Matthew 28 versus John 20.

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.Also, Matthew has Mary encountering the Messiah before she gets to the disciples. But in John the encounter with the Messiah happens AFTER she talks to the disciples.How can this be reconciled?

jar,re: "Why would they need to be reconciled?"I say "why" in the OP.

GDR,re: 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.I question if a flat out contradiction - if there is one - can be classified as a minor detail.

After reading the above posts, I had to go back and read what I had written in the OP. From the responses, it seemed that I had asked why there IS a contradiction between Matthew 28 and John 20. But after rereading my OP, I see that I had asked what I had intended to ask - an explanation for why there ISN’T a contradiction.

arachnophilia,re: perhaps the logical answer is that they can't be reconciled.Perhaps so.However, I was hoping to hear from someone who thinks that there ARE no contradictions in the Bible.

GDR,re: I see it as being completely relevant to the topic as I assume the question concerns how we can reconcile the accounts...A very safe assumption since the OP specifically asks: How can this be reconciled?re: Also if the resurrection didn't occur...I wonder if you might point out where the OP questions the resurrection?

GDR,re: I am probably not clear on what you were asking.I say what in the OP.re: You gave several differences in the accounts in the gospels...Actually, I only gave two.re: I took from this that you were questioning how someone could reconcile their Christianity with the fact that the gospels couldn't all be completely accurate.’That would be an issue for another topic.re: As far as reconciling the different accounts that you mentioned the only thing I can say about that it is the same as you would find in a court of law when people remember the events around a crime differently...But what if the people testifying were being inspired by a higher power? Why would this higher power inspire them to contradict each other?

jar,re: Inspiration is not dictation.Agreed that it doesn’t have to be. Different details, ok - however, contradictions not so much.re: The big question I still have not seen addressed is in Message 3.See message #28.

jar,re: I saw Message 28 but still see no explanation of why the passages need to be reconciled.Because if you were a person that asserts that there are no contradictions in the Bible it would seem to behoove you to explain why a specific one presented to you wasn’t one.re: Why is this any more of an issue then the added parts to Mark?I don’t see where I’ve said that it is.re: Those that believe there are no contradictions will simply not see a contradiction.And I’m simply asking why they think that way.

granpa,So you’re saying that even though Matthew’s narrative singles out Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, that he is not including Mary M. in his mention of the women five verses later and the they eight verses later? Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

granpa,re: "I dont see how you get that. Reread what I wrote."So if Mary M. is included in verse five and verse eight, are you saying that the Matthew account is referring to a second time that she went to the tomb?Edited by rstrats, : No reason given.

granpa,re: maybe the question you should be asking yourself is 'am I asking the right question'.Per your suggestion, I asked myself if I was asking the right question and concluded that it is indeed the question that I intended to ask.

Panda,re: "I came to the conclusion that 'Am I asking the right question?' was not the right question to ask."What might the right question be, then?