Disproving Biblical Infallibility 101
- Thread starter DisciplePAG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
it seems to me that you lack the intelligence to investigate 
all you want to do is try to show yourself clever. And you simply show yourself up.
all you want to do is try to show yourself clever. And you simply show yourself up.
How am i being clever? By holding fast to truth and not falling for your lame duck attacks?? Just because your wit is not strong enough to debunk factual information you attack my character?? What personal inadequacy are you trying to cover up here?
Oh it is a straw man argument.
God's Word is sure, as I said earlier. The things that matter in the Bible are definite in the Bible. Little meaningless details don't interfere with God's Word.
According to your logic, God's word isn't sure because the gospels contradict how many men came out demonically possessed.
I disagree with your logic. Because it doesn't matter how many men came up to Jesus, what matters is that Jesus drove out the demons (which isn't contradicted among the gospels)
You can argue all day that the Resurrection story doesn't contradict itself among the gospels (idk how, but you can if you want to) but you CAN'T argue about the contradictions of the demonically possessed man/men in the gospels. You are just denying plain fact by doing so.
I'm simply saying that you shouldn't be so terrified by this puzzle that you deny it even exists. God has the answers.
God's Word is sure, as I said earlier. The things that matter in the Bible are definite in the Bible. Little meaningless details don't interfere with God's Word.
According to your logic, God's word isn't sure because the gospels contradict how many men came out demonically possessed.
I disagree with your logic. Because it doesn't matter how many men came up to Jesus, what matters is that Jesus drove out the demons (which isn't contradicted among the gospels)
You can argue all day that the Resurrection story doesn't contradict itself among the gospels (idk how, but you can if you want to) but you CAN'T argue about the contradictions of the demonically possessed man/men in the gospels. You are just denying plain fact by doing so.
I'm simply saying that you shouldn't be so terrified by this puzzle that you deny it even exists. God has the answers.
Last edited:
will you be surprised to learn that I have done so long ago? It all fitted together quite easily in one cohesive story. anyone who is looking for contradictions will quite easily manufacture them. but no one who looks intelligently at the records will agree with them.. I have NOT admitted that there are opposing statements in the accounts. In that you lie. you will not find a solution because you do not want one. and that is the truth.
I see you call yourself pagan disciple. it fits you well. is Judas your patron saint?
I see you call yourself pagan disciple. it fits you well. is Judas your patron saint?
I have faith in Jesus and his saving grace, i have faith that sanctified living is pleasing to God. Dont need faith in the writings of man at that point. Useful for teaching from? Sure. Cant be saved without it?? NOT SO MUCH. You could do well to organize your spiritual priorities a bit better and realize this fact of fallibility we have proven DOES NOT affect your salvation, rather it focuses us more on the details that matter, and those are plainly this:
JESUS CHRIST BORN, DIED, and RESSURECTED. Nothing more.
JESUS CHRIST BORN, DIED, and RESSURECTED. Nothing more.
Disciple. PAG.
Disciple- A student of Christs teachings.
PAG- Phillip A. Gage.
Thank you for never callng me "pagan" again. Apologies if i misgrouped you with those who truthfully admit/say there are differences in the account.
You people just loooove to name call here, do you not? How elementary you prove to be, and how easily frustrated you are by basic issues. I will hate to see how you handle meat, seeing how you struggle at milk.
[h=2]The Gospel Writers and The Resurrection Narratives.[/h]
All the Gospels were written not only as histories but as theologies. It is true that the writers were careful to retain accurately the information they had, but they were concerned to put it over in such a way that it put over particular theological points.
Mark, for example, is particularly concerned to put over the point that Jesus is the Messiah (Mark 1.1) (see our article on The Messiah in Mark), and while Luke is very much concerned to present the historical truth (as he stresses - see Luke 1.1-4), he also concentrates on the ‘journey to Jerusalem’ (Luke 9.31,51), which is more a theological journey than a literal one.
Jesus’ face is now set towards Jerusalem to fulfil His destiny, says Luke in 9.51, but He does not go straight there. It is His purpose that is set, not the route, and Luke 9 onwards contains details of a travel itinerary that is by no means straightforward. Luke does not change the facts. He accurately records where Jesus is at particular points in time but he wants us to be aware that all the time, wherever He goes, Jesus has Jerusalem in mind. This is part of Luke’s overall plan. Fom Galilee to Jerusalem, and then (in Acts) from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the world.
