Handy chart of Gospel contradictions re: resurrection story

[John V]

Mere variance doesn't bother me.

If, in a court case, there were four different accounts of who was in a certain place at a certain time, the testimony would be rendered useless.

This isn't a court case.

I would assume that allegedly inerrant scripture should be held to much higher standards than that.

The gospels are written as narratives, not dialogues. Comparing it to a court with examination and cross-examination makes no sense.

Plus, if they all said exactly the same thing, then there's only be one of them. Duh.

[Minimalist]

By this definition, the accounts do not contradict regarding the women who went to the grave.

If you are trying to win the Dumbest Jesus Freak award you are too late.

G-C already holds the title.

[Ryantology]

This isn't a court case.

You're right, it's not: it's the allegedly perfect and incontrovertible word of your god, which billions of people for thousands of years have been tricked into thinking was absolute truth.

The gospels are written as narratives, not dialogues. Comparing it to a court with examination and cross-examination makes no sense.

Divine revelations from a perfect god have a distressingly high margin of fluctuation when multiple divinely-inspired men allege to portray the same event. The style of writing is irrelevant. There are four very inconsistent pieces of testimony, coming from writers who were supposed to be taking holy dictation. Do we have a problem with the transmission of divine thought, do we have 3 charlatans among the Gospel writers, or is most of it just fiction? Occam, your razor, please.

Plus, if they all said exactly the same thing, then there's only be one of them. Duh.

If the purpose is for the Gospels to corroborate a single story, they're poor or flawed. If the purpose is to be a parable teaching the low value of uncorroborated eyewitness accounts, it was a magnificent success.

[John V]

You're right, it's not: it's the allegedly perfect and incontrovertible word of your god, which billions of people for thousands of years have been tricked into thinking was absolute truth.

Divine revelations from a perfect god have a distressingly high margin of fluctuation when multiple divinely-inspired men allege to portray the same event.

Your opinion is noted. I don't find it distressing at all.

The style of writing is irrelevant. There are four very inconsistent pieces of testimony, coming from writers who were supposed to be taking holy dictation.

Your opinion on inspiration is noted. Most Christians hold a different view.

Do we have a problem with the transmission of divine thought, do we have 3 charlatans among the Gospel writers, or is most of it just fiction? Occam, your razor, please.

Regarding the first alleged contradiction, we simply have differing level of detail. It's not like one of them says Mary Magdalene was there, and another says Mary Magdalene was not there. That would be a troubling contradiction. It's not like one of them says Mary Magdalene went alone, and another says Mary magdalene went with other people. THat would be a troubling contradiction.

What we have is four accounts, none of which bothers to name every single person in the party. That is not troubling.

Plus, if they all said exactly the same thing, then there's only be one of them. Duh.

If the purpose is for the Gospels to corroborate a single story, they're poor or flawed.
[/quote]
Again, your opinion is noted.

[Tonus]

Regarding the first line on the chart: so what? How do you define contradiction for this purpose, and why should the Christian be concerned about such contradictions?

There are ten lines on the chart. The inclusion of seemingly minor items like the first line is done partly for the sake of completeness, and partly because in context it reinforces the inconsistent nature of the various stories. The gospels read as if they are the second or third-hand retelling of stories passed around by various people. A set of decades-old recollections will tend to have inconsistencies and minor contradictions, but that there are so many and that some are not minor makes it less and less likely that they're the first-hand recollections of people who were there, and more likely that they're the retelling of legends and folk tales, shaped for a particular cultural and political atmosphere.

[Mister Agenda]

Regarding the first line on the chart: so what? How do you define contradiction for this purpose, and why should the Christian be concerned about such contradictions?

I suppose it's only a problem for literalists, about 40-50% of the Christians in the USA.

[John V]

Regarding the first line on the chart: so what? How do you define contradiction for this purpose, and why should the Christian be concerned about such contradictions?

I suppose it's only a problem for literalists, about 40-50% of the Christians in the USA.

No, it's not a problem for them. The accounts vary in level of detail, but all of them can be true. No two are mutually exclusive.

[Ryantology]

Were not the writers of the Gospels inspired by God? If so, the slightest inconsistency calls everything into question. That's the pitfall of making your God out to be perfect.

[John V]

Were not the writers of the Gospels inspired by God?

Yes.

If so, the slightest inconsistency calls everything into question. That's the pitfall of making your God out to be perfect.

No, that's your misunderstanding of Biblical inspiration.

[Ryantology]

I expect a perfect God to have the ability to communicate a single, consistent message to four people, something even the dumbest electronic device can do flawlessly. When I post this message, it will appear identically for everyone who chooses to read it (I daresay it will be more than four), regardless of whether they believe I am real or agree with what I have to say.

If your God is unwilling or incapable of that, the problem isn't my understanding.