Biblical Contradictions

[Vadergirl123]

Do not be afraid that this discounts what happened. Every police officer knows that if 12 people witness a traffic accident, an investigation will reveal 12 different versions of what happened. No one doubts the accident happened even though human failings may produce different viewpoints of the event itself.

Those 12 witnesses aren't inspired by God like the writers of the bible were, and I'm trying to keep this thread about biblical contradictions. If you want to discuss if the bible is true or its authenticity please just message me.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Mark 16:8 ends the original document: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." It's a cliffhanger.

Regardless if the document ends there or not. The stories still fit together, Mrak left a cliffhangar, and the other accounts explain what happened afterwards.

 

[Road Warrior]

There were two angels

Yes, in Luke 24:4. There are also two angels in John 20:12, but the telling of events is radically different.

In both Matthew 28:2-5 and Mark 16:5, there is only one.

How do you explain these inconsistencies? Because they are inconsistent, do you think this negates the message or is it simply a sign of human inaccuracies?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Yes, in Luke 24:4. There are also two angels in John 20:12, but the telling of events is radically different.

In both Matthew 28:2-5 and Mark 16:5, there is only one.

I explained this in my paragraph of the stories. Both Matthew and Mark only mention one(but they don't say the one angel was alone)...? Luke and John tell us there were two, so that means there were two, and Matthew and Mark simply chose NOT to mention the other angel. There's no contradiction. Just because you don't mention something doesn't mean it wasn't there.

 

[Road Warrior]

I explained this in my paragraph of the stories. Both Matthew and Mark only mention one(but they don't say the one angel was alone)...? Luke and John tell us there were two, so that means there were two, and Matthew and Mark simply chose NOT to mention the other angel. There's no contradiction.

So, by your logic, there could have been an entire army of angels along with a marching band and a choir? Sorry, but I do not accept this convoluted logic. Omission, in itself, is an error.

Matthew 28:2-5
2 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. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.


Mark 16:5
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There were two angels

:biglaugh:

 

[Vadergirl123]

So, by your logic, there could have been an entire army of angels along with a marching band and a choir?

Nope I already told you there were two angels. Not an entire legion.

 

[fantome profane]

No it's NOT like that. It would be liek that if I had added Jesus doing miracles into the account. All accounts are of the SAME story, and if you read along(with the verse references I gave) then you'll see that ALL four stories START at the SAME time.


No it doesn't...here I'll give you an analogy. Lets say I have three different people talk about my day(May 18th) Lets say one account says I wake up at 6 A.M, do school, eat lunch(12 P.M), and later on I go to sleep at 7 P.M....Another account says I wake up at 6A.M wash my hair, do my schoolwork, go to the gym(2P.M), and then I hang out with friends at 4P.M, the third says I wake up at 6A.M get my schoolwork done, eat pasta for lunch, watch a T.V show at 5:30, and go to bed at 7. Now lets say that someone then decides to write an account of my ENTIRE day. They'd say I woke up at 6 A.M, wash my hair, do my schoolwork, eat pasta for lunch, go to the gym, hang out with my friends, watch a T.V show, and then go to bed. Do you see how they ALL fit together. That's all I did with the resurection account.


No it doesn't, Mark just doesn't FINISH the story.

But anyone describing what you did on May 18th would at least get the day right.

Actual Bible Contradictions

What day was Jesus crucified?* Well, it depends on who you ask.* If you ask John, Jesus was killed before the passover, on preparation day.* If you ask Mark, it was the day after.

John 19:14-16

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!*** *”It was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour.”* But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.* Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

The preparation of the passover is the day before passover, the day that the priests would slaughter the lambs.* This means that Jesus was crucified before the passover.* John was pretty specific about showing that Jesus was to be thought of as the “lamb of god”, and this crucifixion would be as a lamb being slaughtered for passover.

On the other hand, Mark and Matthew are pretty explicit that Jesus shared a passover meal with them the night before he was crucified.* You need to read Mark 14, and Matthew 26 in order to understand this though.

Jesus could not have been crucified both before and after passover, and this is a true contradiction.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The mental gymnastics in Biblical apologetics rival anything we will see in London this summer.

 

[sojourner]

No it's NOT like that. It would be liek that if I had added Jesus doing miracles into the account. All accounts are of the SAME story, and if you read along(with the verse references I gave) then you'll see that ALL four stories START at the SAME time.

No, they don't. Mark begins with no birth narrative. Jesus doesn't show up until adulthood.
John begins before creation. Luke begins with a birth prophecy. They are wholly different stories about the same subject matter, and cannot be mushed together and retain theological integrity.

No it doesn't...here I'll give you an analogy. Lets say I have three different people talk about my day(May 18th) Lets say one account says I wake up at 6 A.M, do school, eat lunch(12 P.M), and later on I go to sleep at 7 P.M....Another account says I wake up at 6A.M wash my hair, do my schoolwork, go to the gym(2P.M), and then I hang out with friends at 4P.M, the third says I wake up at 6A.M get my schoolwork done, eat pasta for lunch, watch a T.V show at 5:30, and go to bed at 7. Now lets say that someone then decides to write an account of my ENTIRE day. They'd say I woke up at 6 A.M, wash my hair, do my schoolwork, eat pasta for lunch, go to the gym, hang out with my friends, watch a T.V show, and then go to bed. Do you see how they ALL fit together. That's all I did with the resurection account.

You completely blew off what I said about storytelling. These are stories, not factual accounts. In stories, there is an underlying message, alluded to by the details of the stories in a very intentional way. Each gospel story has a unique, underlying theological message. When you mush together elements from different stories, you lose the impact of the underlying message and create a Frankenstein's monster of factoids that, theologically, mean nothing. It's literary masturbation.

