Wow, two different reports on the same event. Ever heard of the problem with eye-witness testimony, well...two people who see the same thing usually have differences in their story. Two men see a purse get stolen, man #1 sees white guy w/ red hat steal it, man #2 sees Hispanic guy w/ blue hat steal it. Different stories, but it changes nothing to the fact that the purse was stolen, or that the rock was moved. Good catch though.
Bible Error: The Visit to the Tomb
by JosephAlward 67 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JosephAlward
One of the most blatant examples of contradiction between gospels is found in the stories of the resurrection morning.
According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene was told by the angel at the tomb that Jesus rose from the dead, and is on his way to Galilee. As she ran, filled with joy, to tell the disciples, Mary Magdalene met Jesus, who told Mary to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. This is in complete contradiction to the story told by John, who tells of no angel at the tomb, says nothing about Mary actually meeting Jesus, and has Mary run to tell Peter that "they" took Jesus, and she doesn’t know where he is! The relevant passages are below:
Matthew
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb…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." (Matthew 28:1-9)
JohnEarly 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)
Both of these stories cannot be true. The angel told Matthew's Mary Magdalene that Jesus rose from the dead and would meet the disciples in Galilee, and a joyful Mary actually met Jesus on her way to tell the disciples the good news. However, John's Mary Magdalene seems worried when she tells Peter that unknown persons ("they") have removed the body she went to anoint, and that she doesn't know where they "put him." Did John's Mary forget that she had just met Jesus, and that he spoke to her, telling her where he was going? Why didn't John's Mary tell Peter that she saw Jesus, spoke to him, and that Jesus wanted them all to go to Galilee, where Jesus would meet them? Why did John's Mary lie, and tell Peter that "they" took the body, and that she didn't know where they put him? The answer is clear, I believe: John and Matthew wrote resurrection stories based on two separate traditional beliefs about what happened when the women visited the tomb. The stories cannot each be true, and perhaps neither of them is.Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible" -
Larsguy
Believe what you want, Josephus, but you can't PROVE that there were not three different Mary Magdalenes, which there were, in that case, there would be no contradiction.
On the other hand, the reason why this was presented is likely to trip up those who do not want to accept Bible truth. God is not one to simply let this slide. If you show obstinence, he'll trip you up. He catches the "wise" in their own cunning and will present the truth in such a way that it can't be believed by an unbeliever even if it were explained in detail. It's like explaining calculus to a third-grader, 99% of them simply won't get it.
So all I have to say is that we "prophets" have an advantage on being on the "inside" of the scriptures, which were meant for us, anyway, not outsiders, like you. So if you're confounded by the scriptures, you shouldn't presume it is unintentional....
BBBBBBUUUUUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
haaaaaa,,,,,HAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
You think you're smart, but you're as ignorant as can be.....(as far as understanding the secret of scripture is concerned).
HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Oh, well, it takes all types!!
I'm outta here!!!
L.G.
P.S. I know you can't come along, Joseph, but you have to understand....it's different for us "prophets".....(smile)
-
speechless
From you numerous postings attempting to portray the Jesus as a myth predominantly by asserting that the Gospels are nothing more than fabrications by four storytellers...
The end result of your assertions, especially those included on your website, attempt ultimately to dismiss the predominant religion of western civilization, namely Christianity, as a falicy.
Now, it results from such reasoning that there are primary four ideologies a man can possess:
1. Jesus is real, I believe
2. Jesus is real, I don't believe
3. Jesus isn't real, I believe
4. Jesus isn't real, I don't believeUltimately, you have no other possibility than to select one of the above and live your life as such!
Only two of the above, however, apply to a Christian, a believer of Jesus, namely #1 and #3.
Now, all your agruements I've read thus far classifies Christians as according to #3 and only #3 (saying Jesus isn't real, yet multitudes believe).
Are you so blind you cannot see YOUR arguement STARTS as a falicy; namely, you can not prove Jesus is not real.
If it is possible that Jesus is real, then it is also possible the four Gospels are truth, and hence the entire Bible may be truth.
So, everything you write is no different from that which is contained in the Bible; namely, either position requires faith in an impossible.
Such is the world we live...
-
SixofNine
Speechless,
Whatever the hell your point is above, you didn't make it. That post is a monument to gibberish.
-
expatbrit
Speechless:
The following is a rather good demonstration of why your post is bunk.
"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"
ExpatbritThere are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.
However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present-day religion exists.
In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.
-
RWC
Rem,
The assumption would be that either the angel rolled the stone away or the earthquake did it. It really doen't matter either way. To answer your question though, those who believe in the Bible believe that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that would be how Mathew could know how the stone was rolled away. I understand you won't accept that reasoning, but I believe it answers the question.
