Disproving Biblical Infallibility 101

[DisciplePAG]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

 

[Tintin]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

Hmm... Haven't you already asked this question numerous times under other usernames?

 

[DisciplePAG]

Psychologically speaking- answering a question with a question is often a "fogging" technique to confound me and buy time before responding to the original question.....however, you are probably right though, I have asked the question before, under a different username. This site has a habit of not replying to emails and passwords get lost...please take the time to go a mile with me?

 

[breno785au]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

The foundation doctrine that Jesus died and rose again is shaky at best? Maybe for some.

 

[DisciplePAG]

That is not what my post stated. The discussion i am wanting to have is in regard to the ressurection account inconsistency. Thank you.

 

[Budman]

I work in a store. At my job, police come in all the time to shoot the breeze. Of the various subjects I've talked about with them, one of them was how do they know a story is true if there are different accounts from various witnesses.

They told me one of the things they look for is collusion. If a story is exactly the same in all it's details from many witnesses, they know it's probably false.

At an accident scene, people see details differently, and produce them in different order due to perceived importance. They add/subtract information for the same reason. That's why police interview every person that was at the scene they can find - to piece together what actually happened.

We have four gospel accounts revealing information from different perspectives. Which actually adds credibility to the Resurrection.

 

[Reborn]

I work in a store. At my job, police come in all the time to shoot the breeze. Of the various subjects I've talked about with them, one of them was how do they know a story is true if there are different accounts from various witnesses.

They told me one of the things they look for is collusion. If a story is exactly the same in all it's details from many witnesses, they know it's probably false.

At an accident scene, people see details differently, and produce them in different order due to perceived importance. They add/subtract information for the same reason. That's why police interview every person that was at the scene they can find - to piece together what actually happened.

We have four gospel accounts revealing information from different perspectives. Which actually adds credibility to the Resurrection.

Ah,.... you beat me to it. You type faster.
I think he may see some Resurrection -Rashomon Effect type thing going on?

I hope? He must know this? (What you wrote?)
Or, why believe any of the Bible, if parts of it can't be trusted?

 

[atwhatcost]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

Easy answer. Get this book and get the full answer. (So much easier than explaining it all in my own words.)

 

[psalm6819]

Change thread title to appearing foolish 101

 

[directline2iam]

This is why we say it takes a spiritual discernment. The flesh cannot do this .

 

[Jason0047]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

Kermit Zarley had taken all 4 gospels and combined them into one readable story.

Check out it here.

There is no conflict in the gospels.

 

[dcontroversal]

Your view denies 1st Corinthians 3 and how you will always have believers who have works of wood, hay and stubble as opposed to those who have gold, silver and precious stones as the result of thier works as well as some vessels of honor and some not so honorable......not to mention the reason and use of chastisment.....come on...use your brain!

 

[MarcR]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

In Matt 28:2
2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
KJV;

the word καταβὰς descended is not a simple aorist---but rather, an aorist active participle, which should be translated had descended. This puts the entire sequence of events in the verse earlier in time than the women's arrival and consistent with the other Gospels.

Even as translated (without correcting the tense) this reading is not excluded.

 

[Seeking2Serve]

. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

Or it's a parable hidden within the historic accounts just as Sarah and Hagar were prophetic types of the Old & New Covenant and Heavenly Jerusalem, despite also being real people.

 

[Tintin]

Or it's a parable hidden within the historic accounts just as Sarah and Hagar were prophetic types of the Old & New Covenant and Heavenly Jerusalem, despite also being real people.

Do tell...

 

[psychomom]

oh, no, are we saying God graciously gave us a fuller picture of Christ's resurrection?

how shall we respond to such kindness?

 

[valiant]

I believe all scripture applies to todays professing christians , and i believe all sanctified christians follow it to a T.


I have a question though: Why does the sequence of events we call "The Resurrection Morning", located in all 4 of the gospels...why do these accounts differ in there sequence of events? Matthew's account finds the tomb sealed, and is opened by an angel of the Lord via earthquake, who proceeds to speak to Mary- now if we closely examine the accounts of Mark, Luke and John, the bible reveals a dramatically different account from those disciples....there are differences in regards to the Angels, both in location upon Mary's arrival, as well as in number, even that the tomb is already opened- even Jesus appears to them at different times, and even Peter shows up at the tomb at a different time, etc...the 4 accounts appear to wholly contradict each other? What gives here??


Thee are huge doctrinal implications to this. The resurrection accounts are conflicting- which would prove fallibility, which would change the whole soapbox many stand on. The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best....

Read 'Who Moved The Stone?' by Frank Morison. A most readable account which demonstrates the accuracy and cohesion of the narratives, written by one who set out to disprove the resurrection and became a Christian as a consequence of his investigation

 

[Utah]

That is not what my post stated.

Correct. You stated worse than that. You stated, "The foundation of MOST doctrine is now shaky at best...."

People are people, and if thousands witnessed a miracle you'd have thousands of different accounts.

Since you've asked this question before and still aren't satisfied with the answers given, then go straight to the source and talk with God about the infallibility of Scripture.

 

[notuptome]

Four first hand accounts by men who were there and now you want to quibble over the differences in their accounts? Enjoy and relish the differences and the richness it adds to the accounts. Not copies with machinelike precision but human accounts from men in the presence of God Almighty.

Only God can make all the snowflakes the same yet different and unique. Just like He made you.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Hepzibah]

But the whole Bible is supposed to be inspired and without error. If the resurrection account can be filled with mistakes due to whoever is reporting what they thought, then the rest of scripture must be so. It is not supposed to be like other events in life where there are differences in which facts are recalled. This is supposed to be what the Holy Spirit is inspiring them to write so the OP is correct.

This is not to deny anything about the truth of miraculous happenings, just to say that every word of scripture is not from the pen of God as it were, but from men who get facts and order of events wrong at times.