Table That Lays Out Contradictions in the Resurrection Acnts

[Jagella]

Below is a table that lays out some of the resurrection events as reported in the four gospels. The first column describes the event, and the last four columns describe the particular circumstances of that event in each of the four gospels. I have included chapter and verse references in parentheses ().

[mrow]Event[mcol]Matthew[mcol]Mark[mcol]Luke[mcol]John [row]Guards at the Tomb?[col]Yes (28:4)[col]Not Mentioned[col]Not Mentioned[col]Not Mentioned [row]Time Of First Arrival At the Tomb[col]At Dawn (28:1)[col]At Dawn (16:2)[col]At Dawn (24:1)[col]Before Dawn(20:1) [row]Who arrives first at the tomb?[col]Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary� (28:1)[col]Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)[col]Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women (24:10)[col]Only Mary Magdalene is named, but others are alluded to. (20:1-3) [row]Is the stone already rolled away at arrival?[col]No (28:2)[col]Yes (16:4)[col]Yes (24:2)[col]Yes (20:1) [row]Who rolls the stone away?[col]An Angel (28:2)[col]Not Mentioned[col]Not Mentioned[col]Not Mentioned [row]Number of Men in the Tomb At First Arrival[col]Not Mentioned[col]One (16:5)[col]Two (24:4)[col]None, but two are later seen by Mary Magdalene. (20:11-12) [row]Where and when does Jesus first appear to Mary Magdalene?[col]On the way to tell the disciples that Jesus was raised. (28:9)[col]Early Sunday morning before she told the disciples. No location mentioned. (16:9)[col]Not Mentioned[col]Outside the empty tomb after Peter was there to inspect it. (20:11,14) [row]Where are the disciples to meet Jesus?[col]Galilee (28:7)[col]Galilee (16:7)[col]Not Mentioned[col]Not Mentioned [row]Which disciples does Jesus meet first?[col]The eleven in Galilee are the first mentioned. (28:16-17)[col]Two Walking in the Country (16:12)[col]Cleopas and Another Disciple Walking to Emmaus (24:13-18)[col]The Disciples in a House in Jerusalem (20:19) [row]Does Jesus ascend to heaven?[col]Not Mentioned[col]Yes (16:19)[col]Yes (24:50)[col]Not Mentioned

As you can see, this table reveals some very serious discrepancies between the four gospel accounts of the resurrection. Can any of you apologists explain how the "inerrant word of God" can contradict itself like this?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

Does the text say the women knew what had happened previous to their arrival?

Reading from the NWT version of Matthew 28, no.

Have you come across ANY translation that says the women were aware of what had happened previous to their arrival at the tomb at the moment of their arrival?

Does the text say the women saw the angel on the stone?

No, not explicitly. However, going by basic English composition, the last thing the angel does (before talking to the women) is sit on the rock.

Does the account say that the Angel sitting on the rock spoke to the women? Does the text say what the "the last thing" that particular angel did was ?

[rikuoamero]

Does the text say the women saw the angel on the stone?

No, not explicitly. However, going by basic English composition, the last thing the angel does (before talking to the women) is sit on the rock.

Does the account say that the Angel sitting on the rock spoke to the women? Does the text say what the "the last thing" that particular angel did was ?

Ummm...yes it does. I'm looking at the NWT of Matthew 28 right and it has it there in verse 5
BUT the Angel spoke to the women...

There is no other Angel mentioned in Matthew 28. Can you explain your point please? I'm not sure what it is you are trying to allude to. That Matthew is talking about some other Angel who would have been the source for the author of gospel Matthew, that the Angel alluded to at the start does not talk to the women...?
I don't know what it is you're thinking.

[JehovahsWitness]

Does the text say the women saw the angel on the stone?

No, not explicitly. However, going by basic English composition, the last thing the angel does (before talking to the women) is sit on the rock.

Does the account say that the Angel sitting on the rock spoke to the women? Does the text say what the "the last thing" that particular angel did was ?

Ummm...yes it does. I'm looking at the NWT of Matthew 28 right and it has it there in verse 5
BUT the Angel spoke to the women...

There is no other Angel mentioned in Matthew 28. Can you explain your point please? I'm not sure what it is you are trying to allude to. That Matthew is talking about some other Angel who would have been the source for the author of gospel Matthew, that the Angel alluded to at the start does not talk to the women...?
I don't know what it is you're thinking.

^

Does the text say that the angel that rolled the stone away and was seen sitting on the rock, spoke to the women?

[rikuoamero]

Does the text say the women saw the angel on the stone?

No, not explicitly. However, going by basic English composition, the last thing the angel does (before talking to the women) is sit on the rock.

Does the account say that the Angel sitting on the rock spoke to the women? Does the text say what the "the last thing" that particular angel did was ?

Ummm...yes it does. I'm looking at the NWT of Matthew 28 right and it has it there in verse 5
BUT the Angel spoke to the women...

There is no other Angel mentioned in Matthew 28. Can you explain your point please? I'm not sure what it is you are trying to allude to. That Matthew is talking about some other Angel who would have been the source for the author of gospel Matthew, that the Angel alluded to at the start does not talk to the women...?
I don't know what it is you're thinking.

^

Does the text say that the angel that rolled the stone away and was seen sitting on the rock, spoke to the women?

If it's not that Angel then who is it?

[JehovahsWitness]

If it's not that Angel then who is it?

