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]

Okay...so now you and I are in agreement that the women could not possibly have seen the angelic descent/rolling away of the stone in the narrative of Gospel Matthew?

Why do you ask, is that what you believe? That the women could not have possibly seen the angel roll the stone away? If this is what you believe, could you tell me why?

[rikuoamero]

Okay...so now you and I are in agreement that the women could not possibly have seen the angelic descent/rolling away of the stone in the narrative of Gospel Matthew?

Why do you ask, is that what you believe? That the women could not have possibly seen the angel roll the stone away? If this is what you believe, could you tell me why?

I think I'm going to give up here, because I just don't know. I don't know what your angle is at all here.
I don't know what it is you're leading up to, or trying to say...
So I'm just going to ask you to lay it all out instead of all this tip toeing, please.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 51 by rikuoamero]

You can do as you please, give up if that is what you want to do.

That said if you'd have just answered my very simple and straight forward questions, without introducing challenges to the very legitmate use of tenses and whatever other distraction you chose to muddy the waters with, we would have been long finished. I choose to walk you through, to make you commit to a position so that you cannot contest the conclusion. If I don't you will I believe contradict even yourself.

For example above you suggested "we are in agreement that the women couldn't have possibly seen the stone rolled away" and then not two post later suggest that they COULD have arrived to witness the event.

The above illustrates why I attempt to get you to commit your opinion and then draw the conclusion from what you say rather than state my conclution which I believe you will argue with. It's rather a long way of going about things but I have found in my experience the only way to deal with certain posters

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

For example above you suggested "we are in agreement that the women couldn't have possibly seen the stone rolled away"

I am fully aware of the quote unquote contradiction. When I jumped in this thread, I was the one who was pointing out the non-clarity of the timeline depending on which translation one used: remember the conflict between NIV, NRSV and NWT?
When I wrote that above sentence ("we are in agreement...") this was me throwing you a bone and committing entirely to the NWT and your own interpretation for the sake of argument. What I was seeing was yourself, over many posts, disputing any possibility of the women in Matthew seeing the angelic descent/rolling of the stone. That was the gist of what I was seeing from you. In my mind I was thinking "Gee...looks like JW really doesn't think Matthew's women could have seen the angelic descent at all. He's REALLY demanding attention on what exactly the text says and doesn't seem to want to discuss nuance or implications. He's all gung ho about exact wording".

I apologize for not making my own thought process clearer with that "we are in agreement..." sentence.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 53 by rikuoamero]

Apology accepted. It is for this reason its best not to try and second guess what the person you are speaking is getting at.

When I jumped in this thread, I was the one who was pointing out the non-clarity of the timeline depending on which translation one used: remember the conflict between NIV, NRSV and NWT?

Yes you did and I was happy to analyse if the translations introduce variants in ideas which they do not. What is quite hard however you do not actually state what the "conflict" is (you made a vague point that only the NWT presents events in the past tense which is untrue). So even with that, I would feel compelled to lead you with a series of questions to extract what exactly is the translationary "conflict" in order to be able to address it, which would I think be wearisome for us both.


JW

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

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?

The Bible's sole purpose is to communicate how God restores his creation to its original purpose. After that, discrepancies don't really matter. If certain biographers wish to leave out certain details (as all biographers will do, hence the discrepancies of Plutarch) or even record different versions of the same account, what does it matter. Had the resurrection never occurred, we would never have the N.T.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

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?

The Bible's sole purpose is to After that, discrepancies don't really matter. If certain biographers wish to leave out certain details (as all biographers will do, hence the discrepancies of Plutarch) or even record different versions of the same account, what does it matter. Had the resurrection never occurred, we would never have the N.T.

If this is the case, why not edit down/away these contradictions and discrepancies from the bible totally?
Seems to me if you want people to believe a story, and there are multiple accounts, you edit it so that people don't believe/see/question these contradictions (maybe that's already been done which, if that's the case, that's frightening seeing the number of contradictions and discrepancies that made the current cut).

Also, how is communicate how God restores his creation to its original purpose." shown in the bible in detail? Or do the details even matter? Seems your claim would indicate details don't matter....

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 55 by liamconnor]

The Bible's sole purpose is to communicate how God restores his creation to its original purpose. After that, discrepancies don't really matter. If certain biographers wish to leave out certain details (as all biographers will do, hence the discrepancies of Plutarch) or even record different versions of the same account, what does it matter. Had the resurrection never occurred, we would never have the N.T.

You're not addressing any of the contradictions I posted. Differences in accounts are acceptable as long as they can be reconciled. I don't see how the resurrection accounts can be reconciled. As such, we see that God has made some mistakes! How can that be? Positing that people made up the resurrection stories explains beautifully how those stories are so inconsistent. The gospel story tellers goofed not realizing that the other tales of the resurrection didn't completely jibe with their version. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!"

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

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?

The Bible's sole purpose is to communicate how God restores his creation to its original purpose. After that, discrepancies don't really matter.

Yet there are even discrepancies in this restoration. The flood story was the first major fail both in it being a real event and actually accomplishing anything even if we were to imagine it did happen. The second major discrepancy is the story of Jesus. As we can clearly see, even if this tale filled with magic and contradictions actually happened, creation continues in it's previous state.

The only thing left is imagining at some undetermined time it will finally be restored. All efforts to date have failed miserably. At best, things are better in some imagined afterlife.

If certain biographers wish to leave out certain details (as all biographers will do, hence the discrepancies of Plutarch) or even record different versions of the same account, what does it matter. Had the resurrection never occurred, we would never have the N.T.

That's a nice leap of logic. So your contention is that the story contained in the NT would never have been written down if the resurrection didn't occur? Seriously? What about all the other religious tomes and their stories? By your logic, they must have all occurred to.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 58 by benchwarmer]

The flood story was the first major fail both in it being a real event and actually accomplishing anything even if we were to imagine it did happen.

I've explained to many Christians that the Noachian Flood, if it did happen, failed to rid the world of evil. God's attempt to do so failed. A perfect God cannot fail. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not and cannot exist.

The second major discrepancy is the story of Jesus. As we can clearly see, even if this tale filled with magic and contradictions actually happened, creation continues in it's previous state.

I could create another table that details the other gospel contradictions.