Matthew on the other hand is concerned to show how the Jew’s Messiah has become the world’s Messiah and does this firstly by stressing that Jesus has come to Israel (Matthew 10.6; 15.24 ) leading up to the story of the Syro-phoenician woman (Matthew 15.21-28) after which His ministry expands towards the Gentiles with the feeding of the four thousand (in Gentile territory) compared with the feeding of the five thousand (in Jewish territory). The numbers four and five are significant in this regard as five is the covenant number and four is the number signifying the whole world. From now on His ministry is extended and Matthew finishes by stressing Jesus ministry to the whole world (Matthew 28.19-20).
None of this must be overpressed. The particular emphasis does not alter the broad picture and the facts are more important to them than the theology, but the theology is ever in mind.
John’s Gospel has the stated aim of presenting Jesus for belief with the aim of the reception of spiritual life (John 20.31) and has within it recollections not known to the other writers, arising from John’s special awareness and knowledge.
It should be noted how in all four Gospels the final days of Jesus are given great emphasis bringing out that to all of them His death is seen as being as important as His life.
How does this affect the resurrection narrative? It would be simplistic and false to suggest that the writers merely altered things to suit themselves. The very intricacy of the picture is an argument for the fact that they stuck closely to the truth even when it was inconvenient.
Matthew records an appearance in Jerusalem to the women because it happened, but selects the parts where the command to go to Galilee is given, and then concentrates on the appearance in Galilee where the clear command to go to the whole world is given. He would appear to be trying to take the emphasis away from Jerusalem. Jerusalem with its Jewish emphasis is no longer to be seen as central (in the middle of the first century this was a very important change of outlook). He emphasises that Jesus wanted to appear to His disciples in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and deliberately ignores the appearances in Jerusalem which were in fact due to the disciples’ disobedience and dilatoriness. He does not want people to look to Jerusalem as the centre of Christianity.
Mark 16 1-8 appears to have a similar emphasis but it is unlikely that v.8 was intended to be the end of his account and we do not know why it ended there, nor what else he would have written, so it would be unwise to speculate.
Mark 16.9-20 on the other hand would appear to be a summary of resurrection appearances, possibly compiled by Mark, but more likely based on a very early church official statement, attached to complete the Gospel. Here the emphasis is on Jerusalem appearances and has clear connections with Luke’s account but put into a very abbreviated form but with additional information in vv.15-18 incorporated, both to emphasise that the message is to the whole world and to include what is clearly a unique recollection. Because of its summary form it cannot be said to have any particular emphasis save in its witness to the resurrection and following triumphs.
Luke has no fears over the centrality of Jerusalem. As a Gentile preaching among Gentiles Jerusalem has never had a religious hold over him. It has a different significance as the place where Jesus was offered up. He thus outlines in full the Jerusalem appearances. Out of disaster comes triumph.
Luke 24.45 would appear to suggest a break in the narrative and it is clear that the verses following occurred later than the time when the disciples were ‘gathered together’, thus some time during the forty days mentioned in Acts 1.3 (written by Luke). The ‘remaining in Jerusalem’ (24.49) does not therefore conflict with their having previously gone to Galilee. At this point the Galilean appearances (one of which is mentioned by John) have already taken place. Luke is making Jerusalem the focal point from which the Gospel will spread to the world (Acts 1.8).
John, who specialises in the personal touch and the spiritual inner meaning, records details which he personally remembers which he considers spiritually significant, including interestingly a Galilee appearance, confirming the recollections in Matthew and Mark. Having stressed the Spirit throughout his Gospel the giving of the Spirit is clearly important to him, and he sees it as fulfilled in the room where the disciples were gathered at the time of Jesus’ first resurrection appearance. There is no contradiction with Acts where the ‘giving’ is an outward manifestation to the whole church. John is mentioning a deeply personal experience which had to him deep spiritual significance, and which conferred on the Apostles the ability to understand the Scriptures.
The Resurrection Narratives - The Women's Visits to the Tomb
It has been suggested that the resurrection narratives are contradictory, in that they present differing accounts of who was at the tomb when. But in considering this question we must be fair to each of the writers and ask ourselves what they were trying to do. The truth is that they were not trying to give a step by step account of the resurrection appearances. Rather they were passing on selected material which conveyed the particular emphasis they wanted to convey, without altering the facts or giving peripheral information.
