Matthew 28 versus John 20.

[rstrats]

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.
How can this be reconciled?

 

[outhouse]

more on this can be found in here.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/98394-empty-tomb.html

 

[dogsgod]

There is no need to reconcile the stories, they are what they are depending on which version you happen to be reading at the time.

 

[rstrats]

outhouse,

I'm afraid I don't see where your link tries to reconcile the seeming contradiction. What do you have in mind?

 

[outhouse]

outhouse,

I'm afraid I don't see where your link tries to reconcile the seeming contradiction. What do you have in mind?

dogsgod said the jest of it.

as I stated in my post, theres no way to know what happened or "if" it happened.

 

[Skwim]

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.
How can this be reconciled?

As dogsgod pointed out, each work on their own level. It makes Biblical interpretation all the more rewarding when one has choices from which to reconstruct history. Don't like where one of them takes you then simply use the other.

 

[dogsgod]

As dogsgod pointed out, each work on their own level. It makes Biblical interpretation all the more rewarding when one has choices from which to reconstruct history. Don't like where one of them takes you then simply use the other.

Who's trying to reconstruct history? It appears that if anything is being reconstructed by the authors it is theology.

 

[Skwim]

Who's trying to reconstruct history? It appears that if anything is being reconstructed by the authors it is theology.

Indeed.

 

[rstrats]

Anyone?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anyone?

Take a number. The line forms to the left behind Dan Barker:

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

[...]

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/stone.php

You may be waiting a while.

 

[JustWondering]

How can this be reconciled?

Human perceptions and memory are horribly unreliable. Why a deity would rely on humans to spread information baffles me.

 

[Skwim]

Human perceptions and memory are horribly unreliable. Why a deity would rely on humans to spread information baffles me.

One who believes they were made in his image I guess.

 

[rstrats]

I should have prefaced the OP with the statement that the question
is for those who say that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

 

[rstrats]

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in who thinks there are no contradictions in scripture will be able to reconcile Matthew 28:1-10 with John 20:1 and 2.

 

[savagewind]

John 20:1,2 It is written Mary Magdalene went and saw the body was missing and ran to the disciples saying “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

Matthew 28:1-10 says two women went and "they" met Jesus on the way back from the tomb.

Pronouns are very tricky. Some people rest their faith on them or reject the truth due to pronouns. It's actually a little bit funny.

It is possible, is it not?, that Mary ran back faster leaving the other Mary behind to bump into Jesus Christ.

 

[Glaurung]

My faith is in Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection; not in the idea that the Bible is without discrepancy in all detail.

If you have several people witness an event, you'd actually expect the details in their later accounts of that event not to line up perfectly. But that doesn't mean that the central story itself isn't true. This is only exasperated when you have these stories passed around for some time before being written down.

 

[savagewind]

My faith is in Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection; not in the idea that the Bible is without discrepancy in all detail.

You probably do not want to hear what I think your post is saying but here it is. It des not matter to you what the Bible says as you already believe the important parts.

But what did Jesus say? "Take care" lest you be misled. Take care of what?

Take head lest anyone you mislead.

991 blépō – properly, to see, be observant (watchful). 991 (blép&#333 suggests "to see something physical, with spiritual results (perception)." That is, it carries what is seen into the non-physical (immaterial) realm so a person can take the needed action (respond, beware, be alert).

Strong's Greek: 991. ????? (blepó) -- to look (at)

Saying as long as I believe in Jesus Christ what he said doesn't really matter is ignoring his command to "perceptively see", or to take heed.

Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

2 Timothy 2:25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth

1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Galatians 6:1 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

Isn't "I don't care what Jesus really said" being caught in a sin?

 

[Glaurung]

You probably do not want to hear what I think your post is saying but here it is. It des not matter to you what the Bible says as you already believe the important parts.

If I didn't believe the Gospels weren't revealed scripture containing the truth about Christ and what he has done for humanity, I wouldn't be a Christian. Of course I care about the actual contents.

Saying as long as I believe in Jesus Christ what he said doesn't really matter is ignoring his command to "perceptively see", or to take heed.

But that's not what I'm saying.

Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

2 Timothy 2:25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth

1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Galatians 6:1 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

Throwing random scripture at me with little to no context and dubious relevance is not making much of a cogent point.

Are you trying to say I'm in heresy? What heresy? What Christian truth am I denying or distorting?

 

[savagewind]

If I didn't believe the Gospels weren't revealed scripture containing the truth about Christ and what he has done for humanity, I wouldn't be a Christian. Of course I care about the actual contents.

Throwing random scripture at me with little to no context and dubious relevance is not making much of a cogent point.

If you can't see how those scriptures apply it is either you or I who have not seen perceptively. I doubt it is me, but I might be wrong. Is believing my self might be wrong where we differ?

Are you trying to say I'm in heresy? What heresy? What Christian truth am I denying or distorting?

I don't think so.

 

[savagewind]

Words that are written but are not what was intended are empty words. Ephesians 5:6. For instance "them" and "they" at Matthew 28:9 . 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Is it Heresy to include misleading words in the Bible? Yes. Did you do it? I don't think so.

Believing the Bible says things it never said is self deception. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way

Allowing yourself to go ahead and think whatever you will about what someone else wrote is being carried away. Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange [or wrong] teachings.

Believing in the scribes who put their own ideas about The Word in there is being taken captive Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy

Believing and teaching lies does nothing but mislead the believer and exonerate the unbeliever. 2 Timothy 2:25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth

The gullible are not the only people God is drawing to righteousness. 1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

If you can't move forward in the knowledge of the truth you are trapped Galatians 6:1 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.

Can these warnings apply to believers in Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection or only to those NOT believing? What do YOU think?

The point being maybe a scribe wrote the wrong pronoun. If he did, there is no discrepancy. Would it be helpful to a doubting Thomas to be able to say they are both true?