Contradictions in the Resurrection

z8000783 · #1 by **z8000783** » Dec 26, 2011 9:51 am

Anyone come across this before? - A harmony of the resurrection accounts

I was listening to a debate on contradictions during the resurrection and the Christian came up with this out of the blue. I haven't been through it to check if it hangs together but it does seem to assume that the gospel writers were who they are named to be which I believe most scholars don't think is the case.

Essentially he is suggesting that there were 2 groups visiting the tomb at different times hence the discrepancies. Any obvious holes anyone can see?

John

Simon Bailey · #2 by **Simon Bailey** » Dec 26, 2011 11:24 am

I haven't read it, and can't be bothered! I'm sure it's ingenious, but while they may explain how the details don't contradict, I don't think the details are important.

The four gospels and Paul don't just differ in details about which people went to the tomb in which order, and whether there was one angel or two. They differ in character. The accounts have entirely different styles.

Matthew locates the resurrection appearances in Galilee. Following Mark, the command to return to Galilee is central. The resurrection, though, has a matter of fact feel in Matthew. Luke has it all happening in Jerusalem, with Jesus ordering the disciples to stay and wait for the Holy Spirit. His appearances are luminous, exciting experiences. John gives us intensely personal accounts of the resurrection, centred on Mary Magdalene Thomas and, in ch. 21, Peter. Mark has no resurrection appearances at all, just the dramatic disjunction in ch. 16. Paul has sensational second-hand reports, like someone amassing evidence for a televangelist.

None of the appearance stories occurs more than once.

So I think that harmonisations are barking up the wrong tree.

Scot Dutchy · #3 by **Scot Dutchy** » Dec 26, 2011 11:27 am

Why bother we have had massive long threads on this subject. It is all fairy stories anyway.

paarsurrey · #4 by **paarsurrey** » Dec 26, 2011 12:52 pm

Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive. His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

MrFungus420 · #5 by **MrFungus420** » Dec 27, 2011 4:43 am

paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive. His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

Says yet another religious fairy-tale just as valid as the Biblical ones.

Moonwatcher · #6 by **Moonwatcher** » Dec 27, 2011 7:58 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive. His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

Blind assertion within blind assertion.

I suppose it is only fair. Christianity tries to force fit other religions and Reality into it's mythology. You try to fit all other religions and Reality into your mythology.

CdesignProponentsist · #7 by **CdesignProponentsist** » Dec 27, 2011 8:06 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive. His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

Sounds like a History Channel explanation. Speculate the dogma into believability.

Skinny Puppy · #8 by **Skinny Puppy** » Dec 27, 2011 9:50 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive. His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

Alan B · #9 by **Alan B** » Dec 28, 2011 9:00 am

paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive.

Plausible. But that doesn't mean it is 'true'.

paarsurrey wrote:His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

"...walked away..."??? The poor sod would have been on crutches for the rest of his life. And as for wiping his bum or holding his dick after being nailed-up on the cross... Well that's anybody's guess. :crazy:

Ah! But 'twas a miracle... :priest:

Utterly implausible.

Up to the point of his run-in with the Roman and Temple authorities he had some interesting philosophical teachings, some would say mystical. But after the confrontation (wherever it was), all is pure invention and fairy tale put about by those who would control.

paarsurrey · **#10** by **paarsurrey** » Dec 29, 2011 6:54 pm

Alan B wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive.
Plausible. But that doesn't mean it is 'true'.

Why it cannot be true?
Please

chairman bill · **#11** by **chairman bill** » Dec 29, 2011 6:58 pm

That he survived crucifixion might very well be true. We don't know, and you don't know. But walking away having had big nails hammered through his ankles? Er, no. He'd have been a cripple thereafter, and certainly unable to walk for weeks or even months (if at all) after the nailing up. So that bit about walking away, really can't be true.

purplerat · **#12** by **purplerat** » Dec 29, 2011 8:30 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Alan B wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive.
Plausible. But that doesn't mean it is 'true'.

Why it cannot be true?
Please

There's a difference between "can/can't" and "is/isn't" true. Is further explanation necessary?

