Why are the Resurrection accounts so contradictory i.e. when read side by side ?

a reply to: redchad
Got a link for this article?

ETA: Nevermind...
10 theories about who really wrote the bible

According to Jewish records in their Talmud, Jesus (or Ben Stada) was hanged from a tree and not crusified; I supect that the crusifiction story was added later for reasons of religious symbology. This might account for the differing versions as the crusifiction did not happen in the first place.

-MM

a reply to: Sigismundus

"Mark ends mid sentence", Sounds to me you don't have the preserved word of God.

A day for the Jews starts at evening and ended the next evening. Not midnight to midnight or morning to morning.

Genesis 1:5 the Evening the the Morning was the first day.

Paul tells us that when Jesus Appeared it was to over 500 of the believers at once, he made numerous visits to the 12 at certain times during the week that followed before his ascension.

1Cor 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Languages are different in English than Hebrew or Greek. the preserved Bible preserves the correct rendering and meaning of the original language because God preserved his words unto all Generations for ever as he promised.

It is all about a man's heart. If he wants errors when he reads the Bible he will find errors and inconsistencies. If he want truth he will find no error and truth on every page.

Aletheia

Easy, cause it's fiction that's why

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Jesus was executed for sedition. The Dead Sea Scrolls are from the Essenes or Zaddikim. James was the Zaddik, or righteous, and this was the truth Jerusalem church of James and Yeshua. Not the false Christian church of Paul.

Tree or cross, the Talmud is not a source of information on the Teacher of Righteousness of the Essenes, Yeshua. Although I don't think an accurate uncensored Talmud exists in English and I hear that Jeshu is what they call Yeshua in it and that he is in hell boiling in the unspeakable according to it. How true that is I can't say.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You wrote QUOTE 1Cor 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of the right time...." UNQUOTE

Notice the passive voice ('he was manifested unto...') as opposed to 'they saw...' when it came to describing the risen Jesus (καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ, εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησανetc.) - this shows that the earliest Nazorean Christians (from whom Paul inherited his Christological formulae) were using the mystical language of the Mystery Religions (e.g. Serapis or Mithras) to describe manifestations of the divine.

They did not 'see' Jesus - rather, 'Jesus was manifested unto them..." i.e. the believers.

This is crucial for an understanding of the Resurrection pericopes which built upon the story of the empty tomb which is recorded in all 4 Greek canonical gospels, even Mark's which breaks off in mid sentence (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ = ephobounto gar)- the conjunctive yap (gar) can only exist as the 2nd word in a Greek sentence, and cannot end a whole sentence, or a chapter much less an entire book. But we see no Resurrection stories in Mark, merely an empty tomb and a young man clad in a white tunic and an unfinished sentence.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Sorry but when someone has to go to the supposed Greek or Hebrew to change the word and it's meaning in the English, It only tells me that you don't believe God's word or that he has kept his promise to preserved his words unto us today.

I have no problem with the Gospel books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and any of their Narratives.. Different persons from different views at different times along the time line of events, easy to understand and accept.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You wrote QUOTE Sorry but when someone has to go to the supposed Greek or Hebrew to change the word and it's meaning in the English, It only tells me that you don't believe God's word or that he has kept his promise to preserved his words unto us today. UNQUOTE

You do know, don't you, that the so called New Testament was originally written in Greek from Galilean Aramaic oral sources? Or that the socalled Old Testament was originally penned in Hebrew and Aramaic (like the book of Daniel)?

Why would you trust a bad translation into clumsy modern English when you have access to more original sources?

a reply to: KEACHI

You wrote QUOTE "I don't believe you can claim a conspiracy of silence when a Google search reveals hundreds of articles addressing this topic..." UNQUOTE

I was referring to the Church's semi official silence on the subject of the contradictory accounts of the Resurrection in the 4 canonical Greek Gospels not to open fora such as the Internet. When was the last time a minister told his flock that the accounts when viewed side by side simply don't match up very well ?

a reply to: Sigismundus

For me Sig, it doesn't matter what it was in originally because God gave his word to preserve it from David generation forever. Psalm 12:6,7

I believe that and have in my had a copy of that preserved word in English today.

At one time there was an original preserved word in Hebrew, and in Aramaic, Greek and Latin. But today there is only one of the 350 plus English versions of the Bible that is the preserved word of God.

But I am not here to convince you, that is an act of faith one day you will have to make as I did many years ago. I got so worn out trying to study all the Greek and Hebrew and foreign languages to gain insight to the Bible, I gave up. I almost walked away but God in his sovereignty led me down a path that you find when you lean on him and no one else. And in so doing I found the preserved word the Holy Bible in English.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You wrote QUOTE "For me Sig, it doesn't matter what it was in originally because God gave his word to preserve it from David generation forever. Psalm 12:6,7 - I believe that and have in my had a copy of that preserved word in English today..." UNQUOTE

What translation are you using, pray tell, and how can you be sure it is even close to the spirit of the original language for which there is no substitute ? (all translations are one step or more from the sense of the original); it is bad enough that for example the words of Jesus (the ipssissima verba) in Galilean Aramaic were hopelessly tread upon with the faulty Greek of the New Testament (already we are one step away from the originals when we read the Greek sayings) and even more so when we read the various mangled English renditions of the Greek to-day.

