Apparent Inconsistencies in the Gospel Resurrection Narratives

[Berserk]

Ain't Zwinglian: "I'll call your bluff. Inconsistencies....Maybe you could come up with a list of 15-20 rock solid inconsistencies of the Resurrection narratives which we here at CF have "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them. I can't wait for your listing."

[1] Disciples Ordered to go to Galilee to See the Risen Lord Vs. Disciples Ordered to Stay in Jerusalem
'
In His first appearance to the disciples in Luke Jesus forbids His disciples to leave Jerusalem:
"So stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49)."

But in Matthew (and Mark) the angel at the tomb sends the women to instruct the disciples to go to Galilee to see the Risen Lord:
"Go QUICKLY and tell His disciples, "He has been raised from the dead, and indeed He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see Him (Matthew 28:7)."

The angel is merely echoing Jesus' earlier promise on tlhe Mount of Olives:
"But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee (Mark 14:28)."

So how does Luke resolve this apparent contradiction? First, in both Luke and Acts he is careful to create the impression that Jesus never appeared to His disciples in Galilee. So how does Luke handle the angel's instruction to go to Galilee to see the risen Lord? He simply rewords the angel's message to refer to Galilee without mentioning the instruction to go there to see Jesus:
"He is not here but has risen. Remember how He told you, while He was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and n the 3rd day risen again (Luke 24:5-7)."

So how would you resolve this apparent contradiction? Remember, I believe in Jesus' resurrection; and after presenting some of the most glaring apparent inconsistencies, I will present my perspective on the actual sequence of events on and after Easter Sunday.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In His first appearance to the disciples in Luke Jesus forbids His disciples to leave Jerusalem:
"So stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49)."

False. His first appearance to the disciples (except Thomas) is in the upper room (John 20:19ff). No mention of leaving Jerusalem here. It seems to me you lack the basic understanding the chronology of the post resurrection accounts of Jesus.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Go into Galilee is for when they ate fish on the beach. Stay in Jerusalem was for after His Ascension. Ascension is an even more central event. The New Testament and Old Testament have always been additive.

 

[Berserk]

False. His first appearance to the disciples (except Thomas) is in the upper room (John 20:19ff). No mention of leaving Jerusalem here. It seems to me you lack the basic understanding the chronology of the post resurrection accounts of Jesus.

Duh, all scholars agree that Luke and John preserve variant reports of the first resurrection appearance to the disciples on Easter Sunday.
And even apart from that oversight, you haven't grasped the apparent contradiction recognized by modern scholars. Sigh! So I repeat:
Because Luke's account on Easter Sunday has Jesus' ordering His disciples to stay in Jerusalem, this contradicts the account shared by both Mark and Matthew that an angel instead summons the disciples to instead obey what Jesus said on the Mount of Oloves and go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus. Luke then rewords the angel's instruction to bremove the contradiction by eliminating the instruction to go to Galilee for the appearance.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Duh, all scholars agree that Luke and John preserve variant reports of the first resurrection appearance to the disciples on Easter Sunday.
And even apart from that oversight, you haven't grasped the apparent contradiction recognized by modern scholars. Sigh! So I repeat:
Because Luke's account on Easter Sunday has Jesus' ordering His disciples to stay in Jerusalem, this contradicts the account shared by both Mark and Matthew that an angel instead summons the disciples to instead obey what Jesus said on the Mount of Oloves and go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus. Luke then rewords the angel's instruction to bremove the contradiction by eliminating the instruction to go to Galilee for the appearance.

I want nothing more to do with this conversation. I am done.

 

[Berserk]

I want nothing more to do with this conversation. I am done.

A theology professor friend (PhD) gave up his faith in Jesus' resurrection because of this contradiction. How sad that you don't even understand it!
I suppose you won't be able to grasp the other apparent contradictions that I will shortly post either.

 

[Soyeong]

Ain't Zwinglian: "I'll call your bluff. Inconsistencies....Maybe you could come up with a list of 15-20 rock solid inconsistencies of the Resurrection narratives which we here at CF have "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them. I can't wait for your listing."

