Why do all the accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels contradict each other?
>>762721
How?
>>762725
What do you mean "how"?
Have you even read them?
Just a few examples.
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
There were four women. Mark is just the most exhaustive about it, whereas John only names the principle woman.
I'm surprised you latched on to this, considering it's not really controversial.
>>762759
Rubbish.
The other Gospels don't indicate other women were there.
>>762749
>a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
It does not say "only." Matthew doesn't mention Salome because she was associated with Idumeans through Herod and Matthew's audience was primarily Hebrews.
>According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
Mark includes Salome because his intended audience was the Romans and Herod was a Roman client king.
>c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
Luke includes Joanna because he was a physician and Joanna had been healed by Jesus.
>d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
Not including the other names is not the same as saying she went alone. Each Gospel author had a particular aspect they were trying to emphasize in their portrayal of the empty tomb and it is mistaken to interpret these varying emphases as contradictions.
>>762773
So? They either didn't feel it was important, or the writers didn't know. It's not a fucking conspiracy.
>>762776
So essentially they say completely different things about who went to the tomb and you want to make the pedantic point that none of them say "alone" they just magically forget to include the other people.
Interdasting. Do you really find this sort of explanation convincing?
And this is only the start of all the contradictions in the accounts.
>>762782
No one said "conspiracy". The accounts are just made up by people decades later.
>>762789
That seems less apt to fit Occam's razor. If we had four accounts of people at a court meeting in Rome or something, and one accounts gives four names and another just gives one and another gives two, etc. we wouldn't conclude that such a meeting was fabricated after the fact, if anything the discrepancy in sources would corroborate it, because it would just they weren't all just meme'ing a common source.
>>762803
it would *show they weren't
>>762786
To point out that each Gospel author had a specific audience in mind and tailored their narrative to that audience is hardly pedantic however I can understand why someone averse to critical thinking might dismiss it as such and of course I find it convincing.
>>762807
>To point out that each Gospel author had a specific audience in mind and tailored their narrative to that audience is hardly pedantic
It is a clear admission that the Resurrection story in the Gospels was just made up with a clear audience in mind.
>>762803
If you're going to use Occam's Razor then you would just accept that since people can't come back from the dead the simplest explanation is that it is bullshit.
a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
>>762803
That all depends, if the sources were written one after the other, we could very well conclude the latter authors were copying from the first author, and making up their own details (Something I would never put past a historian of that period)
Likewise we would have to weigh the biases of the authors in question, For instance most roman historians were of the senatorial class, contemporary Greek histories sometimes tell a very different story.
To summarize. histories of this period often had a moral or political character, and can not be interpreted as fully accurate accounts. This should apply even more so to religious texts on the supposed resurrection of a religious leader
>>762817
>If you're going to use Occam's Razor then you would just accept that since people can't come back from the dead the simplest explanation is that it is bullshit.
No, because suggesting it was all fabricated isn't the simplest explanation, seeing as how it would require Jesus himself to be fabricated, which is completely out of the question (if they were fabricating a Messiah based on Isaiah, he would just have the name "Immanuel", not Jesus, and John the Baptist wouldn't say he was not Elijah). Most historians agree that there was an empty tomb, because that's just more plausible. There are numerous secular explanations for this, including the idea that the Apostles smuggled the body out (an accusation mentioned in the Gospels), or that Joseph of Aramathea offered the tomb because Christ's body had to be taken care of before the Sabbath, and there wasn't enough time to bury him in the criminal graves, so he was put there as a temporary measure and then moved without informing his followers so as not to upset them. There are many explanations for this. The idea that it was all completely fabricated is not likely.
>>762827
Isn't Mark generally seen as the oldest Gospel by secular Historians? So by your theory, Matthew and John were not adding anything.
>>762817
If it was so "clear" as you suppose, then Christianity would never have become the most dominant religion in history, clearly.
>>762834
>No, because suggesting it was all fabricated isn't the simplest explanation, seeing as how it would require Jesus himself to be fabricated,
Simply not true. You've just demolished your own argument in the first sentence.
