Are there contradictions in the 4 gospels concerning the resurrection of Christ?
- Thread starter shepherdsword
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
“The phrase ‘everyone has an agenda’ means that people are driven by personal motivations, goals, or underlying interests.” - AI Overview
dak
Well-Known Member
- Feb 9, 2013
- 1,550
- 206
- 63
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Hmmm, interesting, since you currently stand at 536 messages it seems you may have set yourself a limit to stop at 666?
dak
Well-Known Member
- Feb 9, 2013
- 1,550
- 206
- 63
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Howbeit you're pretty close either way about the nearly non-existent differences between Atheism and Satanism: in the end, both are religions and both lead to destruction.
bdavidc
Well-Known Member
- Mar 31, 2025
- 1,637
- 1,825
- 113
- 67
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
I think we need to get back to what the four Gospels actually say instead of making assumptions about what they supposedly contradict.
@Mancunian, you repeatedly claim that the resurrection accounts contradict one another, but a difference in what someone reports is not automatically a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two statements cannot both be true in the same sense.
Matthew 28 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16 mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke 24 mentions several women, including Joanna. John 20 concentrates on Mary Magdalene. Where does any of these passages say that ONLY the women named in that particular account were present? John's own account records Mary saying, "We know not where they have laid him" (John 20:2).
The same applies to the angels. Matthew and Mark describe one angelic messenger, while Luke describes two. Reporting one does not mean there was only one. We should not manufacture contradictions by adding the word "only" where Scripture never uses it.
Now, I also disagree with the suggestion that God deliberately placed contradictions in Scripture to keep people from understanding. Where does the Bible teach that God inspired false or contradictory accounts of Christ's resurrection? Second Timothy 3:16 declares, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." And Jesus said in John 17:17, "Thy word is truth."
We should not invent explanations that Scripture itself does not give. Some details of resurrection morning are not fully explained, and we should acknowledge that rather than pretend we know the exact sequence of every event.
But here is what none of the four Gospel accounts disagree about: Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, His tomb was found empty, and He rose from the dead!
And this is not something Paul treated as an optional religious belief. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." In verse 17, he added, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."
Paul then declared in verse 20, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."
That is the heart of the gospel. First Corinthians 15:3-4 tells us that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
To those questioning the Gospel accounts, bring forward the specific passages you believe contradict each other, and let us examine them honestly, in context, one at a time. Simply repeating that the Bible contradicts itself is not proof.
And to those defending Scripture, we should be just as careful. Do not add events, invent timelines, or present possibilities as established facts. Let Scripture say what it says, and do not claim it says more.
Our responsibility is not to force the four Gospel accounts into a man-made story. It is to examine each account faithfully and allow God's Word to speak for itself.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not something Christians should be afraid to examine. It is the very foundation of the gospel we preach.
"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said." (Matthew 28:6)
@Mancunian, you repeatedly claim that the resurrection accounts contradict one another, but a difference in what someone reports is not automatically a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two statements cannot both be true in the same sense.
Matthew 28 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16 mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke 24 mentions several women, including Joanna. John 20 concentrates on Mary Magdalene. Where does any of these passages say that ONLY the women named in that particular account were present? John's own account records Mary saying, "We know not where they have laid him" (John 20:2).
The same applies to the angels. Matthew and Mark describe one angelic messenger, while Luke describes two. Reporting one does not mean there was only one. We should not manufacture contradictions by adding the word "only" where Scripture never uses it.
Now, I also disagree with the suggestion that God deliberately placed contradictions in Scripture to keep people from understanding. Where does the Bible teach that God inspired false or contradictory accounts of Christ's resurrection? Second Timothy 3:16 declares, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." And Jesus said in John 17:17, "Thy word is truth."
We should not invent explanations that Scripture itself does not give. Some details of resurrection morning are not fully explained, and we should acknowledge that rather than pretend we know the exact sequence of every event.
But here is what none of the four Gospel accounts disagree about: Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, His tomb was found empty, and He rose from the dead!
And this is not something Paul treated as an optional religious belief. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." In verse 17, he added, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."
Paul then declared in verse 20, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."
That is the heart of the gospel. First Corinthians 15:3-4 tells us that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
To those questioning the Gospel accounts, bring forward the specific passages you believe contradict each other, and let us examine them honestly, in context, one at a time. Simply repeating that the Bible contradicts itself is not proof.
And to those defending Scripture, we should be just as careful. Do not add events, invent timelines, or present possibilities as established facts. Let Scripture say what it says, and do not claim it says more.
Our responsibility is not to force the four Gospel accounts into a man-made story. It is to examine each account faithfully and allow God's Word to speak for itself.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not something Christians should be afraid to examine. It is the very foundation of the gospel we preach.
"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said." (Matthew 28:6)
Ok let's leave the crucifixion timeline and the empty tomb for now.... We'll revisit that later.
Let's start with the genealogy of Jesus.
One is the genealogy of Joseph descended from Solomon. The other is the genealogy of Mary descended from Nathan. They both say "Joseph" because the lineage of the wife always carried the name of the husband.
*there is a very interesting fact about these genealogies that I will share if you are interested.
Last edited:
We have talked before, perhaps you remember I showed the creation ORDER in Genesis 1 is the exact ORDER as science found today.
And now the resurrection of Jesus, true or not is your question.
1. Remember that 11 of the apostles died a martyr death for their faith in the risen Jesus.
2. If they were charlatans while knowing the resurrection was a fake, no one of them would die for a deliberate lie, and they all would not murdered.
3. No sane person dies for a known lie.
4. But the apostles did see the risen Christ, touched Him, they ate together.
5. They KNEW and their martyr death proofed the resurrection reality.
The royal right to the throne came through Joseph's line through Solomon. However, God declared that Coniah (line of Solomon) would never have a child that will sit on David's throne.
Jer 22:30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
A bit of a problem, since none from that line could take the throne. Also the Messiah had to be of the seed of David. How is the problem solved? One: Jesus was the LEGAL heir to the throne through Joseph but since He was not actually the born son of Joseph, He could take the throne. Two: How then was Jesus of the seed of David? By Mary, through the line of Nathan.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
- Jul 13, 2021
- 10,693
- 13,335
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
The real story is that St. Simon the Zealot slit his throat in some back alley in Jerusalem. Zealots knew how to handle traitors.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Lots of errors in Catholism. Many of them buy into this Theistic Evolution theory ... maybe they are trying to bate these evolutionists to reconsider? The TOE is so flawed. I think you need lots of faith to believe that benecifial mutations ( defects) were chosen/ selected by a mindless natural process. Even geneologists pose that maybe 1 mutation out of 10k could be beneficial. But even so, with all the deadly or if not harmful mutations, the organism would be dead by the time it gathered anything good to construct.
The eye requires the sum of all parts to have vision actually work. There could not be a piece by piece gradually evolved construction. All of the parts would have had to simultaneously evolve perfectly. It's absurd.
A process that took millions of years of seemingly billions of correct mutations chosen and used as building blocks to get these amazing, complete life forms that we see today, is quite a bit to swallow. That order can come about by chance is ridiculous. Chance is nothing. It has no power or mind. The ecosystem did not order itself by chance. It has an amazing design. Each creature has an awesome design and that simply points to a DESIGNER.
Last edited:
I agree that evidence points to a designer, I happen to think that the designer didn't necessarily intend for Homosapiens to exist or any other animal or plant life for that matter....
We are nothing special.
How are these historical accounts so contradictory? Are they really historical accounts or are they folklore and hearsay.
Similar threads
