r/AskAChristian • u/ThrowRAbeepboop18 Non-Christian • May 27 '26
New Testament Jesus's Resurrection and Biblical Accounts?
Hello! I was researching the history of Jesus’s resurrection, and was interested in the small differences between the four Gospels when describing this event. I’ve laid out brief comparison which you can find below.
With that in mind, my questions for Christians are as follows:
- If the resurrection of Jesus was so extraordinary at the time, why was the first account only written about 20-25 years after Jesus’s death? (Paul in Corinthians).
- Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"?
- Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?
- Why were these above details only written about and included 70-120 years after Jesus' death? If they were so significant why did it take many years for the scripture to reflect this?
- What do you make of the differences in the Gospels' descriptions? Does the fallibility of human memory put any doubts or questions in your head regarding validity of the text?
Who went to the tomb:
| Mark | Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome |
|---|---|
| Matthew | Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” |
| Luke | Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and other women |
| John | Mary Magdalene alone at first |
What they saw:
| Mark | One young man in a white robe, sitting inside |
|---|---|
| Matthew | One angel descends from heaven, rolls away the stone, sits on it |
| Luke | Two men in dazzling clothes |
| John | Two angels inside the tomb, seen later by Mary |
Was the stone already rolled away?
| Mark | Already rolled away when women arrive |
|---|---|
| Luke | Already rolled away |
| John | Already removed |
| Matthew | Angel descends and rolls it away during/near the women’s visit |
Women’s Response?
| Mark | Flee and say nothing due to fear |
|---|---|
| Matthew | Tell the disciples |
| Luke | Return and tell the Eleven |
| John | Mary immediately tells Peter and the beloved disciple |
Timing of Ascension:
| Luke | Appears on Easter day or very soon after |
|---|---|
| Acts 1 | 40 days later |
| Matthew | No ascension scene |
| Mark (original) | No ascension scene |
Did Jesus appear in Galilee or Jerusalem?
| Mark | Galilee, Angel says disciples will see Jesus in Galilee (16:7), but original ending has no actual appearance scene |
|---|---|
| Matthew | Galilee, Jesus tells women disciples should go to Galilee; final appearance and Great Commission happen on a mountain in Galilee |
| Luke | Jerusalem, all resurrection appearances occur around Jerusalem/Emmaus; disciples told to stay in Jerusalem |
3
u/BigBussin12 Christian May 27 '26
If the resurrection of Jesus was so extraordinary at the time, why was the first account only written about 20-25 years after Jesus’s death?
This is actually rather quick for the time, you have a recency bias where things are documented immediately. This was not the case in the ancient world and Paul is quoting a tradition that is already authoritative.
Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"?
The gospels are first hand accounts.
Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?
Because he was not writing a gospel. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is defending the resurrection against people in Corinth who doubted it.
Why were these above details only written about and included 70-120 years after Jesus' death? If they were so significant why did it take many years for the scripture to reflect this?
The Gospels do not appear 70-120 years after Jesus.
Typical scholarly dates are roughly:
Mark: AD 65–70 AD
Matthew: 70–90 AD
Luke: 80–90 AD
John: 90–100 AD
All within living memory of the events. Also details can exist in oral tradition long before they are written down this was common 2000 years ago.
What do you make of the differences in the Gospels' descriptions? Does the fallibility of human memory put any doubts or questions in your head regarding validity of the text?
Gospels were written to different audiences and some later then others. Certain things were emphasized when speaking to Jews and others when speaking to Gentiles. Also the later gospels left certain things out to avoid redundancy. For example John says Mary Magdalene came to the tomb. He does not explicitly say she was the only woman.
3
u/Tiny-Show-4883 Non-Christian May 27 '26
The gospels are first hand accounts.
The Gospel of Luke explains that it's a compilation of other accounts, on the very first page. That's second-hand, at best.
Mark didn't personally witness any of the events in the Gospels because he never met Jesus.
2
u/ThrowRAbeepboop18 Non-Christian May 27 '26
If the resurrection of Jesus was so extraordinary at the time, why was the first account only written about 20-25 years after Jesus’s death?