Jesus does not have to be a non-existent figure in order for people to make wild claims about him. Julius Caesar was deified.
>Most historians agree that there was an empty tomb, because that's just more plausible. There are numerous secular explanations for this, including the idea that the Apostles smuggled the body out (an accusation mentioned in the Gospels), or that Joseph of Aramathea offered the tomb because Christ's body had to be taken care of before the Sabbath, and there wasn't enough time to bury him in the criminal graves, so he was put there as a temporary measure and then moved without informing his followers so as not to upset them. There are many explanations for this. The idea that it was all completely fabricated is not likely.
I'm not sure it is true that most historians agree that at all and we are talking about the Resurrection, not merely an empty tomb.
Not that people that were crucified actually had tombs at all. They were left on the cross and then thrown to the animals.
>>762843
>If it was so "clear" as you suppose, then Christianity would never have become the most dominant religion in history, clearly.
That's a ridiculous argument. Christianity became the dominant religion in the West when most people couldn't read and write and didn't have access to the bible.
Nor is claiming religious beliefs are based on rational evidence true.
You are just trying to change the subject because there are enormous discrepancies in the accounts that no serious person could defend.
>>762865
Some of the most "serious" minds in history have defended it but I've grown weary of your reflexive contradictions so I will bid you farewell.
I will keep you in my prayers.
>>762855
>Jesus does not have to be a non-existent figure in order for people to make wild claims about him.
In this case he does, since if he were still in the tomb, the Jews would just be showing it. If that were the case, the Gospels wouldn't address the Jewish accusation of the body being stolen, they would talk about the body being switched or something like that.
>I'm not sure it is true that most historians agree that at all and we are talking about the Resurrection, not merely an empty tomb.
But the main point of contradiction you're talking about is the empty tomb.
>Not that people that were crucified actually had tombs at all. They were left on the cross and then thrown to the animals.
Christ had a tomb because Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, got him one.
>>762874
They defended spirituality. I don't think most serious minds in history made specific attempts to defend particular contradictions in the Bible.
>>762865
>Christianity became the dominant religion in the West when most people couldn't read and write and didn't have access to the bible.
No, this is not really the case, as we can tell from Saint John Chrysostom's exhortations for his congregation to read Scripture over and over and over. The biggest issue is that people couldn't *afford* a whole Bible, but back then a Bible was seldom packaged together, and he says everyone who has an income should own at least one Gospel. The literacy rate in his See must have been pretty decent, because different people bring up excuses, and the only ones about not being able to read have to do with blindness and things like that (to which Saint John Chrysostom replies that they should have someone read it to them).
>>762876
>In this case he does, since if he were still in the tomb, the Jews would just be showing it. If that were the case, the Gospels wouldn't address the Jewish accusation of the body being stolen, they would talk about the body being switched or something like that.
Wild speculation.
>But the main point of contradiction you're talking about is the empty tomb.
No, who found the empty tomb was merely the first point I raised. See >>762821
And we certainly aren't done yet.
>>762874
>Some of the most "serious" minds in history have defended it but I've grown weary of your reflexive contradictions so I will bid you farewell.
Kek. There is not a single serious biblical historian who claims the accounts don't contradict each other. I asked why, which in fairness you could come up with some explanations for, which you didn't.
>I will keep you in my prayers.
That's kind of you anon. Please sacrifice a goat for me as well.
>>762892
You will find contradictions in pretty much every single historical source. Where there are multiple ancient sources describing the same thing, you will find an abundance of contradictions. The Gospels are probably the cleanest multiple accounts of the same story in the entirety of antiquity.
>>762842
It was just an example, and there is plenty of stuff absent in mark that was in the other gospels
>>762874
the fact that their are/were very intelligent Christians does not mean that biblical accounts hold up to close scrutiny. Intelligent people have defended alot of ideas that turned out to be wrong and in hindsight ridiculous.
