Gospel Discrepancies of Resurrection

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rwillenborg

Guest
I’m SURE this poor horse is nothing but a bloody pulp now, but…
Mt 28: 1-15 - There’s one angel and he descended and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Mk 16: 1-8 - There’s two angels, and the rock is already rolled back and angel’s in the tomb.
Lk 24:1-49 - To men again and the stone is already rolled away
Jn 20: 1 - 19 - Mary arrives at the tomb, and the stone is already rolled away, no angels mentioned. Peter comes along, walks INTO the tomb, no angels. Mary stays behind crying, and there are two angels there. And then Jesus is there, and he wasnt’ mentioned in the earlier gospels.

If anyone can lead me to a linky or another website or a book which explains this (and the many others), I would greatly appreciate it!
I know some people suggest that the discrepancies don’t matter, and that they’re insignificant, but I think these details DO matter. Also, I know people say these are eyewitness accounts and they can vary because of that, and that even SHOWS that they are correct, because if the story were exactly the same, that’s when you get suspicious. I can even sort of accept that line of thinking, but my goodness, there are an awful lot of differences mentioned above.
If I saw ANGELS, I certainly don’t think I would get it wrong how many were there.
Anyway, again, if there are threads or articles or books about this, if you could point me that way, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks!
 
Here’s another one, concerning the Birth of Jesus.

In St. Luke’s Gospel, there are no Wise Men, and Mary and Joseph bring Jesus to the Temple on the 40th day after his birth to be presented to God.

In St. Matthew’s Gospel, there are the Wise Men, the mention of the Holy Innocents, and the flight into Egypt, but no Presentation.

I know that the Gospels are not meant to be historical accounts, and it would have been possible to flee to Egypt, then go to Jerusalem, then return to Nazareth, but that was a lot of traveling for a poor family wiht a newborn and a donkey and not much else but the clothes they were wearing.
 
It’s because each Gospel narrative is written by different people during different times and places with the writers own perspective of the events. One angel moving the stone doesn’t mean that there weren’t more angels there. One writer has for instance in Mark
emphasizes the disciples betrayals while Luke is not as harsh on them…etc. They all emphasize different aspects of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.
 
rwillenborg said:
I’m SURE this poor horse is nothing but a bloody pulp now, but…
Mt 28: 1-15 - There’s one angel and he descended and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Mk 16: 1-8 - There’s two angels, and the rock is already rolled back and angel’s in the tomb.
Lk 24:1-49 - To men again and the stone is already rolled away
Jn 20: 1 - 19 - Mary arrives at the tomb, and the stone is already rolled away, no angels mentioned. Peter comes along, walks INTO the tomb, no angels. Mary stays behind crying, and there are two angels there. And then Jesus is there, and he wasnt’ mentioned in the earlier gospels.

If anyone can lead me to a linky or another website or a book which explains this (and the many others), I would greatly appreciate it!
I know some people suggest that the discrepancies don’t matter, and that they’re insignificant, but I think these details DO matter. Also, I know people say these are eyewitness accounts and they can vary because of that, and that even SHOWS that they are correct, because if the story were exactly the same, that’s when you get suspicious. I can even sort of accept that line of thinking, but my goodness, there are an awful lot of differences mentioned above.
If I saw ANGELS, I certainly don’t think I would get it wrong how many were there.
Anyway, again, if there are threads or articles or books about this, if you could point me that way, I’d really appreciate it. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hi.

Here’s an excellent web site written by lay Catholics that delves exhaustively into 143 supposed Biblical contradictions. This should give you some ammo.
 
The Gospels ARE of course ‘historical’…

From Vatican II Document Dei Verbum
  1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
 
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

from the above document (when the Pontifical Biblical Commission had a different role)
  1. The Four Evangelists
This primitive instruction was passed on orally at first, and later written down. Indeed it was not long before many attempted "to draw up a narrative"21 of the events connected with the Lord Jesus. The sacred authors, each using all approach suited to his specific purpose, recorded this primitive teaching in the four Gospels for the benefit of the churches.

Of the many elements at hand they reported some, summarized others, and developed still others in accordance with the needs of the various churches. They used every possible means to ensure that their readers would come to know the validity of the things they had been taught.22

From the material available to them the Evangelists selected those items most suited to their specific purpose and to the condition of a particular audience. And they narrated these events in the manner most suited to satisfy their purpose and their audience’s condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top