PDA

View Full Version : Conflicting Gospels



manichunter
Jul 5th 2008, 06:38 AM
How do you reconcile four different conclusions in the gospels that have major differences? Why all the contradictions and variations?

Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

This one has just two Marys, the only one with guards, an earthquake, one angel who was witnessed coming from heaven and rolling back the stone.


Mark 16
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

This one has both Marys but adds a Salome, no earthquake, the angel was already inside the tomb, the stone was already rolled away, and the guards where missing.


Luke 24
1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

Here we have a group of unknown people, stone rolled away, two angels are present already in the opened tomb, no earthquake or guards present


John 16
1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

Here we have Mary Magdalene going by herself, the stone is rolled back, sees no body in the tomb and runs to go the disciples. She eventually sees angel later that turns out to be Jesus.

Why are all these different accounts of the resurrection?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 06:48 AM
The reason there are different accounts is because they were written by different people. Mark wasn't there and neither was Luke (Luke interviewed witnesses when composing his Gospel). Only Matthew and John would have had first hand evidence.

All three, however, would have different stories depending on who they interviewed (or in the case of Matthew and John, what they remembered).

In light of this, none of it is contradictory. Each one is simply incomplete about what occurred in full. None of the passages say "Mary alone" or "just these people" but simply gives the names of certain individuals. None of them limit who all went.

Concerning the guards, an omission doesn't mean the author didn't think they were there - merely that he didn't find it compelling enough to place them in the story.

Finally, the angels - none of these say the angels were stationary and incapable of movement. Certainly the women, after seeing the Angels out front, would have walked into the tomb. Furthermore, it is also plausible that there were Angels both outside the tomb and inside the tomb (though I believe the previous explanation I gave is more plausible).

manichunter
Jul 5th 2008, 06:56 AM
The reason there are different accounts is because they were written by different people. Mark wasn't there and neither was Luke (Luke interviewed witnesses when composing his Gospel). Only Matthew and John would have had first hand evidence.

All three, however, would have different stories depending on who they interviewed (or in the case of Matthew and John, what they remembered).

In light of this, none of it is contradictory. Each one is simply incomplete about what occurred in full. None of the passages say "Mary alone" or "just these people" but simply gives the names of certain individuals. None of them limit who all went.

Concerning the guards, an omission doesn't mean the author didn't think they were there - merely that he didn't find it compelling enough to place them in the story.

Finally, the angels - none of these say the angels were stationary and incapable of movement. Certainly the women, after seeing the Angels out front, would have walked into the tomb. Furthermore, it is also plausible that there were Angels both outside the tomb and inside the tomb (though I believe the previous explanation I gave is more plausible).


You had to do some speculation that would not convince this skeptic, but the beginning was right on the money in that I thought the same thing. I figured God would have to tell me Himself.

So the Word of God does allow different accounts of the same event. I thought it was perfect (infallible) I was asked?

I was actually asked this question. I said about what you said in the first part. I did not however speculate anything that I could not prove.........

talitha
Jul 5th 2008, 10:56 AM
The account in Matthew does not say that the earthquake happened while Mary and Mary were there, nor does it say that only two women came to the tomb..... None of the accounts say exactly that Mary Magdalene came at the same time as the other women.

I think if you put all of these together, this could be what you get:

An angel came and rolled the stone away, the earth quaked, and the guards, afraid, left the scene. Then Mary Magdalene came, saw that the tomb was empty, and went to tell the disciples. Then a group of women came (we don't know how many) to anoint Jesus' body, and they encountered angels. Some of them saw one, some saw two or maybe three......

At any rate, I always keep in mind that the Word of God is always right. If I think I see something wrong or contradictory, and it troubles me, I go to the Lord for wisdom (James 1). There have been times that I have had to hold a question like that inside my mind for a long time, but He does bring me to answers, and it always turns out that there was something I didn't understand or some information I was missing.

blessings
tal

apothanein kerdos
Jul 5th 2008, 01:27 PM
You had to do some speculation that would not convince this skeptic, but the beginning was right on the money in that I thought the same thing. I figured God would have to tell me Himself.

So the Word of God does allow different accounts of the same event. I thought it was perfect (infallible) I was asked?

I was actually asked this question. I said about what you said in the first part. I did not however speculate anything that I could not prove.........

My job is never to convince anyone of anything, merely to present the truth. The truth on this is that no speculation is needed - in fact, to assert that all of these accounts contradict themselves constitutes speculation (it speculates that each one means "only" when referring to certain events).

As for the Bible being infallible - being infallible doesn't mean people can't offer different perspectives. If three people share three different perspectives of the same event, so long as those perspectives don't contradicts each other (they rule in absolute mutual exclusivity), then all three stories could conceivably be true.

