(May 14, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:Quote:Randy Carson
(And for the record, the Council of Trent formally established the longer version as the "correct" version, so clearly, SOMEBODY thought there was a good basis for doing so.)
Yes.
Because they couldn't handle the story the way it was. The women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they experienced.
Doesn't make for a very good way to communicate a miraculous resurrection, does it?
Hilarious. Like the Church was COMPLETELY UNAWARE of Matthew, Luke and John.
First, women were of no social standing in the culture of the day. They could NOT testify in a trial because their testimony was considered worthless.
So, why would the gospels contain the embarrassing account of women finding the empty tomb? If you're writing fiction, why not have Peter, James and John make the discovery? Why? Because Mark recorded the truth despite the fact that it would not be received well in his day and age. It's called the "criterion of embarrassment", and the gospels pass that test with flying colors.
Second, if the Church had chosen just one gospel to avoid having to deal with the "apparent" discrepancies, then you would be screaming about how the LACK of multiple attestation proved some grand conspiracy.
So, which is it? Do the apparent discrepancies in the four biographical accounts prove that the New Testament is false? Or does the fact that the Church included four testimonies - despite those discrepancies - provide multiple attestation?
You can't have it both ways.