Joseph,
Your "contradiction" is answered in the next verses of John that you did not include. After Mary goes to Peter and says they have taken Jesus she stays and the angel talks to her, telling her the same thing that Matthew writes. Evidently, Matthew did not include the part about Mary running back to Peter before the angel spoke. But that doesn't change the account, nor is it a contradiction. It is simply an added piece of evidence.
What I find ammusing is that most skeptics argue that the Gospels are false because so much of Matthew and Luke are copied from Mark. So because they are so much the same they must be fake. You pick the perceived differences and say because of this they are fake. If they all said the same thing the same way would you then believe that they are authentic?
Expatbrit,
What nonsense. Are you saying that an atheist will say that since I can't prove that any particular God exists, but I can't say that no God exists, that I will simply choose not to believe in any God, even though there may be one? And you call that logic and reasoning? You spend all your efforts attempting to destory all religions and than say that I am not saying that no God exists, just that all of you are wrong. I say again, nonsense.
-
expatbrit
Sigh. Let's revisit it simply then, by using the example of unicorns.
If I say to you "do you believe in the existence of unicorns?" you will quite sensibly say "no".
If then I say to you "why don't you believe unicorns exist?" you will probably reply along the lines of "no unicorns have ever been found" or "there is no convincing evidence for the existence of unicorns." Again, quite logical.
What if I reply "well, you can't prove unicorns don't exist, because you haven't checked every single place in the universe where a unicorn could be. Therefore you should believe in unicorns."?
You will quite rightly consider that completely nuts and not a justification to believe in unicorns at all. The sensible and logical approach is to assume unicorns don't exist until proof or sufficient evidence is provided that they do.
This approach is taken to unicorns, fairies, santa claus and every other mythical entity found in old books. Yet, when it comes to God (or Gods), suddenly theists become inconsistent and start claiming that unless you can prove God doesn't exist, you should believe in him.
Let's take your reply and substitute "unicorns" for "god".
since I can't prove that any particular unicorn exists, but I can't say that no unicorns exist, that I will simply choose not to believe in any unicorns, even though there may be one? And you call that logic and reasoning? You spend all your efforts attempting to destory all believers in unicorns and than say that I am not saying that no unicorn exists, just that all of you are wrong. I say again, nonsense.
So, the sensible and logical approach to take regarding god is to assume he doesn't exist until either (a) he is found and presented, or (b) sufficient convincing evidence is found that can only be explained by the existence of god.The bible is by no stretch of the imagination sufficient and convincing evidence, either for the christian god or for a god of any kind. It contains many errors and contradictions, and believers have to constantly engage in jumping through hoops trying to explain these away, with phrases like "this is what it says but here is what it means, or the ridiculous "it's not contradictory, it's complementary". This thread is a good example.
Thus, the postion of believing in god until proof is found otherwise is illogical and inconsistent.
Expatbrit
-
RWC
Of course you start with the presumption that there is no evidence of God. There is ample of evidence if you accept it. The problem is that
atheist do not accept the evidence that God exists.My argument with your post was that you said that strong atheists usually do not say that no God exists they only restrict their claims to descirbe Gods professed by various religions.That is saying that the athiest doen't have enough faith in his atheism to say that there is no God, only that he doesn't believe in the Gods of various religions. If he truly believed that there was no God he would have faith in that belief and say so. Just like I assume the atheist would say that there are no unicorns or fairies. But simply saying there maybe a God, but I don't like any of yours is no logic at all.
If you asked me If I believed in unicorns I would ask you, what evidence do you have of unicorn's existence. Than I would examine the evidence to see if it made sense and could stand up. If so, then maybe I would believe in unicorns. But I would not say that unicorns must exist because you can't prove they don't. I agree that is illogical. But that argument does not apply to God. It is a false analogy.
-
JosephAlward
RWC,
You are overlooking the main thrust of my argument about what Mary Magdalene knew. Matthew tells us that Mary Magdalene was told by the angel that Jesus had risen, and was on his way to Galilee, and that Mary had actually met Jesus on her way to inform the disciples. How do you explain, then, why John's Mary Magdalene told Peter that "they" had taken Jesus and that she didn't know where he was "put"?
Did John's Mary forget that she met Jesus, as Matthew claimed? How could John's Mary believe that Jesus had been "put" somewhere, when Matthew's Mary was told by Jesus himself that he was on his way to Galilee? How do you answer these questions?
Why didn't John's Mary tell Peter that the angel said Jesus had risen, and that she had met the resurrected Jesus on the trail? Do you not think that John's Peter would have thought that Mary was telling him that the body was stolen? Do you not think that John's Mary would have told Peter that she saw Jesus with her own eyes, if indeed John's Mary had seen him? Would not that information have been exceedingly important to convey? If not, why not?
Here, once again, are the passages upon which I've based my argument:
Matthew
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb…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." (Matthew 28:1-9)
JohnEarly 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)
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"