Christ Is Risen...

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Hello F(r)iends,

Christ is risen… or then again, maybe not. The gospels are very unclear about the events surrounding the resurrection. Below are the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) with their respective accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb.

Can the four accounts be reconciled?
Must they be reconciled?
If pressed, how could we forcefully reconcile the accounts?
What would you change about the accounts to more accurately reconcile them?
What would you keep about the accounts?
What do the differences in the accounts suggest?
What are the most glaring contradictions?
On what do the accounts agree on the most?

-Thirst

2

Maybe the accounts would agree that each didn’t have any explanation or solid proof. What good are words on paper, anyways?

3

Hi Thirst

Yes I believe these four accounts can be reconciled but it requires a growth in our ability to understand in order to do so. It is not necessary though. Many people go through life and couldn’t care less. It depends on the inner spiritual needs of the individual.

If we were pressed to forcefully reconcile them for some egotistical reason or just because there was a good buck orsomegood rump in it, the first thing to do is locate several “experts” with degrees in biblical destruction. Read and put their theories into our own words with some personal sentimental unique slants and like magic,they will be reconciled.

There are no strict laws for reconciliation. It is good practice though to emphasize something flattering, sentimental, or dreamy. Stick with some idea of universal love and you can’t go wrong. It will sell like hot cakes.

There are no real glaring contradictions from ignorance other than through translation since the Bible is not a historical book but a psychological one. Many psychological truths are revealed within the context of what appears to be contradictory to the literal mind. But this will never sell so speaking of contradictions gives us an opportunity to really kill two birds with one stone.

First it is a nice way to increase our self esteem by talking about the ignorance of antiquity giving the impression that we know what we are talking about. Secondly, it is a great way to further promote the fallacy of contemporary education as it relates to essential human needs. We can sigh and exclaim that if only these people had some genuine "experts’ around them to tell them what to do. the Bible would now read without contradiction promoting universal exclamations of “Oh how wonderful.”

But fear not. It will not be long until a genuine Bible will be produced to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of “experts.” It will be of such educational profundity that not only will the sacred Committee of “Experts” endorse it as “A wonderfully precise and revealing account of religious thought,” but on the inside cover will be stamped the endorsing silver initials T.G.B. which only a certain minority will recognize as “The Great Beast.”

4

Hello F(r)iends,

I find it interesting that while there are minor discrepancies, some people have claimed these to be derailing to the Christian faith…

Within each gospel story there is a core of information that is supported by the other gospels. In the following, I will describe some of the common points and in parantheses place how many gospels support that tidbit of information.

THINGS THAT SUPPORT EACH OTHER:

  1. Mary Magdalene went to the tomb on the morning of the first day of the week. (4)
  2. There was another Mary present–possibly the mother of James. (3)
  3. There were multiple women that went to visit the tomb. (3)
  4. The tomb stone had been rolled away (4)
  5. There was at least one (angelic) being present in the tomb that tells of Christ Risen (3)
  6. The women were reportedly scared to explain what they saw (2)
  7. Peter ran to the tomb to see for himself (2)

POSSIBLE CONTRADICTIONS:

  1. In Mark 16:6 the (angelic) being call Jesus “the Nazarene” while Matthew 28:5 does not.
  2. Mark 16:8 claims the women said nothing to anyone cause they were afraid.
  3. Luke 24:4 there are two (angelic) beings at the tomb, not one.
  4. Luke 24:5 both of these (beings speak) in Matthew & Mark only one speaks.
  5. Luke 24:7 the beings refer to Jesus as the “Son of Man” and they bring up the resurrection prophecy.
  6. Matthewy 28:8-9 Jesus appears to the women BEFORE they tell the disciples about the empty tomb. None of the other stories claim this occurred.

-Thirst

5

The biblical apologists can explain away the contradictions between the gospels in various ways. They were written for different people and had different emphases, the eyewitness testimony was not perfect, etc. Many Christians therefore do not feel that it is important to ‘reconcile’ the accounts. If you’re interested in examining the gospels I think there are approaches that look more systematically at the historical claims of Christianity.

For example, Keith Parsons explains on the Internet Infidels site why he is not a Christian. He presents a broad overview of textual criticism concerning the New Testament, in particular the gospels and miraculous accounts like the resurrection. His nonbelieving position seems to be thoroughly researched and cogently argued. I would recommend it as a good starting point to getting a nonreligious viewpoint on the New Testament.

6

a better question is why John thought christ rose in 2 days and the other gospels 3 days.

7

you know , 4 days sounds more btter.
because i think…TimeCube.

8

there’s a few things you missed. first the obvious, the oldest record of mark ended before this grand tale (about verse 9)

some other important points of conflict between the stories:

  1. who moved the stone?

Matthew: “There was a violent earthquake and the lord came down and moved the stone”

Mark: “the stone was rolled away, when the women looked up.”

Luke: “The found the stone rolled away from the tomb”

John: “The women went to visit the tomb (which was customary of jews at the time) and found it rolled away, (the story doesn’t tell us whether they looked inside at this point)”

  1. who sees the risen christ first?

Matthew: “suddenly jesus met them (where?) They clasped his feet and worshipped (which jesus shuns the women for doing in other versions)” (this happens almost immediately after seeing the open tomb and indeed happens - AT the tomb.)

Mark: “When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.” (mary was demon possesed in this later mark addition, probably to make the story more fantastic, this also takes place at some undisclosed location away from the tomb and with mary alone.)

Luke: “Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14They* were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him.”

  • we’re never told who “they” are in this prose. They also don’t recognize christ, and have a lengthy conversation with him.

John: "They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "

here again Jesus appears to Mary Magdelene alone, this time without demon possesion and Mary doesn’t recognize jesus. Later in after a dialogue, Jesus tells Mary not to touch him as he hasn’t yet been to heaven.

The fact of the matter is, of the four gospels, none of them agree on crucial points of the crucifixion, resurrection or ascension.

Why is that a big deal? Well either 1 of them is right or none of them are right and it’s a fictional tale. Does that make it “useless”? only if you need it to be true.

9

Go for the revelations then if mark , john , and luke don’t add up too a valid answer.