Are these contradictions in the gospels?

[31gH9N.9.]

I don't want to doubt the bible, but I keep running into areas that seem to cast shadows of doubt on my faith. I was reading this morning in Mark in the account of John the Baptist's beheading.


But when Herod heard, he said, “This is John, whom I beheaded; he has been raised from the dead!” For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”
Therefore Herodias held it against him and wanted to kill him, but she could not; for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just and holy man, and he protected him. And when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. Mark 6:16-20


I remembered the account in Matthew since it was fresh in my mind.

For Herod had laid hold of John and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. Matthew 14 : 3-5

Did Herod want John put to death or not. The only way I could see this being true is if ,at the first, Herod in anger wanted to put John to death. Then, after John was bound in Prison, he no longer desired to have him put to death due to a personal conviction that he was a just man.

I keep having all these doubts about scripture and it has really hindered me spiritually recently, and sometimes I think it may be that God is sending me a "strong delusion".

 

[Tolworth John]

Where is the contradiction?
All you have are the desires and fears of Herod.

It would be a contradiction if one gospel said Herod killed John while another said Herod released him.

May I suggest you follow two web sites.
Coldcasechristianity for a detectives view of the accuracy and reliability of the bible and Reasonablefaith for logical reasons why the bible and Christianity is true.

 

[SeventyOne]

There's no contradiction there. Herod was in a position where he wanted to kill John but feared the reaction of the people if he did so. Rome frowned on leaders who had uprisings in their assigned lands. Instead, he found himself in a position where he had to imprison John while protecting him from Herodias.

 

[Petros2015]

Yes, there are.

And it's OK.

You can still believe in Christ.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

No contradiction at all.

Read the whole passage of Matthew 14 and not just 2 or 3 verses.

Matthew 14:10 He sent and had John beheaded in prison ESV

This is why we should never just take one or two verses from the Bible without examining the overall evidence and context

 

[Adstar]

I don't want to doubt the bible, but I keep running into areas that seem to cast shadows of doubt on my faith. I was reading this morning in Mark in the account of John the Baptist's beheading.


But when Herod heard, he said, “This is John, whom I beheaded; he has been raised from the dead!” For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”
Therefore Herodias held it against him and wanted to kill him, but she could not; for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just and holy man, and he protected him. And when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. Mark 6:16-20


I remembered the account in Matthew since it was fresh in my mind.

For Herod had laid hold of John and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. Matthew 14 : 3-5

Did Herod want John put to death or not. The only way I could see this being true is if ,at the first, Herod in anger wanted to put John to death. Then, after John was bound in Prison, he no longer desired to have him put to death due to a personal conviction that he was a just man.

I keep having all these doubts about scripture and it has really hindered me spiritually recently, and sometimes I think it may be that God is sending me a "strong delusion".

No contradiction here.. Herod wanted John to be killed but he feared the people so He didn't untill he was tricked into killing John because he offered a dancer anything she wished and she wished for the head of John the Baptist..

 

[Divide]

There is no contradictions in scripture. I used to think that I saw a couple, but every time that I studied it out, I found out that it was confusion of my own and not any discrepancies in scripture.

 

[Petros2015]

There is no contradictions in scripture. I used to think that I saw a couple, but every time that I studied it out, I found out that it was confusion of my own and not any discrepancies in scripture.

In each of the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John):

Who went to the tomb first?

How many angels did they see inside the tomb?

Who did they tell?

 

[Divide]

In each of the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John):

Who went to the tomb first?

How many angels did they see inside the tomb?

Who did they tell?

Mary went to the tomb first, didn't she?
One or two...I'm just waking up and going on memory here. But I think that's right.
They all gathered later in an upper room I think, and all compared nots. Jesus first appeared to Mary, then to the 3 disciples on the road to Emmaus.

The big thing that I got out of those stories of after Jesus's resurrection, is that...no one got all of the info. They all seemed to get a portion of it, and only after they all came together and compared notes, did they have the complete picture. This speaks of many members, one body. And the need for unification.

 

[pescador]

It's important to realize that there is a difference between the way biographies were written in New Testament times and the way they are written now (with some unfortunate exceptions). These days biographies are written as though they are (real) news accounts. They must be factual, in chronological order, etc. In New Testament times biographies were written to give a subjective description of who the subject was; chronology and verbatim quotes were not that important. The difference is similar to a photograph versus an impressionist painting. The latter often portrays more about the subject than the former, capturing nuances and qualities that aren't in a photograph.

There are four different gospels written by four different men written at four different times to four different audiences. Each tries to capture the essence of Jesus Christ that was most understandable to their particular audience. What we call "historical accuracy" wasn't important.

 

[Petros2015]

Mary went to the tomb first, didn't she? One or two...

(re: who went to the tomb first, how many angels did they see inside, who did they tell)

Matthew 28:1-8

Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary' go to the tomb.

There are 0 angels inside. There is a great earthquake and they witness an angel roll away the stone and guards scared unconscious. The angel sits on the stone outside. (Possibly he enters with them later as they inspect the tomb.)

They 'did run to bring the disciples word'.

Mark 16:1-8

Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James, and a third woman(?) Salome go to the tomb.

They find the stone already rolled away and do not witness it as in Matthew.

They find a 'young man' (1 angel) inside, sitting on the right side.

They didn't tell anyone 'neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.'

Luke 24:1-10

It looks like Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and maybe
'others with them' go to the tomb

They find the stone rolled away. There are 2 angels inside.