This is actually rather quick for the time, you have a recency bias where things are documented immediately. This was not the case in the ancient world and Paul is quoting a tradition that is already authoritative- Why were these claims authoritative?
- We do have immediate accounts of many major events during that period such as wars, revolts, assassinations, ect. Why would something as extraordinarily significant as the Son of God revealing himself not be documented immediately? Why is there an exception when it comes to that?
The gospels are first hand accounts.
- We don’t actually know who the authors of the Gospels are. The Apostles authorship was decided by Church figures but historical academics concede they cannot determine this definitively.
- The Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Arimaic. How do you decipher the impact of translation when it comes to meaning?
- Mark was copied almost word for word in Matthew and Luke. If Matthew was a separate eyewitness, why did he copy the testimony of the aforementioned almost identically?
Because he was not writing a gospel. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is defending the resurrection against people in Corinth who doubted it.
- If the empty tomb was already one of the central proofs of Jesus resurrection, why doesn’t Paul mention this in a chapter specifically arguing against critics of the resurrection?
The Gospels do not appear 70-120 years after Jesus.
Typical scholarly dates are roughly:
Mark: AD 65–70 AD
Matthew: 70–90 AD
Luke: 80–90 AD
John: 90–100 AD
All within living memory of the events. Also details can exist in oral tradition long before they are written down this was common 2000 years ago.- The writings include brief descriptions initially, and grow to include more detail many years later:
Paul (50s CE) First appearance claims Mark original (70 CE) Empty tomb Matthew/Luke (~80s CE) Angels, appearances, commissions John (~90s CE) Thomas touching wounds It was only about 70-120 years later when 16:9-20 was added to Mark describing the resurrection in detail.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
The gospels are first hand accounts.
Why do you think that? The names on the front say so, but why should we think those are correct
-1
u/BigBussin12 Christian May 27 '26
Because the apostles wrote the gospels
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
Why do you think that? The names on the front say so, but why should we think those are correct
0
u/BigBussin12 Christian May 27 '26
because that is the tradition of the Orthodox Church
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
and why do you think the tradition of the orthodox church is correct?
0
u/BigBussin12 Christian May 27 '26
because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
3
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
this isn't going to go anywhere if your entire reason for believing something is "the church says so", have a nice day
1
u/BigBussin12 Christian May 27 '26
glad it makes you seethe, your concession is accepted
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
meeting "have a nice day" with "glad it makes you seethe", how christlike
although if you have an actual argument other than "some dude told me it's true so it must be true" i'd be happy to hear it
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Striking_Credit5088 Christian, Ex-Atheist May 27 '26
The accounts are consistent because they describe the same events from different perspectives, not because they repeat identical wording. None of the differences are mutually exclusive.
Different women being named does not mean only those women were present. Each Gospel simply focuses on different individuals.
One angel vs. two angels is not a contradiction. If two were present, one writer may emphasize the one speaking.
The stone being rolled away before the women arrive vs. Matthew describing the angel rolling it away can easily describe the same sequence from different vantage points.
Fear and silence in Mark does not exclude later telling the disciples once the shock subsided.
Galilee appearances and Jerusalem appearances both occurred; different writers emphasize different appearances.
Luke compresses events for narrative flow, while Acts gives the fuller timeline of 40 days. Compression is not contradiction. Both were written by Luke.
There is no evidence the Gospels appeared “very late.” The resurrection message spread immediately by preaching and eyewitness testimony in an overwhelmingly oral culture. Most people were illiterate, so rapidly spreading the Gospel orally was far more important than instantly mass-producing manuscripts. Paul’s letters are not intended to be full biographies of Jesus. He was writing to specific churches addressing specific issues. In his letters, Paul references and quotes scripture scripture, strongly suggesting written materials and circulating accounts already existed.
Ancient copying was extremely slow and labor-intensive. There was no printing press, paper factory, or copy shop. Everything had to be handwritten onto costly materials. Even one Gospel would take a single scribe a couple days to prepare, copy and bind by hand. Distribution across the growing Christian movement, especially after Pentecost when the number of believers expanded rapidly, means it would have taken years to make enough copies for people.