Now consider the situation. Jesus has been crucified. The disciples and the women who have accompanied Him are devastated. They do not know what to do. They cannot sleep. The body of their beloved Master lies in a cold tomb of which they know the whereabouts. The disciples are avoiding the tomb at first because they fear arrest, but the situation is different for the women. No one is likely to arrest them. In fact their first act is to go inconspicuously to the tomb and watch Jesus' body being laid there (Luke 23.54-56). They long to honour their dead master.
These women then go off to prepare spices ready to take them to the tomb (Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought the spices, Luke adds Joanne and ‘the other women’ as those involved in the whole affair),and while they are doing this they send Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’ on ahead to see if it will be possible to approach the tomb. They are specially concerned as to how they will be able to roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. They know guards have been set, so they need to survey the ground before they act.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrive. To their surprise the guards are not there and the tomb is open. The rock has been removed from the entrance. Quickly they discuss what they should do. Mary Magdalene then races off to tell Peter and John, (whom they all look to as their leaders), what has happened, while the other Mary goes back to report to the other women. Mary Magdalene finds Peter and John alone, and informs them of the situation. Note her use of the term 'we'. This in itself indicates that the facts are more complicated than John's overall account suggests. She clearly sees herself as part of a group acting in the situation even though she is alone. (Had she been acting alone the whole time she would have said 'I').
John is writing from memory of the night as he saw it, and it is Mary's visit to the tomb and report to him that he remembers vividly and that concerns him. The other details are to him unnecessary, and indeed he may not have known them fully. (But we should remember that John does, in fact, deliberately write his Gospel with a view to covering unreported material, leaving out what others have dealt with except when it is necessary to his purpose). Peter and John then visit the tomb and find it empty with the grave clothes lying just as they would if the body had still been there. However, the significance of this does not strike them at the time, although they recall it later. They are not expecting the resurrection.
Meanwhile Mary, young and vigorous, races back to the tomb to join the other women whom she knows intend to go to the tomb. But when she reaches the tomb the women have not yet arrived.
'But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb'. John says nothing about how she got there. He has learned her story and it is that he writes. He omits what is not important to his message. Mary now has her experiences described in John. She has a personal meeting with the risen Lord and goes off to tell the disciples.
Meanwhile the other women arrive at the scene, possibly wondering what has happened to Mary, and have their experiences with the angels, and they too go off to tell the disciples.
Matthew either does not know all these details, or perhaps wishes to summarise them briefly, as they are not important to his message (he almost certainly has Mark’s Gospel available and so clearly is abbreviating). He is aware that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb, because it is part of the tradition passed on to the churches. (John may have been unaware of the the fact that the other Mary was originally with Mary Magdalene at the tomb or he may have considered it as not important for what he wants to say).
Matthew almost certainly also knows that other women went to the tomb. It would be part of the tradition. 28.1 is simply a summary verse naming two witnesses (possibly known to his first readers) who went to the tomb first. That is his first statement of fact. Possibly he did not know the identity of the others who went later.
Verse two definitely precedes verse 1 chronologically so that the account is not chronological. Verses 2-4 are a second strand of tradition. They explain what had happened when the rock was removed from the tomb.
Verses 5-10 are a third strand of tradition. They state the adventures of the 'women'. That is also correct. He is aware that the angels spoke to 'the women', because he has been told so. In a very abbreviated account like this we must recognise that details may not be dealt with anyway, and indeed Matthew may not have known the exact details. He is faithfully recounting what has by this time become the fixed oral tradition and he puts the differing spans of tradition together without trying to reconcile them. We know that 'the women' did not include Mary Magdalene, because John tells us so. She did not therefore first meet the Lord when 'the women' went to report to the disciples, but probably prior to them in her meeting outside the tomb.
So Matthew recounts correctly the facts as taught in oral tradition. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did go to the tomb. 'The women' did hear what the angels had to say and went and told the disciples. Thus what Matthew says is correct. We ASSUME that the whole is a connected account, and indirectly it is, but it is not one story written as a whole but a connecting of different strands of tradition presenting facts.
Mark also tells us about the situation. He tells us who were together preparing spices, but he does not recount (he may even not have been aware of) the fact that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb first because the women were concerned about how the stone would be rolled away (note that this concern explains why Mary went on ahead even though Mark does not deal with this).
Again the account is truncated so that the details are not supplied. Verse 1 is true. Verses 2- 8 are also true, but we know that Mary Magdalene was now no longer with them. We do not know why Mark's version suddenly ends at verse 8. Clearly for some reason he broke off at this crucial point. This is one of the mysteries that will never be solved. The fact that they 'said nothing to anyone' because they were either terrified or filled with awe refers to their general behaviour. They would not wish to speak of things until they had talked with Peter. Possibly Mark's next verse would have read - but they went immediately to the disciples and reported what had happened.