Let's leave supposition for the time being and just analyse what was actually stated in the text. So again I ask

Does the text actually say that the angel that rolled the stone away and was seen sitting on the rock, spoke to the women?

Who, if anyone does the account say saw the Angel the that had rolled the stone away?

MATTHEW 28:2-4
And look! a great earthquake had taken place, for Jehovah’s angel had descended from heaven and had come and rolled away the stone, and he was sitting on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. Yes, out of their fear of him, the watchmen trembled and became as dead men.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by JehovahsWitness]

So you ask me who it is who spoke to the women...i answer you that it can only have been the Angel mentioned in verses 2, 3 and 4 and you continue to ask me does it explicitly say it was that Angel...and your response is to not answer me as to who else this possibly could have been? You're not going to identify who it was who spoke to the women if it wasn't Mr verse 2, 3 and 4?

As to your latest question...about highlighting the guardsmen...please read a bit ahead in Matthew chapter 28. What is it the guardsmen do? Are they to be counted as a trustworthy source ?

[1213]

And without the other gospels mentioning it, all we have is the one sole gospel making the claim. There is no corroboration.

Ok, that is correct. We have one person saying that. It is not as strong as if four would say so. But does it really make any difference, would you believe it if 4 people would say so? No, else you would believe the things all of them say. But that only one says something, doesn’t mean it can’t be true, or that it is a contradiction.

The "existence" of the guards is key to the resurrection story, since without them, there is nothing to stop Jesus's disciples from breaking into the tomb during the night and taking the body.

I think it is more honest to just say that you don’t believe, instead of making up your own story and expecting that everybody believes you, when you accuse people after 2000 years, with no real ties to the actual events.

Does the single most important event in human history (according to Christians which is the resurrection of Jesus) REQUIRE that we be told Jesus drank water every day?

No, same way we don’t need to have 4 people to say there were guards. And it is not necessary to say there were guards at all. If person doesn’t want to believe, there is no difference in the matter, even if 1000 people would say there were 100 guards. When your argument without proof is basically that it was a lie, the number of people lying doesn’t really matter.

And if it would be proved that there were really guards, next claim from God haters would be “it was a guard conspiracy, they were really also disciples�. Person who doesn’t want to believe, can always find excuses. And you don’t have to believe it. I just hope you don’t make claims that you know really what happened, and then make up your own baseless story, when you really don’t know.

Okay...so how do you find out if I lied?
Now let's say...Jagella says to you "Rikuo spoke to all of his sisters yesterday" and gives THREE names.
What then?

Actually, it is really difficult for me to trust to anything you say. But in that case I probably wouldn’t care if I don’t really know. In many cases, it is not necessary for me to know all things surely. And perhaps in that case, I couldn’t ever know what really happened. I would have to believe. And if necessary, perhaps I would believe you, if I don’t see any good reason why you would have lied in that matter.

I can...but I don't.

Why not? If you can believe some of it is a lie, why not all?

How is there an objective narrative...BEFORE you examine the narratives?

Different narratives are not always connected to others so that you couldn’t tell are they objective. For example, our history books are basically the only history told. Its objectiveness can be seen by how it handless matters. If it tells things from its point of view, and doesn’t tell about himself truthfully, it is not very objective. That can often be seen without other history source.

Bible is objective, because it doesn’t flatter the person who wrote it. It doesn’t even flatter the Jews. That is why I see it objective. Obviously, things are told from the perspective of the witness, but it is in neutral rapport like form and therefore I think it is objective and not biased.

[JehovahsWitness]

Who, if anyone does the account say saw the Angel the that had rolled the stone away?

MATTHEW 28:2-4
And look! a great earthquake had taken place, for Jehovah’s angel had descended from heaven and had come and rolled away the stone, and he was sitting on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. Yes, out of their fear of him, the watchmen trembled and became as dead men.

... What is it the guardsmen do? Are they to be counted as a trustworthy source ?

Again I am uninterested in a discussion as to where the writer of Matthew obtainened his information ( or whether the writer or his sources can be trusted) , I am here for an analysis of what the text states. So again I ask according to the text under analysis ...

WHO was present to react to seeing the angel that rolled the stone away?

[rikuoamero]

Who, if anyone does the account say saw the Angel the that had rolled the stone away?

MATTHEW 28:2-4
And look! a great earthquake had taken place, for Jehovah’s angel had descended from heaven and had come and rolled away the stone, and he was sitting on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. Yes, out of their fear of him, the watchmen trembled and became as dead men.

... What is it the guardsmen do? Are they to be counted as a trustworthy source ?

Again I am uninterested in a discussion as to where the writer of Matthew obtainened his information ( or whether the writer or his sources can be trusted) , I am here for an analysis of what the text states. So again I ask according to the text under analysis ...

WHO was present to react to seeing the angel that rolled the stone away?

Fine. The guardsmen. It's mentioned that they are present and that they become afraid.

Now what?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 38 by rikuoamero]

ok so we've established that according to the text we have three events as explicitly reported in the text (which is written in the past tense). We are attempting to establish the sequence of events. They are (in no particular order) as follows...

#1 Women arrive at the tomb
#2 A stone is rolled by an angel
#3 Watchmen are frightened by (seeing) the angel that rolled the stone.


So lets move on to some suppositions.


* Are you supposing that the women BEFORE the watchmen?
* Are you supposing that the women arrived at the same moment as the watchmen?
* Are you supposing that the women arrived AFTER the watchmen?