Rstrats

[Dragoon]

Dragoon,

re: “1) If the gospel accounts were false and designed to fool people, would you expect them to all perfectly correspond?”

If by “perfectly correspond” you mean not contradict each other, then yes.

re: "2) As we look at what is different, what is the same in the accounts of the resurrection?"

That it took place.

Thanks Rstrats,

I'd agree with your answers, and to me those are the key points.

I've seen/read/discussed several attempts to put the different accounts into a neat package, but the simple fact is that those are just our best guesses.

I think what is clear is that this was a time of extreme confusion and events happening incredibly quickly. Jesus' followers must have been in the deepest of lows, and then they are told that He has vanished from the tomb... and that He has risen from the dead.

We are told that some didn't believe these things, and some even doubted until Christ Himself appeared to them. And I guess this is the second point of agreement; that after the chaos around the tomb and the resurrection, Jesus appeared to different groups of people and revealed Himself to them.

The result is that a group of despondent disciples, whose leader had just been crucified, become transformed into the unshakeable foundation of what we today might call Christianity. Something so dramatic had happened that they each lived, breathed and (almost all) were eventually martyred claiming the truth of Jesus' resurrection.

Instead of trying to create a hypothetical order of events, I found a very nice chart that puts them side by side for comparison. Charts are awesome

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/resurrection_accounts.htm

What are your thought on this Rstrats?

[Dragoon]

rstrats, on 20 September 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

Dragoon,

re: “Instead of trying to create a hypothetical order of events, I found a very nice chart that puts them side by side for comparison. Charts are awesome.”

Yes, charts are great, and this is one that I hadn’t seen before, but unfortunately it doesn’t address the seeming discrepancy between Matthew and John.

I think the only improvement I could think of for the chart in question would be for it to include the full texts from scripture. Often the context supplies depth and breadth unavailable from a mere summary. On the flip side, that might have made the chart too busy to be useful.

Re:Matthew and John

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

(Mt 28:1-10)

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

(John 20:1-2)

There are actually a few discrepencies between these passages, but I've highlighted the ones I think you were focussed on (from your post #128)

First of all, I must say that any reconciliation we make can only be a best guess. That said, my own personal view is influenced by the rest of John, where the disciples and Mary return to the tomb and Mary then sees Jesus there. He speaks to her, and His conversation may then have included the information on 'where He was going'.

The bottom line for me is that these were the individual accounts of people involved in traumatic events. Some details may even have been remembered imperfectly... but the key points are still there.

I think its also interesting that though some people accuse Christians of altering biblical events to suit their beliefs, it is obvious that this was not the case here. Though we have obvious disparities between the Resurrection accounts, the differing statements of the Disciples were left alone so that we could judge based on their actual recollections.

[Guest shiloh357]

The discrepancies prove that their was no conspiracy to fabricate the resurrection. They did not get together and create a story. The type of discrepancies we have in the Gospel pertain to secondary details. They do not involve the historical core. When all four Gospels are examined the same historical core remains, namely that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried and rose again. That they differ on how many women visited the tomb or how many angels were present at the tomb are not really that important. The overall message/claim is the same.

The point is that there is no contradictory information. One writer includes details the other one didn't. That is not problematic at all, and is in reality expected. Eye witnesses to car accidents or other traumatic events always have discrepancies in how they recall the event, and this is never problematic. It is when EVERY detail is identical that suspicions are raised.