No it doesn't, Mark just doesn't FINISH the story.

mark finishes the story just fine, and does so intentionally.

 

[Road Warrior]

Nope I already told you there were two angels. Not an entire legion.

Maybe John and Luke just omitted the mention of the other angels and the marching band.

Sorry, Vadergirl. I don't mean to be cruel or make fun of you, but I do disagree that omission is okay in some circumstances but not in others. It's inconsistent. It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole or make the results of an experiment fit the hypothesis. It's wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed and they all fit together into ONE story

No, they don't. See above.

Yes they do talk about Jesus, and the stories I discussed talk specifically about his resurrection

But what are they saying about the resurrection? What is going on theologically? What's the "take away" the gospeler wants to leave with us? Those agendas contradict each other in significant ways.

They don't differ, that's NOT a fact. Did you follow along with teh verses I gave?

Mark: They fled from the tomb; no one was told.
John: Mary meets Jesus; disciples were told.
They do differ; it is a fact that they differ, and there is a reason that they differ.

Not true the message is clear Christ rose.

That's not the message of Mark. The resurrection is mentioned as one detail of the entire story, but it is not central message of Mark.
Matthew includes resurrection, as well as post-resurrection appearances. The resurrection, for Matthew, is not the thrust of his gospel. But something that he says post-resurrection is.

Yes some people chose to BELIEVE they exist, but the bible shows that the stories DON't contradict each other

You are clearly wrong on this point.

 

[sojourner]

Mark doesn't FINISH the story. Yes the women were afraid and didn't tell anyone. But according to Matthew Jesus meets up with them and tells them they don't have to be afraid and to go tell his disciples( then they obey him). Did you follow along in the bible with the verse references? It's NOT a contradiction...it's just leaving a cliffhangar that the other accounts adress.

Because it's a different story, with contradictory details.
That's how storytelling works.

 

[sojourner]

Regardless if the document ends there or not. The stories still fit together, Mrak left a cliffhangar, and the other accounts explain what happened afterwards.

Nope. Sorry. The story ends where it ends. You don't get to come along later and pretend it doesn't end there. It ends there for Mark for a reason. By "cleaning him up," you lose his reason.

 

[InChrist]

The gospels are not stories, they are eye witness accounts. As with all eye witness accounts even in a courtroom setting different people see and highlight different details of the same event. This observation of different details by different observers gives a more complete picture of what took place and rather than discredit the accounts shows authenticity.

 

[sojourner]

The gospels are not stories, they are eye witness accounts. As with all eye witness accounts even in a courtroom setting different people see and highlight different details of the same event. This observation of different details by different observers gives a more complete picture of what took place and rather than discredit the accounts shows authenticity.

they aren't eyewitness accounts. No one knows who wrote the gospels. The names were added way later. Mark (the earliest) was written post 70 c.e. That's at least forty years after the fact, by someone who was not an eyewitness. John was probably written after the year 100 c.e. At least 70 years later. How could the writer be an eyewitness? These are stories, because that's what the ancients did: They told stories.

 

[Road Warrior]

The gospels are not stories, they are eye witness accounts. As with all eye witness accounts even in a courtroom setting different people see and highlight different details of the same event. This observation of different details by different observers gives a more complete picture of what took place and rather than discredit the accounts shows authenticity.

Agreed in principle but due to the dates of when Biblical scholars believe the Gospels were written, the original witnesses weren't the ones who wrote the Gospels. This doesn't mean the actual author(s) didn't have access to some written accounts by the Apostles.

While the gospel is written as a historical narrative, many of the facts portrayed therein are based on previous traditions of the recorded Gospel story and not on what some might consider to be historical record.

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vadergirl123]

But anyone describing what you did on May 18th would at least get the day right.

In all four accounts the resurrection takes place the morning after the sabbath, adn the crucifixion is another supposed contradiction in itself. (and I will get to it)

 

[Vadergirl123]

No, they don't. Mark begins with no birth narrative. Jesus doesn't show up until adulthood.
John begins before creation. Luke begins with a birth prophecy. They are wholly different stories about the same subject matter, and cannot be mushed together and retain theological integrity.

I'm talking about the resurrection accounts NOT the entire gospels(that would be another supposed contradiction) You also didn't say WHICH theological message I was ruining in the resurrection account?

You completely blew off what I said about storytelling. These are stories, not factual accounts. In stories, there is an underlying message, alluded to by the details of the stories in a very intentional way. Each gospel story has a unique, underlying theological message. When you mush together elements from different stories, you lose the impact of the underlying message and create a Frankenstein's monster of factoids that, theologically, mean nothing. It's literary masturbation.

You don't, and can't know for sure that the resurrection didn't happen...I believe it did really happen, and in this thread I'm assuming the bible is true and explaining hwo the contradictions aren't really contradictions. Again if you want to discuss if the bible's true or not just send me a message....

mark finishes the story just fine, and does so intentionally.

The story doesn't end there...Did you read over that May 18th analogy I gave. If one person decides to end my day at 4 P.M and not mention anything else does that mean NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED during the rest of the day. Does it eman my day was DONE??

 

[Vadergirl123]

No, they don't. See above.

What I posted about the resurrection account fit together into a cohesive story based on the accounts.

But what are they saying about the resurrection? What is going on theologically? What's the "take away" the gospeler wants to leave with us? Those agendas contradict each other in significant ways.

Again how does my combining the accounts ruin the theology of the resurrection?

That's not the message of Mark. The resurrection is mentioned as one detail of the entire story, but it is not central message of Mark.
Matthew includes resurrection, as well as post-resurrection appearances. The resurrection, for Matthew, is not the thrust of his gospel. But something that he says post-resurrection is.

I'm not talking about the WHOLE book of Mark, I'm talking about the resurection account, and how the gospels don't present contradicting views.