Athanasius
Jul 5th 2008, 02:32 PM
The problem with the skeptic is the fact that these accounts are eye witness accounts--of course they aren't going to coincide with each other exactly (not that they contradict, as shown above). If they did then we wouldn't be dealing with the 'contradictions', but the inane level of accuracy.

The skeptic will admit that eye witness testimony in court is extremely dubious but hold that same 'testimony' to a different standward when dealing with a text out of antiquity--it's living in contradiction.

coffee cup
Jul 5th 2008, 10:33 PM
How do you reconcile four different conclusions in the gospels that have major differences? Why all the contradictions and variations?

Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

This one has just two Marys, the only one with guards, an earthquake, one angel who was witnessed coming from heaven and rolling back the stone.


Mark 16
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

This one has both Marys but adds a Salome, no earthquake, the angel was already inside the tomb, the stone was already rolled away, and the guards where missing.


Luke 24
1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

Here we have a group of unknown people, stone rolled away, two angels are present already in the opened tomb, no earthquake or guards present


John 16
1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

Here we have Mary Magdalene going by herself, the stone is rolled back, sees no body in the tomb and runs to go the disciples. She eventually sees angel later that turns out to be Jesus.

Why are all these different accounts of the resurrection?


Because God is using different people to describe what had a impact on them what they saw .


If a person went to a big fire in town. And asked four witnesss what they saw . each would say what was very noticciable to them.
and even though all the stories would be slightly different . they would all be true.


now if you or me had written a book to try to Fool people that it was the word of God . We would not have wrritten it with so many differences .
We would have come up with a book with no contradictions in it. The many "seemingly" Contradictions in the bible Is Just one way how we know its author was truly God
but there are many other ways we can tell also. A very remarkable thing about the bible is this "a person who prepares them selves to be destroyed in hell" will look at the bible
and see nothing but foolishness . But those who find Jesus in every word of Scripture are saved by it absolute truth that

Only in Jesus their is repentance and absolution from ones sins.

Naphal
Jul 6th 2008, 08:45 AM
Differences do not always equal contradictions. Nothing in any of the accounts contradicts any other. They simply have more or less details. A contradiction would be if one said Mary was there and one said she was not there.



How do you reconcile four different conclusions in the gospels that have major differences? Why all the contradictions and variations?

Matthew 28
1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

This one has just two Marys, the only one with guards, an earthquake, one angel who was witnessed coming from heaven and rolling back the stone.


Mark 16
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. 5And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.

This one has both Marys but adds a Salome, no earthquake, the angel was already inside the tomb, the stone was already rolled away, and the guards where missing.


Luke 24
1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

Here we have a group of unknown people, stone rolled away, two angels are present already in the opened tomb, no earthquake or guards present


John 16
1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

Here we have Mary Magdalene going by herself, the stone is rolled back, sees no body in the tomb and runs to go the disciples. She eventually sees angel later that turns out to be Jesus.

Why are all these different accounts of the resurrection?

manichunter
Jul 6th 2008, 01:23 PM
My job is never to convince anyone of anything, merely to present the truth. The truth on this is that no speculation is needed - in fact, to assert that all of these accounts contradict themselves constitutes speculation (it speculates that each one means "only" when referring to certain events).

As for the Bible being infallible - being infallible doesn't mean people can't offer different perspectives. If three people share three different perspectives of the same event, so long as those perspectives don't contradicts each other (they rule in absolute mutual exclusivity), then all three stories could conceivably be true.

thanks greatly for the wisdom

Joey Porter
Jul 6th 2008, 10:18 PM
Those who say that the gospels have differeces simply because they were written by different people are totally missing or ignoring the fact that the gospels were divinely inspired to be written exactly as they were. The writers did not choose from their own minds to write anything that was written. They were inspired to write what they did. Therefore, any differences or variations (and there are MANY) are in there for a reason.

I have never understood how a person who insists that the gospels were divinely inspired, can, at the same time, say that the differences in them are merely due to them being written by different human beings.

Are the gospels divinely inspired, or aren't they?

The gospel differences reveal hidden knowledge about the Kingdom of heaven, and about the time we are living in right now.

The problem is, most people spend so much time trying to study and uphold the continunity and harmony of the gospels, that the revelations that the differences present to us are missed or ignored. But these revelations are mind blowing and life changing, in many respects.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 10:59 PM
Those who say that the gospels have differeces simply because they were written by different people are totally missing or ignoring the fact that the gospels were divinely inspired to be written exactly as they were. The writers did not choose from their own minds to write anything that was written. They were inspired to write what they did. Therefore, any differences or variations (and there are MANY) are in there for a reason.

