is proof of non-collaboration and also proof that when they do it is just the Holy Spirit helping them look like they are copying some common source.

What contradictions?

Where the commission and Ascension took place since there is only one commission and one ascension and Mark links them both. And don't repeat your bald assertion - show your work and lay out how it works with the passages and deal with what I wrote.

You not believing it does not make it not so.

I'm not the one who used the word belief - you did! There is no evidence for your claim. If the mss had the the title with the author's name why did not the early Church Father's quote that when quoting Scriptures and referring to the authorship of the gospels? Instead, they referred to tradition about who wrote them not that that's what was written in the gospel or at the beginning of it.