>>762898
What nonsense. The literacy rate throughout most of history has been atrocious. Pointing out that most people couldn't afford a bible is just agreeing with me. And, actually, the Catholic Church did stop average people having access to the bible for most of the history of Christianity, understandable given the retarded shit people have come out with since they have had access.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY this is just you changing the subject and refusing the defend the obvious discrepancies.
>>762901
>Wild speculation.
No, not at all. It stands to reason the Gospels are going to defend against actual accusations, since Gospels are read to Christians who have talked with Jews and will want answers to these questions.
>No, who found the empty tomb was merely the first point I raised. See
I don't see how any of these are contradictory except the one man vs. two.
>>762908
>It was just an example, and there is plenty of stuff absent in mark that was in the other gospels
This isn't helping your case as far as the tomb witnesses are concerned.
>>762919
>Pointing out that most people couldn't afford a bible is just agreeing with me.
Do you realize how long the Bible is? And that everything was hand copied back then? It took a year's wages to buy the whole thing. That doesn't mean most people couldn't afford at least one Gospel.
>And, actually, the Catholic Church
I'm Orthodox. My Church invented Cyrillic script just to write the Bible in Russian. We never tried to stop anyone from reading it, but on the contrary, always vigorously encouraged people to read it, Saint John Chrysostom is a prime example of this.
>>762749
None of these are contradictions. They are merely omissions. A contradiction is such that two things cannot simultaneously be true, all of these narratives can be true, therefore no contradiction.
>>762923
First there is more than one person in this thread. I was simply responding to the suggestion we would necessarily interpret a similar case the same way.
That said, I think the story of the empty tomb has so many different versions that we are forced to conclude that either details were confused over time or people just made stuff up about it.
>>762935
>Do you realize how long the Bible is? And that everything was hand copied back then? It took a year's wages to buy the whole thing. That doesn't mean most people couldn't afford at least one Gospel.
Yes, but my point was that people didn't have access to the bible, you pointing out one of the reasons why is an argument against what I said. It is just agreeing with me, you are flailing away against yourself.
>I'm Orthodox. My Church invented Cyrillic script just to write the Bible in Russian. We never tried to stop anyone from reading it, but on the contrary, always vigorously encouraged people to read it, Saint John Chrysostom is a prime example of this.
I don't give a shit what sect you are.
This is just you trying to change the subject.
>>762938
>None of these are contradictions. They are merely omissions.
Kek, okay anon, if you can convince yourself of that it is fair enough. You aren't convincing anyone else and we still haven't even listed all the contradictions yet.
>>762946
I'd say a spark of localized religious hysteria spawned a couple of similar yet contradictory narratives which all made their way into the books, its writers unable to tell which was the truth.
So who was told about the empty tomb?
a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."
b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."
c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."
d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.
>>762957
Quite possible, I mean their religious leader just died, and we know from modern studies of cults that the true believers would be far more likely to find a new reason to believe than give up the faith.
>>762946
I think it makes more sense to assume we're talking about different accounts of it, some people who thoroughly interviewed numerous witnesses (suck as Mark and Luke), some by people who only heard brief accounts and by people who were there (Matthews and John), etc. There are going to be discrepancies, and if there weren't, then fabrication would be the most plausible conclusion. Just like if you bring in twenty witnesses to a courthouse, and they all give testimonies that don't contradict, it's safe to assume they collaborated beforehand and came up with a narrative to tell.
>>762965
Most historians do not think the gospels were written this way, You may choose to maintain they were, but your then going outside the academic mainstream.
Assuming the academic mainstream, theories like changing oral histories or invention by the author make more sense
>>762954
>Yes, but my point was that people didn't have access to the bible
Sure they did. It was read in Liturgy, and unlike Roman Catholics, we go through an awful lot more of it.
>you pointing out one of the reasons why
I said many didn't read it, not most didn't have access to it. Most people could read the Bible, those who did not, did no out of choice, not because of illiteracy or some conspiracy.