Verses 9-20 were a piece of reliable tradition added on to Mark later as a whole (a number of early manuscripts do not have these end verses). No attempt was made to connect it with verse 8. Thus we can confidently state that there are no contradictions once the ancient method of writing is recognised. Everything stated is true. We may wish they had given more detailed accounts and reconciled it all, but they wrote in their own way.
Luke, who also apparebtly had Mark’s Gospel available, but took particular pains to enquire about the facts wherever he went, lets us know that ‘the women’ followed those who buried Jesus and saw where he was laid. He mentions no names at this point and gives a brief summary of activity. Then he lets us know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and ‘the other women’ conveyed the news of Jesus’ appearances to the apostles. In this he was correct. What he does not point out, and possibly did not know, was that Mary Magdalene did it separately from the others. (It is of course possible that she then met the other women and also went with them back to the apostles, but this is not necessary for the account).
All the writers are abbreviating a very complicated situation and trying to avoid making the text cumbersome, in such circumstances it is the general facts that are being got over, not the individual details. Thus Matthew and Mark only mention the one angel who was the spokesman, Luke mentions two.
All the Gospels were written not only as histories but as theologies. It is true that the writers were careful to retain accurately the information they had, but they were concerned to put it over in such a way that it put over particular theological points.
Mark, for example, is particularly concerned to put over the point that Jesus is the Messiah (Mark 1.1) (see our article on The Messiah in Mark), and while Luke is very much concerned to present the historical truth (as he stresses - see Luke 1.1-4), he also concentrates on the ‘journey to Jerusalem’ (Luke 9.31,51), which is more a theological journey than a literal one.
Jesus’ face is now set towards Jerusalem to fulfil His destiny, says Luke in 9.51, but He does not go straight there. It is His purpose that is set, not the route, and Luke 9 onwards contains details of a travel itinerary that is by no means straightforward. Luke does not change the facts. He accurately records where Jesus is at particular points in time but he wants us to be aware that all the time, wherever He goes, Jesus has Jerusalem in mind. This is part of Luke’s overall plan. Fom Galilee to Jerusalem, and then (in Acts) from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the world.
Matthew on the other hand is concerned to show how the Jew’s Messiah has become the world’s Messiah and does this firstly by stressing that Jesus has come to Israel (Matthew 10.6; 15.24 ) leading up to the story of the Syro-phoenician woman (Matthew 15.21-28) after which His ministry expands towards the Gentiles with the feeding of the four thousand (in Gentile territory) compared with the feeding of the five thousand (in Jewish territory). The numbers four and five are significant in this regard as five is the covenant number and four is the number signifying the whole world. From now on His ministry is extended and Matthew finishes by stressing Jesus ministry to the whole world (Matthew 28.19-20).
None of this must be overpressed. The particular emphasis does not alter the broad picture and the facts are more important to them than the theology, but the theology is ever in mind.
John’s Gospel has the stated aim of presenting Jesus for belief with the aim of the reception of spiritual life (John 20.31) and has within it recollections not known to the other writers, arising from John’s special awareness and knowledge.
It should be noted how in all four Gospels the final days of Jesus are given great emphasis bringing out that to all of them His death is seen as being as important as His life.
How does this affect the resurrection narrative? It would be simplistic and false to suggest that the writers merely altered things to suit themselves. The very intricacy of the picture is an argument for the fact that they stuck closely to the truth even when it was inconvenient.
Matthew records an appearance in Jerusalem to the women because it happened, but selects the parts where the command to go to Galilee is given, and then concentrates on the appearance in Galilee where the clear command to go to the whole world is given. He would appear to be trying to take the emphasis away from Jerusalem. Jerusalem with its Jewish emphasis is no longer to be seen as central (in the middle of the first century this was a very important change of outlook). He emphasises that Jesus wanted to appear to His disciples in Galilee, not Jerusalem, and deliberately ignores the appearances in Jerusalem which were in fact due to the disciples’ disobedience and dilatoriness. He does not want people to look to Jerusalem as the centre of Christianity.
Mark 16 1-8 appears to have a similar emphasis but it is unlikely that v.8 was intended to be the end of his account and we do not know why it ended there, nor what else he would have written, so it would be unwise to speculate.
