Are these contradictions in the gospels?

[Constantine the Sinner]

The authors of the Bible's books wrote for specific audiences to illuminate their understanding of what happened and/or to explain doctrine. If you look at the various news media today they're all reporting "the facts" yet they often differ widely. The reason? They're writing to specific audiences, yet they may all be true.

If you watch what goes on in a modern courtroom, witnesses may give true accounts of what happened, yet they often differ. Their accounts can all be true simultaneously..

Apply these examples to the "books" of the Bible and you will understand that they can differ, yet all can be true.

Apply postmoderism to the Bible? I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

 

[bekkilyn]

I think the people who primarily have difficulty with these contradictions are those "literalists" who feel obligated to believe every single word was inspired and dictated to the authors by God, and then have to leave intellect behind to come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations as to why Noah took two of each creature into the ark in one part of the flood account, and seven of some of them in another part, as just one example. There are contradictions between the lists of Noah's descendants as well if my memory is correct.

However, none of these literal contradictions negate the overall message of the flood story, but serve to give a slightly different perspective of it and of God depending on who wrote that part of the account. For me, these differences add more richness to scripture rather than takes away from it. The truth of the overall message is not contradicted.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I think the people who primarily have difficulty with these contradictions are those "literalists" who feel obligated to believe every single word was inspired and dictated to the authors by God, and then have to leave intellect behind to come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations as to why Noah took two of each creature into the ark in one part of the flood account, and seven of some of them in another part, as just one example. There are contradictions between the lists of Noah's descendants as well if my memory is correct.

However, none of these literal contradictions negate the overall message of the flood story, but serve to give a slightly different perspective of it and of God depending on who wrote that part of the account. For me, these differences add more richness to scripture rather than takes away from it. The truth of the overall message is not contradicted.

I do not think it is possible to be a Christian if you understand the Gospel as figurative, except where such is overtly clear (Saint John Chrysostom, for instance, says the star that guided the magi was obviously not a star star as in the kind we see in space, but only termed as such because that was what the astrologers took it for; rather it was a heavenly light guiding them).

 

[Soyeong]

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".

Hello, I recommend this video:

 

[bekkilyn]

I do not think it is possible to be a Christian if you understand the Gospel as figurative, except where such is overtly clear (Saint John Chrysostom, for instance, says the star that guided the magi was obviously not a star star as in the kind we see in space, but only termed as such because that was what the astrologers took it for; rather it was a heavenly light guiding them).

That's why I put "literalist" in quotes because it is a type of extreme literalism that considers every single word as literally true rather than considering biblical events as literally true. For example, someone can take Jesus's death and bodily resurrection and ascension literally, which is standard Christian doctrine, but two slightly different accounts wouldn't pose a problem *unless* they both must be literally true word for word, nothing out of order, nothing different or contradicting between the two accounts. Both are literal interpretations, but the "literalist" is going to have a problem with the contradictions and will need to construct workarounds to try to force consistency.

So not talking about figurative here at all. A "literalist" would say that if scripture called it a star, then it is a star and it would be wrong to claim that it was anything other than a star because every word in scripture must be inerrant. But if it was really a planet (like Venus perhaps) and the author just called it a star, and we interpret the it as truth and that "star" represented a heavenly body in this case, we're still being literal since there was *something* up there guiding them rather than the star representing some symbolic thing. The "literalist" wouldn't be able to accept it though because that would be changing the words of scripture.

 

[hedrick]

That's why I put "literalist" in quotes because it is a type of extreme literalism that considers every single word as literally true rather than considering biblical events as literally true. For example, someone can take Jesus's death and bodily resurrection and ascension literally, which is standard Christian doctrine, but two slightly different accounts wouldn't pose a problem *unless* they both must be literally true word for word, nothing out of order, nothing different or contradicting between the two accounts. Both are literal interpretations, but the "literalist" is going to have a problem with the contradictions and will need to construct workarounds to try to force consistency.

So not talking about figurative here at all. A "literalist" would say that if scripture called it a star, then it is a star and it would be wrong to claim that it was anything other than a star because every word in scripture must be inerrant. But if it was really a planet (like Venus perhaps) and the author just called it a star, and we interpret the it as truth and that "star" represented a heavenly body in this case, we're still being literal since there was *something* up there guiding them rather than the star representing some symbolic thing. The "literalist" wouldn't be able to accept it though because that would be changing the words of scripture.

I agree with this. But this is fundamentally the liberal concept of the Bible. It's a witness to what God has done. We don't expect witnesses to agree word for word, and in fact would be suspicious if they didn't have minor contradictions. What we care about is that we've got good enough information to know what happened.

But the conservative Christian model of the Bible is that it is as if God had written it himself. It's not multiple witnesses who may disagree, but one, despite God having inspired humans to write it in their own words. If it's God's testimony, we'd expect it to be 100% accurate, not accurate in the way human witnesses are accurate.

I think there's lots of evidence against the conservative view, so I agree with you.

 

[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?

Is that giving you trouble? That some reported one angel, some reported two? That's hardly a contradiction, for it's merely secondary details. The big point is that they do all agree that the tomb was empty of Jesus, He had risen.

The basic story is therefore affirmed from multiple independent sources. That the tomb was indeed empty (Jesus was not there.) The actual number of angels present is actually sort of a moot point. We do know from other scripture accounts, that when supernatural visitation occurs from angels or the Lord, that...everyone does not always see the same things. Take Paul's visitation from Jesus on the road to Damascus for instance. He was with quite a few other men, yet they didn't see anything and perhaps only heard the voice.