[1] Disciples Ordered to go to Galilee to See the Risen Lord Vs. Disciples Ordered to Stay in Jerusalem
'
In His first appearance to the disciples in Luke Jesus forbids His disciples to leave Jerusalem:
"So stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49)."

But in Matthew (and Mark) the angel at the tomb sends the women to instruct the disciples to go to Galilee to see the Risen Lord:
"Go QUICKLY and tell His disciples, "He has been raised from the dead, and indeed He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see Him (Matthew 28:7)."

The angel is merely echoing Jesus' earlier promise on tlhe Mount of Olives:
"But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee (Mark 14:28)."

So how does Luke resolve this apparent contradiction? First, in both Luke and Acts he is careful to create the impression that Jesus never appeared to His disciples in Galilee. So how does Luke handle the angel's instruction to go to Galilee to see the risen Lord? He simply rewords the angel's message to refer to Galilee without mentioning the instruction to go there to see Jesus:
"He is not here but has risen. Remember how He told you, while He was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and n the 3rd day risen again (Luke 24:5-7)."

So how would you resolve this apparent contradiction? Remember, I believe in Jesus' resurrection; and after presenting some of the most glaring apparent inconsistencies, I will present my perspective on the actual sequence of events on and after Easter Sunday.

Eyewitness accounts have differences in perspective. If there were no differences, then people would suspect collusion. Plutarch's Lives contains biographies of people who lives during the same time period who went to the same events, so we can look at how the same person tells the same story differently from different perspectives, note patterns in the differences, and see the same patterns in the Gospels. For example, in one account one person sent a messenger while in another account it cuts out the middleman and simply puts the words in the mouth of the person who sent the messenger, so we can see this in the Gospels where in one there was a Centurion on sent a servant while in another Gospel it puts the words in the mouth of the Centurion. It's not a contradiction, just literary license, so we need to recognize the Gospels for what they are and hold them to the standard to which they were written rather than it our standard.

 

[Berserk]

Eyewitness accounts have differences in perspective. If there were no differences, then people would suspect collusion. Plutarch's Lives contains biographies of people who lives during the same time period who went to the same events, so we can look at how the same person tells the same story differently from different perspectives, note patterns in the differences, and see the same patterns in the Gospels. For example, in one account one person sent a messenger while in another account it cuts out the middleman and simply puts the words in the mouth of the person who sent the messenger, so we can see this in the Gospels where in one there was a Centurion on sent a servant while in another Gospel it puts the words in the mouth of the Centurion. It's not a contradiction, just literary license, so we need to recognize the Gospels for what they are and hold them to the standard to which they were written rather than it our standard.

But you are ducking the apparent damage to the credibility of the Gospel witness to the resurrection tradition. If the risen Jesus forbids the disciples to leave Jerusalem and return to Galilee on the same day the empty tomb is discovered, then why would the angel at the tomb and the earthly Jesus on Mount of Olives have instructed the disciples to return to Galilee to see the risen Lord? Many scholars view this contradiction as a sign of later legendary embellishment. Worse still, where is Luke's integrity in doctoring the message of the angel at the tomb to remove the instruction to send the disiples to Galilee in order to create the impression that Jesus never appeared to His disciples in Galilee, contrary to the witness of our other 3 Gospels? Ain't Zwinglian ain't got no answer to this decisive issue.

 

[Berserk]

(2) In Matthew the women see Jesus on their way to the disciples, but in Luke they see only angels.
According to Matthew, the women see Jesus on the way to tell the disciples about the angel's message at the tomb:

"So they (the women) left the tomb and quickly... ran to tell His disciples. suddenly Jesus met them and said: "...Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. There they will see me (Matthew 28:8-10)."

But according to Luke, these women tell the disciples they have a message from angels at the tomb, but by implication not from the risen Jesus:
"Some women of our group...were at the tomb early this morning... they came back and told us they had indeed seen a vision of angels who told them He was alive (24:23)."

In Matthew the risen Lord's message to His disciples is to go to Galilee where they will see Him, but in Luke Jesus contradicts that Message that same day by forbidding them to leave Jerusalem (24;49).
So Ain't Zwinglian, how would you or other posters resolve this new pair of contradictions?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

It doesn't bother me at all and all of these Gospel accounts are read in an eleven week succession every Sunday in the Orthodox Church. So we hear each of them about four times a year.