Mark 16.9-20 on the other hand would appear to be a summary of resurrection appearances, possibly compiled by Mark, but more likely based on a very early church official statement, attached to complete the Gospel. Here the emphasis is on Jerusalem appearances and has clear connections with Luke’s account but put into a very abbreviated form but with additional information in vv.15-18 incorporated, both to emphasise that the message is to the whole world and to include what is clearly a unique recollection. Because of its summary form it cannot be said to have any particular emphasis save in its witness to the resurrection and following triumphs.
Luke has no fears over the centrality of Jerusalem. As a Gentile preaching among Gentiles Jerusalem has never had a religious hold over him. It has a different significance as the place where Jesus was offered up. He thus outlines in full the Jerusalem appearances. Out of disaster comes triumph.
Luke 24.45 would appear to suggest a break in the narrative and it is clear that the verses following occurred later than the time when the disciples were ‘gathered together’, thus some time during the forty days mentioned in Acts 1.3 (written by Luke). The ‘remaining in Jerusalem’ (24.49) does not therefore conflict with their having previously gone to Galilee. At this point the Galilean appearances (one of which is mentioned by John) have already taken place. Luke is making Jerusalem the focal point from which the Gospel will spread to the world (Acts 1.8).
John, who specialises in the personal touch and the spiritual inner meaning, records details which he personally remembers which he considers spiritually significant, including interestingly a Galilee appearance, confirming the recollections in Matthew and Mark. Having stressed the Spirit throughout his Gospel the giving of the Spirit is clearly important to him, and he sees it as fulfilled in the room where the disciples were gathered at the time of Jesus’ first resurrection appearance. There is no contradiction with Acts where the ‘giving’ is an outward manifestation to the whole church. John is mentioning a deeply personal experience which had to him deep spiritual significance, and which conferred on the Apostles the ability to understand the Scriptures.
The Resurrection Narratives - The Women's Visits to the Tomb
It has been suggested that the resurrection narratives are contradictory, in that they present differing accounts of who was at the tomb when. But in considering this question we must be fair to each of the writers and ask ourselves what they were trying to do. The truth is that they were not trying to give a step by step account of the resurrection appearances. Rather they were passing on selected material which conveyed the particular emphasis they wanted to convey, without altering the facts or giving peripheral information.
Now consider the situation. Jesus has been crucified. The disciples and the women who have accompanied Him are devastated. They do not know what to do. They cannot sleep. The body of their beloved Master lies in a cold tomb of which they know the whereabouts. The disciples are avoiding the tomb at first because they fear arrest, but the situation is different for the women. No one is likely to arrest them. In fact their first act is to go inconspicuously to the tomb and watch Jesus' body being laid there (Luke 23.54-56). They long to honour their dead master.
These women then go off to prepare spices ready to take them to the tomb (Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought the spices, Luke adds Joanne and ‘the other women’ as those involved in the whole affair),and while they are doing this they send Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’ on ahead to see if it will be possible to approach the tomb. They are specially concerned as to how they will be able to roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. They know guards have been set, so they need to survey the ground before they act.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrive. To their surprise the guards are not there and the tomb is open. The rock has been removed from the entrance. Quickly they discuss what they should do. Mary Magdalene then races off to tell Peter and John, (whom they all look to as their leaders), what has happened, while the other Mary goes back to report to the other women. Mary Magdalene finds Peter and John alone, and informs them of the situation. Note her use of the term 'we'. This in itself indicates that the facts are more complicated than John's overall account suggests. She clearly sees herself as part of a group acting in the situation even though she is alone. (Had she been acting alone the whole time she would have said 'I').
John is writing from memory of the night as he saw it, and it is Mary's visit to the tomb and report to him that he remembers vividly and that concerns him. The other details are to him unnecessary, and indeed he may not have known them fully. (But we should remember that John does, in fact, deliberately write his Gospel with a view to covering unreported material, leaving out what others have dealt with except when it is necessary to his purpose). Peter and John then visit the tomb and find it empty with the grave clothes lying just as they would if the body had still been there. However, the significance of this does not strike them at the time, although they recall it later. They are not expecting the resurrection.
Meanwhile Mary, young and vigorous, races back to the tomb to join the other women whom she knows intend to go to the tomb. But when she reaches the tomb the women have not yet arrived.
'But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb'. John says nothing about how she got there. He has learned her story and it is that he writes. He omits what is not important to his message. Mary now has her experiences described in John. She has a personal meeting with the risen Lord and goes off to tell the disciples.
Meanwhile the other women arrive at the scene, possibly wondering what has happened to Mary, and have their experiences with the angels, and they too go off to tell the disciples.