>>762959
They told the disciples, but they didn't go around telling non-Christians. In Divine Liturgy, we still have a part where the priest says (speaking on behalf of the people: "I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries." Christianity was enormously secretive at first, and even when it was becoming widespread it still took a long time before Christ being God was revealed to anyone who wasn't baptized (unlike the other Gospels, the Gospel of John was written for the initiated, not prospective converts).
>>762986
>I said many didn't read it, not most didn't have access to it. Most people could read the Bible,
That's just nonsense. Most people couldn't even read.
>Sure they did. It was read in Liturgy, and unlike Roman Catholics, we go through an awful lot more of it.
That's not the same as having access to the bible.
>They told the disciples, but they didn't go around telling non-Christians.
Mark says they told no one at all.
>>762978
Oral histories are possible, but the idea of them changing that much over a short time makes little sense. For one thing, oral histories are not like telephone, you don't just hear them once and repeat them. They involved memorization until you get them down word for word. You could suggest that things were inserted over time, but if that were the case the Gospels would all be a patchwork of styles, whereas each has a distinctive, uniform style.
I'm not inclined to believe invention by the author, since the Gospel secular historians think is the earliest, has all the names of the women.
>>762993
>That's just nonsense. Most people couldn't even read.
I find that unlikely. If that were the case, then wouldn't, "I can't read" be an excuse more often? Whereas when it is an excuse given to Saint John Chrysostom (whose sermons are constantly, constantly exhorting people tor read the Bible more), it's blindness or something like that.
>That's not the same as having access to the bible.
They could certainly buy books from it.
>Mark says they told no one at all.
Well they obviously did, or else how would anyone even know they saw it? He's saying they didn't go proclaiming it. He didn't think there would be people interpreting his book like a lawyer.
>>762994
>They involved memorization until you get them down word for word
Not unless it was poetry, no.
>>763003
Were you going to try and resolve any of the discrepancies or just attempt to draw away discussion from them?
>>762994
Lets not forget that the oldest version of Mark has the women running away from the tomb scared. everything else was added later. We know this from looking at the oldest surviving copies.
Not to mention there is no reason to assume the gospel writers would be more accurate than other writers of their period. It was a time when writers often thought the spiritual/moral truth was more important than a literal accounting of events
>>763012
Not in Jewish culture. In Jewish culture, poetry was mainly reserved for descriptive literature, such as Psalms, or for prophecies, not for action-based narratives happening in the past. Action based narratives happening in the past in Jewish culture are prose, with only brief blips of verse to indicate something key, or to quote someone.
>>762721
The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are basically impossible to fit into a singular coherent narrative as well. This is probably because they're not based on any reliable historical information.
>>763017
I don't really see that as a discrepancy, since we're talking about literature, not a legal document. Saying, "They said they told this to no one," doesn't have to exclude the Apostles. You can see this in everyday conversation, where if someone is telling you something, you can ask, "Did you tell anyone," and they can say no--you aren't going to say, "Hah, caught you in a lie, you told me!"
>>763021
So? Mark might have talked to a different woman involved than the other Gospel writers did, and her impressions on the matter were different.
The early Christians were Essenes, so they can't really be compared to other writers like Greek Platonists. For Essenes, honesty was paramount, that is why they rejecting taking oaths, because if you had to swear to show your honesty, it meant you weren't one of them, as their truthfulness was impeccable.
>>762721
It is an unknowable mystery.
Because superstitious goat herders will believe anything
>>763040
>I don't really see that as a discrepancy, since we're talking about literature,
Fair enough. So long as you are admitting the accounts are in the same genre as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings I am happy.
>>763060
I personally get happiness from drinking tea and playing with my dog, but to each his own.
>>763052
>The early Christians were Essenes,
I dont think that is certain, and in any case many Christian communities were already non Jewish by this point
>So?
So the entire bit about the risen Jesus appearing and giving the great commission was added to the oldest gospel much latter.
>>763065
That's nice dear. I'm not sure how you playing with your dog's willy shows there are no discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, but each to their own as you say.