First, none of the Gospel writers are witnesses to the tomb, they are all writing from someone's memory, anywhere from 30 to 50 years after the fact. So they are writing down what the witnesses said or has been passed on down.

Second, these aren't legal documents being presented in a trial. They are written for the believers of the Resurrection.

Finally, John's ending "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." pretty much summarizes that these aren't meant to be Ron Chernow type biographies, but just a collection of some of the events of the earthly ministry of Jesus.

If it bothers you so much, why do you believe?

 

[Fervent]

But you are ducking the apparent damage to the credibility of the Gospel witness to the resurrection tradition. If the risen Jesus forbids the disciples to leave Jerusalem and return to Galilee on the same day the empty tomb is discovered, then why would the angel at the tomb and the earthly Jesus on Mount of Olives have instructed the disciples to return to Galilee to see the risen Lord? Many scholars view this contradiction as a sign of later legendary embellishment. Worse still, where is Luke's integrity in doctoring the message of the angel at the tomb to remove the instruction to send the disiples to Galilee in order to create the impression that Jesus never appeared to His disciples in Galilee, contrary to the witness of our other 3 Gospels? Ain't Zwinglian ain't got no answer to this decisive issue.

It makes far more sense to see these types of inconsistencies as the ordinary discrepancies of eyewitness accounts rather than legendary development given the timeframe involved and the ordinary nature of the discrepancies. The legendary hypothesis ignores the fact that the development would have to be unlike the development of any other legend in history given how quickly the most extravagent details of the gospel narratives were spread. Legends don't develop in 20-50 years, they develop 150-200 years after the fact.

 

[Berserk]

It makes far more sense to see these types of inconsistencies as the ordinary discrepancies of eyewitness accounts rather than legendary development given the timeframe involved and the ordinary nature of the discrepancies. The legendary hypothesis ignores the fact that the development would have to be unlike the development of any other legend in history given how quickly the most extravagent details of the gospel narratives were spread. Legends don't develop in 20-50 years, they develop 150-200 years after the fact.

You just conceded that the Gospel Resurrection witness contains errors. The issue is, how damaging are these apparent errors to the credibility of the witness as a whole? Posters here merely duck this question in the interests of their faith. After drawing attention to these and other apparent inconsistencies, I intend to offer my reconstruction of the most plausible sequence of events after the discovery of the empty tomb.

Notice how everyone here is ducking Luke's revised wording of the angel's instruction at the tomb to support his agenda of restricting the risen Lord's appearances to Jerusalem and its environs.

 

[Fervent]

You just conceded that the Gospel Resurrection witness contains errors. The issue is, how damaging are these apparent errors to the credibility of the witness as a whole? Posters here merely duck this question in the interests of their faith. After drawing attention to these and other apparent inconsistencies, I intend to offer my reconstruction of the most plausible sequence of events after the discovery of the empty tomb.

Notice how everyone here is ducking Luke's revised wording of the angel's instruction at the tomb to support his agenda of restricting the risen Lord's appearances to Jerusalem and its environs.

An apparent error is not necessarily a genuine error, simply a rejection of an overly simplistic conception of Biblical inerrancy. Motivated skeptics will find any reason to justify their skepticism, so debating over trivial issues such as ordinary witness discrepancy is of little value. The genuineness of the resurrection event is the simplest explanation for the sum total of the evidence, barring a presupposition that such a thing is de facto impossible. If we do not begin by assuming that there must be a natural explanation for such an event, the credibility of the legendary hypothesis quickly disappears because no legend has ever developed in the manner in which the resurrection beliefs developed and the most often claimed support for it outside of the speculation in things like the cargo cults revolved around genuine events which were then understood culturally since the people were lacking the knowledge of modern technology. The gospel stories are not the oldest evidence of a belief in the resurrection, instead Paul's letter's are and those letter's themselves seem to have been drawing on an even older oral tradition which belief in the resurrection is fully formed.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

You just conceded that the Gospel Resurrection witness contains errors. The issue is, how damaging are these apparent errors to the credibility of the witness as a whole? Posters here merely duck this question in the interests of their faith. After drawing attention to these and other apparent inconsistencies, I intend to offer my reconstruction of the most plausible sequence of events after the discovery of the empty tomb.