Matthew either does not know all these details, or perhaps wishes to summarise them briefly, as they are not important to his message (he almost certainly has Mark’s Gospel available and so clearly is abbreviating). He is aware that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb, because it is part of the tradition passed on to the churches. (John may have been unaware of the the fact that the other Mary was originally with Mary Magdalene at the tomb or he may have considered it as not important for what he wants to say).
Matthew almost certainly also knows that other women went to the tomb. It would be part of the tradition. 28.1 is simply a summary verse naming two witnesses (possibly known to his first readers) who went to the tomb first. That is his first statement of fact. Possibly he did not know the identity of the others who went later.
Verse two definitely precedes verse 1 chronologically so that the account is not chronological. Verses 2-4 are a second strand of tradition. They explain what had happened when the rock was removed from the tomb.
Verses 5-10 are a third strand of tradition. They state the adventures of the 'women'. That is also correct. He is aware that the angels spoke to 'the women', because he has been told so. In a very abbreviated account like this we must recognise that details may not be dealt with anyway, and indeed Matthew may not have known the exact details. He is faithfully recounting what has by this time become the fixed oral tradition and he puts the differing spans of tradition together without trying to reconcile them. We know that 'the women' did not include Mary Magdalene, because John tells us so. She did not therefore first meet the Lord when 'the women' went to report to the disciples, but probably prior to them in her meeting outside the tomb.
So Matthew recounts correctly the facts as taught in oral tradition. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did go to the tomb. 'The women' did hear what the angels had to say and went and told the disciples. Thus what Matthew says is correct. We ASSUME that the whole is a connected account, and indirectly it is, but it is not one story written as a whole but a connecting of different strands of tradition presenting facts.
Mark also tells us about the situation. He tells us who were together preparing spices, but he does not recount (he may even not have been aware of) the fact that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb first because the women were concerned about how the stone would be rolled away (note that this concern explains why Mary went on ahead even though Mark does not deal with this).
Again the account is truncated so that the details are not supplied. Verse 1 is true. Verses 2- 8 are also true, but we know that Mary Magdalene was now no longer with them. We do not know why Mark's version suddenly ends at verse 8. Clearly for some reason he broke off at this crucial point. This is one of the mysteries that will never be solved. The fact that they 'said nothing to anyone' because they were either terrified or filled with awe refers to their general behaviour. They would not wish to speak of things until they had talked with Peter. Possibly Mark's next verse would have read - but they went immediately to the disciples and reported what had happened.
Verses 9-20 were a piece of reliable tradition added on to Mark later as a whole (a number of early manuscripts do not have these end verses). No attempt was made to connect it with verse 8. Thus we can confidently state that there are no contradictions once the ancient method of writing is recognised. Everything stated is true. We may wish they had given more detailed accounts and reconciled it all, but they wrote in their own way.
Luke, who also apparebtly had Mark’s Gospel available, but took particular pains to enquire about the facts wherever he went, lets us know that ‘the women’ followed those who buried Jesus and saw where he was laid. He mentions no names at this point and gives a brief summary of activity. Then he lets us know that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and ‘the other women’ conveyed the news of Jesus’ appearances to the apostles. In this he was correct. What he does not point out, and possibly did not know, was that Mary Magdalene did it separately from the others. (It is of course possible that she then met the other women and also went with them back to the apostles, but this is not necessary for the account).
All the writers are abbreviating a very complicated situation and trying to avoid making the text cumbersome, in such circumstances it is the general facts that are being got over, not the individual details. Thus Matthew and Mark only mention the one angel who was the spokesman, Luke mentions two.
Why, is the verse not true? Isn't all scripture INSPIRED by God? and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?
It's becoming more and more common/acceptable for people on here to resort to name-calling and claiming spiritual authority over others. Totally different from the love when I first joined.
For some reason, a lot of people on here feel threatened when they can't come up with answers right off the bat, so they feel that YOU must be the problem haha. All questions are answered eventually. Just give God time (and prayer). I guess people feel that some new question is going to pop up 2000 years later that's going to dismantle their faith.
It's becoming more and more common/acceptable for people on here to resort to name-calling and claiming spiritual authority over others. Totally different from the love when I first joined.
For some reason, a lot of people on here feel threatened when they can't come up with answers right off the bat, so they feel that YOU must be the problem haha. All questions are answered eventually. Just give God time (and prayer). I guess people feel that some new question is going to pop up 2000 years later that's going to dismantle their faith.