I have never understood how a person who insists that the gospels were divinely inspired, can, at the same time, say that the differences in them are merely due to them being written by different human beings.

Are the gospels divinely inspired, or aren't they?

The gospel differences reveal hidden knowledge about the Kingdom of heaven, and about the time we are living in right now.

The problem is, most people spend so much time trying to study and uphold the continunity and harmony of the gospels, that the revelations that the differences present to us are missed or ignored. But these revelations are mind blowing and life changing, in many respects.

They weren't absent minded when they wrote the Gospel. They had complete control of their faculties while writing - it is just that the Holy Spirit inspired them while writing so that when they wrote, it was truth that was coming out.

If it weren't so, why would Paul write his own opinion into the text? Or why would Luke even say, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us..."

In other words, Luke is saying that he's writing a history from the perspective of the witnesses.

Just because the Bible is inspired doesn't mean the personality isn't present in the writing - this is why there are various writing styles in the Scripture. The personalities of the authors are present in the writings.

Joey Porter
Jul 6th 2008, 11:27 PM
I agree with you! The personalities of the individual are contained in each gospel. But what about the information contained in them?

Let me give you just one brief example:

Luke 19
35They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.

This is a verse from Luke within the story of the Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Aside from other differences between the gospels (a donkey, a colt, a donkey and a colt, etc.), Luke is the only gospel to specifically tell us that the disciples put Him on the colt.

So, the question is - does this detail being contained only in the gospel of Luke stem from the personality of the writer, or is this detail included intentionally to reveal to us something about the kingdom, about the time we are living in right now, something that the writer probably didn't even understand himself at the time he wrote it?

I can tell you without doubt that this small detail holds huge prophetic meaning for our time now. And this is only one of hundreds of slight variations (and some not so slight) throughout the gospels that reveal to us deeper Truth about the Kingdom of heaven.

Naphal
Jul 6th 2008, 11:27 PM
Those who say that the gospels have differeces simply because they were written by different people are totally missing or ignoring the fact that the gospels were divinely inspired to be written exactly as they were. The writers did not choose from their own minds to write anything that was written. They were inspired to write what they did. Therefore, any differences or variations (and there are MANY) are in there for a reason.

I have never understood how a person who insists that the gospels were divinely inspired, can, at the same time, say that the differences in them are merely due to them being written by different human beings.

Are the gospels divinely inspired, or aren't they?

The gospel differences reveal hidden knowledge about the Kingdom of heaven, and about the time we are living in right now.

The problem is, most people spend so much time trying to study and uphold the continunity and harmony of the gospels, that the revelations that the differences present to us are missed or ignored. But these revelations are mind blowing and life changing, in many respects.

There is a difference between being divinely inspired as in letter by letter and word by word dictated and inspired as in leading these people to write their own personal accounts. I don't believe the gospels were dictated but I believe God was ultimately in control. The differences in the gospels are just that, differences. That is not the same as contradictions.

Naphal
Jul 6th 2008, 11:32 PM
Luke 19
35They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.

This is a verse from Luke within the story of the Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Aside from other differences between the gospels (a donkey, a colt, a donkey and a colt, etc.), Luke is the only gospel to specifically tell us that the disciples put Him on the colt.

No it isn't:


Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

I see no difference at all between two gospels showing they helped him get on it and two that just say he sat on it. Again, these aren't contradictions but differences in details.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 11:34 PM
So, the question is - does this detail being contained only in the gospel of Luke stem from the personality of the writer, or is this detail included intentionally to reveal to us something about the kingdom, about the time we are living in right now, something that the writer probably didn't even understand himself at the time he wrote it?


Why can't it be both? Why couldn't God have skewed their perspectives to a certain point of view?

The fact is, the reason the Gospels seemingly contradict each other is because each writer is providing a different perspective. This doesn't negate infalliblity because there is no contradiction between any of the perspectives. God did not dictate the Gospel to eye witnesses - they were there, there is no need for Him to dictate. He did, however, control it so there was no error put forth in the Gospel stories.

If God dictated the Gospels, again, why did Luke have to track people down and write the Gospel from their testimonies? Why couldn't he just have listened to God?

This isn't liberal, neo-orthodox, or any other dangerous heresy - this is the orthodox view that the church has held for quite some time.

Joe King
Jul 6th 2008, 11:38 PM
All 4 gospels have eyewitnesses that confirm that Jesus was resurrected and appeared to them after his death. It's like four major newspapers confirming the fact.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 6th 2008, 11:38 PM
By the way, the "colt" is just a more specific word in the Greek for a "young donkey" (polos). In other words, Luke's Gospel is more specific than the other Gospels, mainly because the perspectives were different.