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?

[liamconnor]

[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.

This conclusion is based on a very uninformed view of the Bible. The Bible was not written for moderners. It does not assume that our century is the epitome of truth. It was written by and for men of the ancient past. It is very hard for me to accept the assumption that if the eternal God were in some sort of communication with a particular generation of a particular place, this eternal being would have to be in agreement with everything a much later generation believed. Now of course, if the Bible itself made it CLEAR, that its primary interest was pure Science--well, we should expect the entire Bible to be comprised of experiments and theories.

But then, does it follow that everything it taught was in agreement with what we believed? This is rather arrogant. Science is about progress in a particular field of knowledge. The position that we "have arrived" is ridiculously presumptusou.

[benchwarmer]

[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.

This conclusion is based on a very uninformed view of the Bible.

Not sure what conclusion you are alluding to, but I'll assume you are talking about the 2 major points I made that were quoted by Jagella.

My points were made based on simple logic. The first story is about the god character attempting to bring humanity back in line by destroying all the evil people. You can spin this however you want, but clearly humanity continued doing exactly the same thing after this supposed 'cleansing'. In other words, there's no real point to this story except perhaps that humans cannot be 'fixed' even by an all powerful god and a pointless worldwide destruction.

It paints both humanity and this god as helpless. It further paints the god character as barbaric and not too bright since there are a number of other ways to accomplish the same thing without a mass drowning. Clearly this is a story written by men with no thought as to the implications this has on the god they are trying to define.

The Bible was not written for moderners.

Agreed. It is a collection of stories written by people for people of their own time.

It does not assume that our century is the epitome of truth. It was written by and for men of the ancient past.

Agreed.

It is very hard for me to accept the assumption that if the eternal God were in some sort of communication with a particular generation of a particular place, this eternal being would have to be in agreement with everything a much later generation believed. Now of course, if the Bible itself made it CLEAR, that its primary interest was pure Science--well, we should expect the entire Bible to be comprised of experiments and theories.

I don't think anyone has made the argument in this thread that the Bible should be pure science. Perhaps you are alluding to the common argument that if the Bible were indeed inspired by a real god, then it should at least not contain things which contradict science. Sadly, the Bible does contain these sorts of things. So, while no one thinks it's a science text, it should at least not be filled gross errors. Like worldwide floods. Unless everyone is willing to concede that the stories are just that. Uninformed musings of men.

But then, does it follow that everything it taught was in agreement with what we believed? This is rather arrogant. Science is about progress in a particular field of knowledge. The position that we "have arrived" is ridiculously presumptusou.

You appear to be arguing with yourself at this point. No one has made the statement you are making. I don't think we have 'arrived'. I do think that we have shown many of the once considered 'true' stories of the Bible are not likely to have happened based on all observable evidence. As science has progressed, it seems more and more of the Bible has become non-literal in order to salvage the religions based on it.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 60 by liamconnor]

This conclusion is based on a very uninformed view of the Bible. The Bible was not written for moderners. It does not assume that our century is the epitome of truth. It was written by and for men of the ancient past. It is very hard for me to accept the assumption that if the eternal God were in some sort of communication with a particular generation of a particular place, this eternal being would have to be in agreement with everything a much later generation believed. Now of course, if the Bible itself made it CLEAR, that its primary interest was pure Science--well, we should expect the entire Bible to be comprised of experiments and theories.

But then, does it follow that everything it taught was in agreement with what we believed? This is rather arrogant. Science is about progress in a particular field of knowledge. The position that we "have arrived" is ridiculously presumptusou.

I'm not sure how contradictions in a story are only problematical in our modern, scientific age. As I see it, these inter-gospel contradictions have always exposed the resurrection story as questionable.