Gospel Contradictions

[crowTrobot 2]

the fact that the gospels, canonical or otherwise, blatantly contradict each other in detail

Not in any meaningful and/or irreconcilable way.

reconcile this.from:http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm"Of all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, few make more of a mess of things than the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as given in the four gospels.Here we have a single narrative, told by four different authors, that is so contradictory that I've never seen an explanation of it. It will be interesting to see the fundamentalists untangle this mess. For the sake of brevity, we'll just pick up the story on that first Easter Sunday:When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick. At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15). I'm sorry, but at this point, the stories diverge so completely, it is not possible to correlate them any further. But that's OK, because by now, you get the point. There are just too many glaring inconsistencies here, most of which are mutually exclusive without some really implausible apologetics. So much so that it’s ludicrous to claim that the four accounts are all true. As you've seen, they can't possibly be."

[Mattnxtc 0]

search through the old posts...probably in the case for christ thread that went on before the forum was made...this was already looked at and explained

[crowTrobot 2]

search through the old posts...probably in the case for christ thread that went on before the forum was made...this was already looked at and explained

you made excuses and explained nothing, just like semaj is about to do.

[DonkSlayer 1]

My interp from your comparison:Either right before sunrise or during sunrise, Mary Magdalene and possibly Mary, mother of Jesus, arrived at the tomb of Jesus. An earthquake concurrently occurred, and the stone from the tomb had been moved away, and by 3 accounts there were men/beings in gleaming white near. The beings spoke to Mary Magdalene and alluded to the resurrection of Jesus (the OP was misleading, as much more was said by the man who asked "Why are you crying?" in John). Mary Magdalene (and Mary mother of Jesus if she was present) left the tomb to tell the disciples, while not letting anyone else near them know of this occurrence. It is unclear at what point Mary Magdalene (and the other Mary if she was present) realized just what had happened.So it would be totally off for me to believe that at least Mary Magdalene went to Jesus's tomb, a huge stone was removed by a convenient earthquake, beings dressed gleamingly and oddly for the culture and location were present around the tomb, and that Jesus was no longer present even though Romans were supposed to be guarding it, right?EDIT: Yes, it is extremely unlikely that any of these accounts are exactly accurate for what occurred. As is your history book in events before 1870ish.

[semaj550 0]

Simon Greenleaf wrote a pretty definitive article harmonizing the gospel accounts of the resurrection. A useful summary of it can be found at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm. I really don't have a whole lot more to add myself.

[crowTrobot 2]

EDIT: Yes, it is extremely unlikely that any of these accounts are exactly accurate for what occurred. As is your history book in events before 1870ish.

excuse #1 "you wouldn't expect accounts from that era to be exactly accurate"comparing the the level of accuracy of accounts in the bible to other ancient historical works in which metaphysics are automatically discounted, then accepting metaphysics in the bible is a double standard.

[crowTrobot 2]

Simon Greenleaf wrote a pretty definitive article harmonizing the gospel accounts of the resurrection. A useful summary of it can be found at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm. I really don't have a whole lot more to add myself.

that's a great collection of narrative-style related excuses and chronological shifting to make things match as best as possible (even though they still don't at all in some cases). it also bases its major points on *shifting* the burden of proof - assumes gospels are accurate and places burden on DISproof. pretty lame, as you would expect in 1874 i guess.

[semaj550 0]

that's a great collection of narrative-style related excuses and chronological shifting to make things match as best as possible (even though they still don't at all in some cases). it also bases its major points on *shifting* the burden of proof - assumes gospels are accurate and places burden on DISproof. pretty lame, as you would expect in 1874 i guess.

True, Harvard Law doesn't exactly have a precident for excellence or anything.There are a wealth of other scholars who have already reconciled the gospel accounts for the resurrection. The consistent theme is that they are not contradictory. Another angle to view the issue from can be found at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html.

[crowTrobot 2]

True, Harvard Law doesn't exactly have a precident for excellence or anything.

the piece is clearly written with the assumption of gospel truth equating to the legal presumption of innocence, and the burden placed on disproof. it does not (that i noticed) even address the possibility that the gospel accounts could vary in the way they do because they are the first written transcriptions of oral tradition/legend that varied in detail from different places and times (and not first-hand accounts).

[semaj550 0]

the piece is clearly written with the assumption of gospel truth equating to the legal presumption of innocence, and the burden placed on disproof. it does not (that i noticed) even address the possibility that the gospel accounts could vary in the way they do because they are the first written transcriptions of oral tradition/legend that varied in detail from different places and times (and not first-hand accounts).

Greenleaf showed how what is contained in the Bible's is consistent across the accounts. He assesses the gospels' capacity as evidence at they would be judged by a court of law. I'm not sure where you got this idea that the gospels are presumed true until proven false. Greenleaf proves their validity rather than offering an argument disproving skeptics. If anything, it is up to skeptics to "cross-examine" his testimony as a positive argument is already given.

[crowTrobot 2]

Greenleaf showed how what is contained in the Bible's is consistent across the accounts.

no, he showed how the accounts could potentially be consistent if you make about 50 assumptions.

I'm not sure where you got this idea that the gospels are presumed true until proven false.

because that's (rather obviously) his approach

[Loismustdie 0]

This is all will say on this one,because we already went through this. The stories do not have to 100% have the details match up for the reckoning of the occurence to be true. If, knowing the accounts were written by different men, the accounts matched detail for detail I would have to suspect collusion, as it is there obviously was none, and the translators obviously cared about the integrity of the text enough to not doctor what was there. If they did doctor it, they were horrid at it,and completely bungled the job.

[Loismustdie 0]

the piece is clearly written with the assumption of gospel truth equating to the legal presumption of innocence, and the burden placed on disproof. it does not (that i noticed) even address the possibility that the gospel accounts could vary in the way they do because they are the first written transcriptions of oral tradition/legend that varied in detail from different places and times (and not first-hand accounts).