You referenced Psalm 12:7-8
אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה, אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת (The oracles of YHWH are pure utterances)
כֶּסֶף צָרוּף, בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ; מְזֻקָּק, שִׁבְעָתָיִם (just as silver is refined in a furnace, even 7 times)
אַתָּה-יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם (You will keep them YHWH)
תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם. (You will preserve US from this generation, forever)

The Hebrew text makes no reference to preserving words for ever, just 'us' meaning the benei Yisro'el.

Surely you can see that you have completely mis-understood the quotation above? This is why a thorough knowledge of the original language is so vital in these instances. From what you wrote it is clear you are quite confused and misled into the jejune belief that you somehow possess a text that is 'pure' when the truth is, it is anything-but.

a reply to: Sigismundus

You referenced Psalm 12:7-8
אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה, אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת (The oracles of YHWH are pure utterances)
כֶּסֶף צָרוּף, בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ; מְזֻקָּק, שִׁבְעָתָיִם (just as silver is refined in a furnace, even 7 times)
אַתָּה-יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם (You will keep them YHWH)
תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם. (You will preserve US from this generation, forever)

The Hebrew text makes no reference to preserving words for ever, just 'us' meaning the benei Yisro'el.

In the defense of Chester.
Hebrew text does speaks about "words", sayings. Your translation of the word "Imrot" as Oracles is mistranslation.

Too much Hellenization in this particular translation. I can read Hebrew and there is no word Oracle in this pasuk.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: troubleshooter

First day of the week and when the Sabbath was past is the same time SUNDAY (in our modern calendar).

The Narrative differ because of the individual who wrote them but as far as the facts they are in agreement.

Jesus Rose from the dead. A key point in getting saved see Romans 10:9,10

Why are you reading to see contradictions anyway?

The New Testament documents do not use Julian Calendar references but in 33 AD the day after the weekly Sabbath was a Sunday.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: troubleshooter

Why did God allow variations to occur within his perfect plan? If all accounts are inspired by God, why did God inspire different versions?

Inspiration is not dictation.

a reply to: kitzik

Not necessarily if God was the one doing the preserving of his words to this generation at the beginning of the use of English as a trade language in our current era, which it is. Then there is no mistranslation it is a preservation.

a reply to: troubleshooter

theirs was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh day which was from evening to evening. Not the current midnight to midnight.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Well, I don't share all your views. I just wanted to correct Sigizmundus when he was accusing you and he cited a very flawed translation.
KJV translation is good enough to my understanding of Hebrew and English. And I know Hebrew better than English.

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

a reply to: kitzik

thanks

a reply to: Sigismundus

Ok so in the spirit of openness, I'm a non-Christian, non-Abrahamic, spiritual person

Main problem, none of these observations are first person accounts. Nope not a single witness wrote down what they saw fairly soon after they saw it. If you look at the scholarship of the New testament, you have many decades after the events occurred. The earliest that these books were written down was probably around 70CE (OK AD if you must) give or take 5 years .

Even if those accounts were of one of the witnesses (and there is no evidence that this is so), that is a long time after the fact. Now if you are old enough, think back 3 to 4 decades ago. How are your memories? Fuzzy? Yeah probably.

I say all this presuming that Jesus was indeed a real person (I'm not a believer he was, but that is not important here), and that he rose from the dead (I am also not a believer). So if you beleived both of those things, then these events are long after the event, by an author who was not a witness to the fact (ie they went to the tomb open and empty). Even if Saul/Paul is one of the authors, he never met Jesus in person during his first life.

SO there is one answer.

Another one, which I prefer is that these are accounts based on myth and legend. Look at aany other myth and legend, and see how "consistent they are". Take Arthur and Excalibur. There are multiple versions, even of how Excalibur came to his possession. So if a cult (Christianity is that, in that it follows the supposed teachings of a single person (nominally Jesus)) arose around Arthur, there would be inconsistencies in those stories too.

Thus if one follows the Christian path, they need to follow the teachings of Jesus, and believe. Because faith is about belief, not proof. Proof is the preview of science (oh and I'm also a Scientist ) .

Now I will not get into the other bits and pieces I could, as they are not important here.

a reply to: kitzik

You wrote

QUOTE "In the defense of Chester. Hebrew text does speaks about "words", sayings. Your translation of the word "Imrot" as Oracles is mistranslation. Too much Hellenization in this particular translation..." UNQUOTE

The focus of my reply to Chester was to the referent which is clearly the benei Yisroel in this context - (You will preserve US' from the Psalm he misquoted - תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם. (You will preserve US from this generation, forever) ) and I certainly don't see a lot of Hellenisation here. Actually the word IMRAH means 'utterance' and can mean variously 'word' or 'oracle' as with the prophetic utterances ('the word of YHWH came to so and so) see : 'imrah אמירה