Matthew 28 versus John 20.

Really good point. They were written about 40 years after the resurrection so there would still have been eyewitnesses. I think it is generally agreed that the first books were by Paul around 50 AD and the first gospel, (Mark) was about 15 years later. I agree that the minor details would vary over that span of time. That I disagree with. If everything lined up perfectly it would be a strong indication that there was an agreed upon agenda and they were going to make everything fit into a preconceived narrative. The fact that there are discrepancies should lead us to believe that we have the letters that accurately reflect what the original authors believed to be truthful, and not what someone later wanted to promote. Essentially I agree, but just because there are these unimportant irregularities in the gospels does nothing to diminish the overall importance of the foundational narrative as it applies to the resurrection. I think that essentially this is a point that so many Christians overlook. It is clear in scripture that God largely relates to the world through the very fallible human creatures that He created. So many of the OT stories have God negotiating with people like Moses, Abraham etc. From the beginning it seems we keep screwing it up but God is faithful and doesn't give up on us but continues to work with us. In order to do this He has to adapt to the changing human condition. (Sure makes herding cats look easy.)
In other words I agree.Edited by GDR, : typo

Yes but during that time the story would have been told many times over, so that it wouldn't be as if something had to be recalled that hadn't been thought of for 30 or 40 years.

Hypothetically let's say that 3 armed men walk into a busy bank wearing balaclavas and rob the place. There are plenty of witnesses but there will be plenty of minor variations of what the men looked like, what they were wearing and the sequence of events when the witnesses tell what happened to the police.However, the one thing that they will all agree on is that a robbery took place.In the stories that you refer to there is some disagreement in the details but they are all in complete agreement that Jesus was resurrected. I go back to what I said earlier. If this was something that was being made up to fulfill some other agenda then they would have made sure that all of the accounts were in agreement, so I contend that the fact that there is disagreements in the stories are evidence that what is written accurately records what they have recalled from the experience, with the main point being the resurrection of Jesus.

But this wasn't a story that would be considered a folk tale. This was something that was being told, within the lives of eyewitnesses as something that actually happened, and it was a story that caused people to commit their lives to this new cause and change their way of living.I contend that the evidence is strong to be able to say that the followers firmly believed in the resurrection of Jesus. The question then for us today is whether or not they were mistaken.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

In my view the Bible is the grand narrative of God dealing with His creation as written by His image bearing creatures, not one ghost written by God. In that you will find human fallibility.

Frankly, it is THE thing that is relevant. If it didn't happen then the Christian faith is based on either an error or a lie, and as Paul says we are wasting our time or worse.

Agreed There were no doubt other written records around by eyewitnesses, or from the accounts of eye witnesees that the writers would have drawn, (possibly Q), but I'm not inclined to think that they were copied directly from Mark, but who knows.As I explained earlier, I contend that the fact that there are discrepencies in the non-essential details of the accounts adds credence to the essential details of which the resurrection is central. Nobody who was trying to promote a fictional version of this would have put together things that had inconsistencies in the details.

I know that there is nothing conclusive on the dates but I'm inclined to accept the earlier dates as there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. N T Dates

That's the problem with that view. When people try and make the Bible it was something it was never intended to be, then the faith isn't logically sustainable and as a result people throw the baby out with the bath water.The Christian faith is not supposed to be a faith that makes an idol out of the Bible. We are God worshippers and not Bible worshippers and God is not dependent on an inerrant Bible.All that being said I do see the Bible as holy and blessed by God. Through it come the great truths of the universe.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I see it as being completely relevant to the topic as I assume the question concerns how we can reconcile the accounts and presumably how can we as Christians reconcile the differences to the Christian faith.Also if the resurrection didn't occur then Jesus was just another in a long line of failed messiahs and his message is no more important than the message of anyone else.

Not at all. It is a question of the credibility of the message. If someone who through the resurrection is confirmed as messiah, the annointed one of God, then we are obviously more inclined to accept the message than if someone like me was going around talking about what God wants of us.If there is no resurrection then why is his message any more important than anyone else?

I was not talking about blindly following somebody because of who they are. For instance, say I was having a disagreement with cavediver concerning cosmology. (Which incidentally I wouldn't be stupid enough to do. ) Who do you think has the most credibility? Will it be cavediver who has spent his years studying and teaching it, or will it be me based on the fact that I read a Brian Greene book.If Jesus wasn't resurrected then there is really no reason to give him him any more credibilty than anyone other failed messiah, or anybody else for that matter.

What you are saying then is that the validity of the message depends on whether you agree with it or not.

That's been a contentious passage but in my view it is about Jesus saying to the Jews that if they attempt to defeat the Romans militarily is that the temple will be destroyed, but not that it had already happened. His message was that they should love their enemies, (the Romans), turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. Paul's message centred on Christ crucified and he expounded Christ's message of love, forgiveness, justice etc. He had not been a disciple so he wouldn't be able to directly quote Jesus. Also, a great deal of his writing was to the various gentile churches and were about building up the various churches. I wouldn't expect Paul to write about the life of Jesus as he hadn't been part of that. He would logically leave that to the disciples, and those that had been part of his ministry prior to the crucifixion.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

It's possible in either case. My view is that Jesus was saying that if the Jews were to try and oust the Romans militarily then the Romans would do what they always do. I see it more as an understanding of the political situation than a specific knowledge of the future. It was all part of his message of peace. His view was you can't defeat the enemy, (the enemy being evil itself but in this case as represented by the Romans), militarily but that if you really want to defeat them it is done by changing their hearts. As I said earlier that is the whole love your enemy and turn the other cheek message.Jesus was right in both cases in that Jerusalem was flattened in 70 AD, but eventually Christianity and it's message of peace and love was established in Rome.It is quite possible that it was written after 70 AD but that doesn’t mean that what was written wasn’t faithful to what had originally been said by Jesus and each of the gospels contain different parts of the entire message that Jesus gave. Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me. Obviously resurrection was absolutely central to Paul. This is from 1st Corinthians.

quote:

---

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

​

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive

---

The early church was very people driven and depended on individuals. Paul's letters were to essentially shore up divisions and theological problems in the newly minted churches. I don't know why he didn't specifically mention the empty tomb except that I would see it as being implicit in the mention of resurrection.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.