Oh there's lots of secondary details that are not explained conclusively in scripture. But the basic story and message that is important to us, all agree. I'm sure that the secondary details will all be explained on day to us. Using secondary details discrepancies as a foundation for...proving the scriptures have contradictions is suspect in and of itself. What is your point and reason for trying to prove such a thing? To cast doubt on the scriptures as a whole, and discredit them?

Do you believe the basic premise of the four accounts? Do you believe that the tomb was empty, that Jesus had risen and was not there?

 

[Petros2015]

Do you believe the basic premise of the four accounts? Do you believe that the tomb was empty, that Jesus had risen and was not there?

Yes, I believe there was an empty tomb, a risen Savior and angels. That much is present in all 4 accounts. I don't know how many angels were there, but I know there were angels. I don't know who carried Christ's cross, but I know He was crucified.

If anything my point is that you can acknowledge that there are discrepancies, and still have faith. My main point of contention is with those who say you can't acknowledge there are discrepancies, and still have faith.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

If your looking to discuss a contradiction you can do better then that:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise (Mark 16:1, 2a)

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. (Mark 16:9,10)​

The way this is usually resolved is that she did go tell the disciples but on the way, didn't stop to tell anyone else. There is also the possibility, entertained by many Calvinists and evangelicals, that verses 9-20 were edited into the text.

What I think the real problem is here is your getting piecemeal accounts. Ok so there's a police investigation into a robbery where someone is shoot. The police start talking to people who witnessed different events at different times, initially it was a group of women who went back to Jerusalem, maybe Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus went back. At one point there are two angels, another time there is only one. When Peter and John venture to the tomb later they find only the burial cloth.

As contradictions go this one is not all that bad. Take into consideration John is talking about events later in the day while Matthew, Mark and Luke are offering details early on. They are all telling the same story but from different perspectives, differing purposes and perhaps relating different events that while similar are at slightly different times.

Yes, I believe there was an empty tomb, a risen Savior and angels. That much is present in all 4 accounts. I don't know how many angels were there, but I know there were angels. I don't know who carried Christ's cross, but I know He was crucified.

The ladies get up early, before they get there the angel descends and scares off the Roman guards. They get there and the stone is rolled away, insider they find two angles. Mark, for whatever reason, only mentions the one who spoke to them. Luke says, 'the men said', but it's more likely one of them spoke and the other was just standing there. It's just a matter of speaking, I'm not sure the head count is of any great significance it just makes the comparative reading a bit awkward. Remember the writer gets to tell the story in his own words and in his own way.

As far as who carried the cross, Jesus did initially, then, ' “A certain man from Cyrene , Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus" (Mark 15:21, Matt. 27:32)

If anything my point is that you can acknowledge that there are discrepancies, and still have faith. My main point of contention is with those who say you can't acknowledge there are discrepancies, and still have faith.

Most Christian scholars will acknowledge that there are a few contradictions here. What theologians will tell you is this creates no real problem theologically because no key doctrine or event is brought into question. I've worked on merging the accounts several times but it's a tedious, time consuming task. I've yet to encounter a genuine contradiction involving vital details.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Divide]

Yes, I believe there was an empty tomb, a risen Savior and angels. That much is present in all 4 accounts. I don't know how many angels were there, but I know there were angels. I don't know who carried Christ's cross, but I know He was crucified.

If anything my point is that you can acknowledge that there are discrepancies, and still have faith. My main point of contention is with those who say you can't acknowledge there are discrepancies, and still have faith.

Oh I see. Yes one sure can acknowledge discrepancies and still have faith. We do not have to be able to understand God in order to trust Him. His thoughts and ways are above our thoughts and ways, so when discrepancy crops up, that's just us being confused and not comprehending it all.

those who say you can't acknowledge discrepancies and still have faith, are those who want to discredit the bible so they can continue in sin. They're lookin for an alibi.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think the people who primarily have difficulty with these contradictions are those "literalists" who feel obligated to believe every single word was inspired and dictated to the authors by God, and then have to leave intellect behind to come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations as to why Noah took two of each creature into the ark in one part of the flood account, and seven of some of them in another part, as just one example. There are contradictions between the lists of Noah's descendants as well if my memory is correct.
.

How would you know if they have to leave intellect behind? You don't know, do you? Of course not.

Huh? There are not two accounts of Noah?

And how could there be contradictions to Noah's descendants when only 7 people survived? Come on now.

This is the problem with people who say that the Bible contridicts. They don't know the facts, so of course they are confused.

It would be nice if you would look up your "facts" in the Bible before posting them as "facts" here. Why should anyone believe what you have to say when you've been so wrong this far

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

wrong post aww

Bless God anyways

 

[juvenissun]

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

There are 0 angels inside.

Where does the Book say that?
It is not good to insert "fact" into the Scripture.

 

[Mark51]

The account at Mark 6:14, 15 is not referring to John the Baptist at all. It is referring to Jesus. The people believed that Jesus was the resurrected "Baptist" because he was doing powerful works. Others thought the he was Elijah; and others, one of the other past great prophets. Read the accounts prior to Mark 6 so you can get the sense of it. There is no contradiction so be at peace and try not to let yourself be stumbled.