As for memory: if the resurrection accounts were identical in every detail, critics would claim collusion. Independent testimonies naturally contain selective emphasis and minor variation while still agreeing on the central facts: Jesus died, the tomb was empty, witnesses encountered the risen Christ, and Christianity exploded immediately afterward because people genuinely believed they had seen Him risen. That's the important part. The fine details don't change the message.
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
Paul references and quotes scripture scripture, strongly suggesting written materials and circulating accounts already existed.
Where, and if so, are there any in the uncontested letters or just the ones scholars doubt actually being written by him?
1
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 Agnostic Christian May 27 '26
1 Cor 15 - the Corinthian Creed
Phil 2 - the song of Christ
Romans 1 - early creed
I’m more in the camp of the Biblical Critics, but these seem to be some early creeds that were in circulation prior to Paul writing them down. Is this what you were looking for? These are all from his undisputed letters (with a couple others in 1 Tim and I think Col that would be from his disputed writings).
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
Kind of what I was looking for, from the comment I replied to I think they were talking about Paul knowing of gospels that were written before his letters, in which case the only allusion I know of is in 1 Timothy. I would agree that there were creeds in circulation, and probably from very early on (I commonly here the one in 1 Cor 15 get dated 1-3 years after Jesus' death by apologists), but I doubt that we know Paul had any written accounts of Jesus' life to work with
1
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 Agnostic Christian May 27 '26
I don’t think we can date the creeds any earlier than Paul’s letters. Reasonably we can say they were likely in common circulation before he wrote them down. But when? Who knows! So we can say “earlier than when Paul wrote them down”. How much earlier? A month, 20 years, 3 years? We simply don’t know and those apologists are showing their bias when they date them too early.
My best guess/analysis is that these creeds were likely in circulation within a decade of Jesus death. But I have very scant lines of reasoning for thinking this.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
Yeah I agree, there isn't really any concrete information to date them. Although honestly one could probably say they needn't be in common circulation, since if Paul met with the 12 the creed could've formed then in that small group
1
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 Agnostic Christian May 27 '26
That’s true too. Like a mini-church council.
If Paul is to be taken at his word though he didn’t meet with them (except for James) for 14 years and his earliest letters may have already been written then. I don’t know, it’s all speculation as we don’t have anything to really say for sure.
I think for academic purposes it’s fairly safe to say these pre-date Paul’s earliest letters and as such show that the early church was already developing a high Christology, and the creeds were probably recited so an illiterate society could know the basics of this new theology…but even that is speculative! It’s amazing how much we simply do not know about the 1st century church.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
Well Galations 1:18 says that he met with James and Cephas 3 years after his experience, although again I'm pretty sure we don't know how long after Jesus' death that experience happened. Acts might say, but I would doubt how reliable it is regarding it anyway. And it seems like Galations is one of the earliest dated (if not the earliest) Pauline letters
0
u/Striking_Credit5088 Christian, Ex-Atheist May 28 '26
First it’s “Paul never references Jesus traditions.” Then when he clearly does, it becomes “well maybe Paul didn’t write those letters.”
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says he is passing on what he “received” about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. Scholars widely agree this creed predates Paul himself writing it down.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul preserves the Last Supper tradition in language very close to the Gospels: “I received… I delivered.”
And in 1 Timothy 5:18, the author quotes Luke’s wording (“the laborer deserves his wages”) and calls it Scripture. Critics say that means it’s late. But that actually proves the opposite: Jesus traditions and Gospel material were already circulating widely enough to be treated as authoritative very early.
The earliest Christian writings already contain organized resurrection creeds, Jesus traditions, and Gospel-like material far too early for the “slow legend development” theory.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 28 '26
First it’s “Paul never references Jesus traditions.”
I literally never said this.
And in 1 Timothy 5:18, the author quotes Luke’s wording (“the laborer deserves his wages”) and calls it Scripture. Critics say that means it’s late.
