Post resurrection bible discepancies

[knute]

I was comparing all 4 gospels regarding what happened after the death of Christ, and there are some minor differences. Some have Mary Magdalen going alone, some with other women, seeing one angel vs. two, etc. These really seem like minor differences, but what I find strange is that Matthew has Jesus meeting the apostles by a mountain in Galilee and then ascending into heaven, while Luke and John have Jesus meeting them in Jerusalem and Luke says he ascended from Bethany. Now, presumably all the disiples would have been present for this all-important meeting with the resurrected Christ. Wouldn’t you think they would agree on the PLACE of the ascention–a mountain in Galilee vs. near Jerusalem? Help me out, please.

 

[RepentorPerish]

hmmm…

another question to make me doubt my faith in the bible and Jesus…anyone have an answer?

 

[Creary]

Yes, St. Augustine does. I recommend reading his “The Harmony of the Gospels” Book III, Chapters XXIV and XXV.

Chapter XXIV.—Of the Absence of All Discrepancies in the Narratives Constructed by the Four Evangelists on the Subject of the Events Which Took Place About the Time of the Lord’s Resurrection.
newadvent.org/fathers/1602324.htm

Chapter XXV.—Of Christ’s Subsequent Manifestations of Himself to the Disciples, and of the Question Whether a Thorough Harmony Can Be Established Between the Different Narratives When the Notices Given by the Four Several Evangelists, as Well as Those Presented by the Apostle Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are Compared Together.
newadvent.org/fathers/1602325.htm

Respectfully,
Brian

 

[awalt]

The Bible is a faith document not a historical document. It is inerrant in that which the author intended to convey only. It is because of these types of problems that Bible Fundamentalists, even Catholic fundamentalists, really start to get wrapped around the axle trying to explain that which is not explainable.

There are many on this forum that disagree with this, but their fundamentalist perspective is not what the Church teaches. You can probably find a lot of threads on this, on this forum, including ones that reference our two most recent Popes on the subject.

I will only recommend to those that are trying to learn to read Fr. Witherup’s Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know. Fr. Witherup is a leader in the Solpician community, speaks regularly at the behest of the US Council of Catholic Bishops, and is well-respected by the Church.

This is not a matter of debate even though it has been one here many times; the Church teaching is clear on this.

 

[RepentorPerish]

So even though the church has said in the past that the bible was completly inerrant including its history of the events now it longer holds this to be true?

what a joke

 

[NotWorthy]

So even though the church has said in the past that the bible was completly inerrant including its history of the events now it longer holds this to be true?

what a joke

Repent? There you go again. When did the Church (the aforementioned “joke”) say that the bible was inerrant including it’s history?