They 'told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.'

John 20:1-2

Mary Magdalene (apparently alone) goes to the tomb.

The stone is rolled away, the tomb is empty. No angels are seen.

She runs and tells Peter and John. She then returns with them, and after they
leave on the return visit she sees 2 angels inside before Christ appears to her.

 

[Divide]

(re: who went to the tomb first, how many angels did they see inside, who did they tell)

Matthew 28:1-8

Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary' go to the tomb.

There are 0 angels inside. There is a great earthquake and they witness an angel roll away the stone and guards scared unconscious. The angel sits on the stone outside. (Possibly he enters with them later as they inspect the tomb.)

They 'did run to bring the disciples word'.

Mark 16:1-8

Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James, and a third woman(?) Salome go to the tomb.

They find the stone already rolled away and do not witness it as in Matthew.

They find a 'young man' (1 angel) inside, sitting on the right side.

They didn't tell anyone 'neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.'

Luke 24:1-10

It looks like Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and maybe
'others with them' go to the tomb

They find the stone rolled away. There are 2 angels inside.

They 'told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.'

John 20:1-2

Mary Magdalene (apparently alone) goes to the tomb.

The stone is rolled away, the tomb is empty. No angels are seen.

She runs and tells Peter and John. She then returns with them, and after they
leave on the return visit she sees 2 angels inside before Christ appears to her.

Ok, so what's the contradiction that you're seeing?

 

[Petros2015]

Ok, so what's the contradiction that you're seeing?

Well for starters, here:

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Running to bring the disciples word and running and not telling anyone are two different contradictory responses.

I think I highlighted the discrepancies pretty well in my previous post though. If I were a police officer getting 4 different reports related to a missing body, I'd probably bring them all into the station for additional questioning.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes, there are.

And it's OK.

You can still believe in Christ.

If the Bible is unreliable, you can't believe in Christ. You can't even define, "Christ", or how or why you should, "believe in" Him.

 

[Divide]

Well for starters, here:

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Running to bring the disciples word and running and not telling anyone are two different contradictory responses.

I think I highlighted the discrepancies pretty well in my previous post though. If I were a police officer getting 4 different reports related to a missing body, I'd probably bring them all into the station for additional questioning.

That's it? Ok, well those four gospels while similar, don't all have the exact same details and time lines. Different people wrote them. This one was very probably all about the timing. They may have been going out to find the disciples to tell them, but had not ran into them yet. Then later they did. So both accounts could have been true...but at different times.

I don't let little things like that sway me or confound me. It is the word of God and all of it's true, so take this for example, it had to be about the timing or they both couldn't be true. That we don't get the explanation in print means nothing. The message is still true and there are no lies or real contradictions. See what I mean?

 

[hedrick]

If the Bible is unreliable, you can't believe in Christ. You can't even define, "Christ", or how or why you should, "believe in" Him.

That's silly. The kinds of disagreements you see in the NT are just what you expect from reports from actual humans decades after the fact. I find it easier to deal with accounts with disagreements than claims that I should ignore the disagreements and believe that they're inerrant. I sure hope you never have to serve on a jury.

 

[Petros2015]

If the Bible is unreliable, you can't believe in Christ. You can't even define, "Christ", or how or why you should, "believe in" Him.

Unreliable for what? For a police report account of exactly what happened, possibly. But it got me seeking Christ. Seems to have done it's job.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Unreliable for what? For a police report account of exactly what happened, possibly. But it got me seeking Christ. Seems to have done it's job.

Who is Christ? Why did He die? What does His death mean to us? Are you able to answer these questions?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That's silly. The kinds of disagreements you see in the NT are just what you expect from reports from actual humans decades after the fact. I find it easier to deal with accounts with disagreements than claims that I should ignore the disagreements and believe that they're inerrant. I sure hope you never have to serve on a jury.

You call it silly because you are already in the habit of choosing which portions of the Bible you choose to believe.

Logic insists that if a text is unreliable, it's unreliable. Of course you claim special (modern scholarship) knowledge in choosing which parts are reliable, but that's nothing different than what you've already done - pick and choose. In such a scenario, you are god, as you are the final authority and word.

 

[Petros2015]

Logic insists that if a text is unreliable, it's unreliable.

No, your logic insists that if the text is unreliable at any point, the whole thing should be thrown out. If I have a witness to a murder, and the witness was sober and accurate on all points except the color of the getaway car to the best of his recollection, a defense lawyer might argue the witnesses entire testimony was invalid and try to get his client acquitted. But that's a perfectly possible scenario and happens all the time, and the murder, the event (in this case the death and resurrection) still happened.

So how many angels were in the tomb? Matthew and Mark say 1. Luke and John say 2. I don't know. But I know there was an empty tomb and there were angels.

Who carried Christ's cross? Matthew, Mark and Luke all say Simon of Cyrene was enlisted. John says simply "Carrying his own cross, he went out" John 19:17.

I don't know who carried it. But I know Christ was crucified for my sins.

My NIV has notes - right after Mark 16:8:

"the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

Oh.

Ok...

Note to self - be cautious with snake handling and drinking deadly poison unless it's absolutely necessary...

I know that we are dealing with copies of copies of copies at this point, and translations between languages where the word meanings have been lost. So I believe this is 'the best we've got'. Things may have been added. Things may have been lost. Even with what was originally assembled, things may never have added up quite 100%.

That's OK.

I believe it's good enough for what it was intended to do with my life. It got me Seeking.