Notice how everyone here is ducking Luke's revised wording of the angel's instruction at the tomb to support his agenda of restricting the risen Lord's appearances to Jerusalem and its environs.

So 2000 years after the fact, you think that you're the only one who noticed that? If your professor walked away from the faith because of that and I guess you think the same way. Any explaination is useless to you because you will ignore it.

 

[Berserk]

So 2000 years after the fact, you think that you're the only one who noticed that? If your professor walked away from the faith because of that and I guess you think the same way.

First. learn to read: The professor in question was not my professor; he was a "friend."

Any explaination is useless to you because you will ignore it.

No, I'm a fervent believer in Jesus' resurrection. But too many evangelicals bring reproach on the resurrection by their unwillingness or inability to address the specifc apparent contradictions in the Gospel narratives. Their generalization that various witnesses have different memories is irrelevant to the issue of whether their preserved traditions contain errors. Notice that even Ain't Zwinglian, who called my bluff, has nothing to say in defense of these traditions.

y.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

First. learn to read: The professor in question was not my professor; he was a "friend."


y.

Soyeong and Not Zwinglian already did and you rejected it out of hand. There's nothing more to discuss. And regarding my mistake, if that's all you are going to point out, yeah you will reject everything no matter what.

 

[Derf]

(2) In Matthew the women see Jesus on their way to the disciples, but in Luke they see only angels.
According to Matthew, the women see Jesus on the way to tell the disciples about the angel's message at the tomb:

"So they (the women) left the tomb and quickly... ran to tell His disciples. suddenly Jesus met them and said: "...Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. There they will see me (Matthew 28:8-10)."

But according to Luke, these women tell the disciples they have a message from angels at the tomb, but by implication not from the risen Jesus:
"Some women of our group...were at the tomb early this morning... they came back and told us they had indeed seen a vision of angels who told them He was alive (24:23)."

In Matthew the risen Lord's message to His disciples is to go to Galilee where they will see Him, but in Luke Jesus contradicts that Message that same day by forbidding them to leave Jerusalem (24;49).
So Ain't Zwinglian, how would you or other posters resolve this new pair of contradictions?

Luke 24:45 KJV — Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

How often do you think Jesus had to repeat His teachings during the 40 says between resurrection and ascension? Surely it was multiple times (at least 2 on Easter Sunday, the first on the road to Emmaus). That verse alone allows for a reasonable gap to go to Gallilee and back to Jerusalem.

 

[Andrewn]

[1] Disciples Ordered to go to Galilee to See the Risen Lord Vs. Disciples Ordered to Stay in Jerusalem

I have noticed this apparent inconsistency and understood it as an order to all the disciples, not only the Eleven, to go to Galilee. The Eleven remained in Jerusalem for a week, where the Lord appeared to them twice, and then they headed to Galilee, where He first appeared to 7 of them, per John's account, and then to 500 disciples on a mountain, putting Matthew's account and 1Co together. Then, they returned to Jerusalem for the Ascension and Pentecost.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

I have noticed this inconsistency and understood it as an order to all the disciples, not only the Eleven, to go to Galilee. The Eleven remained in Jerusalem for a week, where the Lord appeared to them twice, and then they headed to Galilee, where He first appeared to 7 of them, per John's account, and then to 500 disciples on a mountain, putting Matthew's account and 1Co together. Then, they returned to Jerusalem for the Ascension and Pentecost.

That was never even an inconsistency.

Using that word, was like saying that because 1 does not equal 2, neither 1 nor 2 are true.

Why use nihilist terminology at all?

The rest of what you say is completely factual!

 

[Andrewn]

That was never even an inconsistency. Using that word, was like saying that because 1 does not equal 2, neither 1 nor 2 are true. Why use nihilist terminology at all? The rest of what you say is completely factual!

Thank you. I changed my post to read "apparent inconsistency." Another apparent inconsistency is the Lord breathing on the disciples and saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit" rather than waiting until Pentecost. What do you think of this?