They are not all first hand accounts, and still the story gets across. That's the point that you continually miss.

[crowTrobot 2]

They are not all first hand accounts, and still the story gets across. That's the point that you continually miss.

by not first-hand i mean not necessarily accounts of contemporaries. obviously the authors aren't claiming to be first-hand witnesses to the ressurection itself.

[Mattnxtc 0]

you made excuses and explained nothing, just like semaj is about to do.

hmm hwo about u post my actual responses so everybody sees i never made any excuses

[Mattnxtc 0]

by not first-hand i mean not necessarily accounts of contemporaries. obviously the authors aren't claiming to be first-hand witnesses to the ressurection itself.

have 5 people watch a car accident...none of their stories will match up exactly...thats the nature of human observation...dont they teach u scientists that?

[crowTrobot 2]

have 5 people watch a car accident...none of their stories will match up exactly...thats the nature of human observation...dont they teach u scientists that?

that was one of your excuses.

[Loismustdie 0]

that was one of your excuses.

Sounds like an explanation to me- whether or not it's good enough for you is the real issue, which it obviously isn't.

[crowTrobot 2]

Sounds like an explanation to me- whether or not it's good enough for you is the real issue, which it obviously isn't.

no, the issue is that gospel inconsistencies are severe enough to indicate they are most likely non-contemporary transcriptions of varying oral tradition, rather than accounts from contemporaries who witnessed (most of) the events they decribe. saying the inconsistencies are due to different observers describing the same events differently does not explain them.the ressurection mess is just the tip of the iceberg, too.

[semaj550 0]

no, the issue is that gospel inconsistencies are severe enough to indicate they are most likely non-contemporary transcriptions of varying oral tradition, rather than accounts from contemporaries who witnessed (most of) the events they decribe. saying the inconsistencies are due to different observers describing the same events differently does not explain them.the ressurection mess is just the tip of the iceberg, too.

I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn about it. Matt and Lois hit the nail on the head. The gospels are not contradictory in any manner which would negate their accuracy. There are other avenues which you can follow to argue their inaccuracy but the gospels don't disprove themselves through these supposed "contradictions". In fact most of these "contradictions" are read into the gospels. One author including a detail while another doesn't is NOT a contradiction. It is evidence that two different people witnessed an event. You would need to provide evidence that one author postively affirms one thing while another author positively affirms something contrary.Here is an atheist website which lists a good number of supposed contradictions:http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htmHere is a Christian website which does an excellent job at debunking the major ones:http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html

[David_Nicoson 1]

I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn about it. Matt and Lois hit the nail on the head. The gospels are not contradictory in any manner which would negate their accuracy.

I personally think the story of the resurrection itself is fairly consistent in the cannon. That is, the minor differences aren't any more of problem than the existence of separate gospels in the first place.

There are other avenues which you can follow to argue their inaccuracy but the gospels don't disprove themselves through these supposed "contradictions". In fact most of these "contradictions" are read into the gospels. One author including a detail while another doesn't is NOT a contradiction.

I'll agree with that last point, too. The differences in the timeline between John and the other 3 is a little different matter, though.

It is evidence that two different people witnessed an event.

No, I don't think so. We can tell they're working from at least one common source, which may or may not be an eye witness account. Consider the various movies of "A Christmas Carol". They have some different details and some common ground. This is not evidence of the original story being fact.

You would need to provide evidence that one author positively affirms one thing while another author positively affirms something contrary.

The day of the last supper. The disciples present for the second coming.

[speedz99 145]

have 5 people watch a car accident...none of their stories will match up exactly...thats the nature of human observation...dont they teach u scientists that?

There's a difference between this:Person A: They ran a red light.Person B: It had already turned green.and this:Person A: During the accident the car rolled all the way over.Person B: During the accident the car rolled into its side. The people inside were trapped and in danger. An angel came down from heaven and rolled the car the rest of the way over.

[DonkSlayer 1]

There's a difference between this:Person A: They ran a red light.Person B: It had already turned green.and this:Person A: During the accident the car rolled all the way over.Person B: During the accident the car rolled into its side. The people inside were trapped and in danger. An angel came down from heaven and rolled the car the rest of the way over.

Lol, actually I would say that your first example is more contradictory than the second, which is just one person having a lot more detail than the other, although the outcome was the same.

[speedz99 145]

Lol, actually I would say that your first example is more contradictory than the second, which is just one person having a lot more detail than the other, although the outcome was the same.

Yeah, but you get the idea. I'm sure someone smarter could come up with a better version of the first example.As for the second example, whether you believe that Person B had more detail, is insane, or is just a liar (although he may be lying for a reason) is entirely up to you...and illustrates the point of why this argument will never be resolved. Some people believe Person B and think it can't be proven that he have a faulty account. Some people don't believe Person B and think that it can't be proven that he gave the correct account.Should I be using "proven" or "proved" in that context? I need the grammar police...

[DonkSlayer 1]

Yeah, but you get the idea. I'm sure someone smarter could come up with a better version of the first example.As for the second example, whether you believe that Person B had more detail, is insane, or is just a liar (although he may be lying for a reason) is entirely up to you...and illustrates the point of why this argument will never be resolved. Some people believe Person B and think it can't be proven that he have a faulty account. Some people don't believe Person B and think that it can't be proven that he gave the correct account.Should I be using "proven" or "proved" in that context? I need the grammar police...

Well, coming from a faith-oriented position, I find the Gospel of John to be much heavier in the "adding bells and whistles to the historical account" than the other three gospels. I understand why this subject would be very frustrating for someone trying to deal with someone else that believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God (me not being one of those types).