Alan B · **#13** by **Alan B** » Dec 29, 2011 11:07 pm

I think you have been answered, parsurrey. Plausibility does not guarantee or even indicate a 'truth'. It might point the way for further investigation, but that's about all it can do.

paarsurrey · **#14** by **paarsurrey** » Dec 30, 2011 8:00 pm

If one is not found in a place it is wrong to think one is ascended to heaven

Spearthrower · **#15** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 30, 2011 9:08 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive. His friends knew it; it is for this that they hurriedly took him to a lonely tomb to treat him; when Jesus got healed up enough he walked away from the tomb with the help of his friends.

And then ran off to America to found Mormonism.

Spearthrower · **#16** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 30, 2011 9:09 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Alan B wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:Jesus never resurrected from the dead; as he did not die on the Cross to start with. Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position yet very much alive.
Plausible. But that doesn't mean it is 'true'.

Why it cannot be true?
Please

Jesus paid a lookalike to impersonate him, shaved his beard and lived happily ever after.

Why it cannot be true?

Alan B · **#17** by **Alan B** » Jan 01, 2012 12:24 pm

paarsurrey wrote:If one is not found in a place it is wrong to think one is ascended to heaven

Muhammed isn't found anywhere, so, it is therefore wrong to suggest he went to heaven on a flying horse...
Or for that matter, even went to heaven.

There are plenty of nutters in Islam who believe this nonsense, like that nutter in charge of Iran who, it is alleged, had built a road especially for Mo to re-appear on his flying horse. :crazy:

chairman bill · **#18** by **chairman bill** » Jan 01, 2012 12:27 pm

paarsurrey wrote:If one is not found in a place it is wrong to think one is ascended to heaven

Quite right, or games of hide & seek would become rather pointless

logical bob · **#19** by **logical bob** » Jan 02, 2012 2:25 pm

z8000783 wrote:Anyone come across this before? - A harmony of the resurrection accounts

I was listening to a debate on contradictions during the resurrection and the Christian came up with this out of the blue. I haven't been through it to check if it hangs together but it does seem to assume that the gospel writers were who they are named to be which I believe most scholars don't think is the case.

Essentially he is suggesting that there were 2 groups visiting the tomb at different times hence the discrepancies. Any obvious holes anyone can see?

John

This is the Metagospel strategy - it's argued that there's a correct big picture from which every gospel includes a selection so that every detail in every text is true. This superficially deals with the contradictions but you have to give up the idea that the Bible is reliable.

The harmonisation says: When Cleopas and his friend got back to Jerusalem that night, excitedly bearing the news that they had seen Jesus, they found all the disciples gathered. But do Mark 16:13 and Luke 24:34 give conflicting accounts of whether general belief or outright scepticism prevailed? Only a very naïve reader could see these as being in conflict. Firstly, we may note that Luke, who implies belief, says only a few verses later that they "still did not believe it because of joy" when Jesus himself was standing there! (24:41) One can well imagine Cleopas and his friend bursting into the house to be greeted by a confused babble of comments; "Yes, Peter has also seen him!" "Well, I just don’t believe it!" and so on. The situation simply was not one where a single spokesperson voiced a unanimous opinion. Discussion swayed to and fro, and both Mark and Luke record the various comments that were doubtless made.

So we're being told that in fact there was complete disagreement about whether to believe Jesus was risen or not, but that we should still regard as infallible both an account in which everyone believed and an account in which nobody did. In this scenario both gospel accounts are wrong in that they fail to convey what actually happened. If the point of the harmonisation is to rescue the biblical accounts as reliable then this is making things worse not better. What about those events that are only described in one gospel? What if that gospel is completely misrepresenting that event the way the debate described above is misrepresented?

Believers would surely be better to accept the clear signs that what we're looking at here is theological fiction than to undermine the gospels in this way.

paarsurrey · **#20** by **paarsurrey** » Jan 04, 2012 1:08 pm

logical bob wrote:

So we're being told that in fact there was complete disagreement about whether to believe Jesus was risen or not, but that we should still regard as infallible both an account in which everyone believed and an account in which nobody did. In this scenario both gospel accounts are wrong in that they fail to convey what actually happened. If the point of the harmonisation is to rescue the biblical accounts as reliable then this is making things worse not better. What about those events that are only described in one gospel? What if that gospel is completely misrepresenting that event the way the debate described above is misrepresented?

Jesus was not risen from the dead but from the near-dead; he did not ascend to skies.