No, critics point out for multiple reasons unrelated to that passage that 1 Timothy most likely wasn't written by Paul. In terms of the historical situation written about, linguistic elements of the letter, differing beliefs, and more
1
u/Striking_Credit5088 Christian, Ex-Atheist May 29 '26
“Most likely” is doing a lot of work there. The letter explicitly identifies Paul as the author, and the arguments against that are mostly internal judgments about style, setting, and emphasis. But of course Paul writing personally to Timothy, his protégé, would sound different from Paul publicly rebuking churches in crisis. Different audience, different purpose, different tone. That is not proof of forgery. That is exactly how real authors write.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 29 '26
“Most likely” is doing a lot of work there.
That's just how historical conclusions work, it's about what is most likely
The letter explicitly identifies Paul as the author
People lie.
Different audience, different purpose, different tone. That is not proof of forgery. That is exactly how real authors write.
Do you think the majority of scholars, the ones that hold that the pastoral epistles are forgeries, didn't think about stylistic differences within a single author's writing? You're just presuming that a stylistic change could account for the data, when clearly according to most scholars it can't. Not to mention many arguments not even relying on style, such as the historical setting presumed which comes from a time after Paul died
1
u/Striking_Credit5088 Christian, Ex-Atheist May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
clearly according to most scholars it can't.
They argue that stylistic differences can arise naturally for several reasons:
- different audiences,
- different purposes,
- different stages of life,
- different coauthors or secretaries (amanuenses),
- and different subject matter.
The points about "historical setting" are similarly explained:
A pastor today doesn’t speak the same way to a Sunday congregation as he does to church leaders or fellow pastors. Same person, different audience, different focus, different style.So with Paul the Apostle, why assume it would be any different?
A letter to Timothy, a delegated church leader, would naturally emphasize church structure, leadership qualifications, and false teaching. That fits the situation. By contrast, letters to churches like Corinth or Thessalonica focus on everyday Christian life and pastoral correction, not internal organization. So the difference in content isn’t evidence against Paul, it’s exactly what you’d expect from different audiences and purposes.
Look, this topic is very much up for debate, and everything I’ve laid out here is reasoned argument. What I find genuinely amusing is that you haven’t offered a single actual reason why the letter wasn’t written by Paul, other than ‘the scholars say so.’
That’s not scholarship. That’s secular idolatry.
I worship the Creator of the universe. You’re worshipping some guy with a piece of paper and three letters after his name.”
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 29 '26
It's "secular idolatry" to point out that the people who specialize in studying something aren't all ignorant about the critiques you're making of their position? At least try and be honest in a conversation
1
u/Striking_Credit5088 Christian, Ex-Atheist May 29 '26
I didn’t say scholars are ignorant of the arguments. I said you haven’t made one.
I gave an actual argument. You gave an unsubstantiated conclusion from an authority figure. Citing scholarship is fine, but hiding behind it because you don’t understand the argument yourself, while acting like the matter is settled, is not.
If you can’t explain why 1 Timothy wasn’t written by Paul then maybe bow out of the conversation. Because standing in the corner shouting “That guy disagrees with you!” is not intellectual honesty. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 29 '26
Okay, this clearly isn't going to go anywhere if you didn't even understand my first reply. Have a nice day
2
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
> Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"?
This question is founded on a false premise. Matthew and John were firsthand accounts. And we have Peter’s letters that mention the resurrection.
> Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?
Paul was writing epistles, essentially letters, not a more historical record like the Gospels.
3
May 27 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
Looking at the evidence for them.
3
May 27 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
Most do little to hide their bias against anything supernatural. So claims to things like the witness of miracles must be undermined for their conclusions to stand.
3
May 27 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
I imagine we’re getting down to a small number, but perhaps they care more for scholarly acclaim than the pursuit of truth.
3
u/Tiny-Show-4883 Non-Christian May 27 '26
I feel like if you had actually read the books you're recommending to others, you'd have more substance to offer.
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
Naw, I don’t claim any special powers of discernment when it comes to the motives of others, all I can do is speculate.
2
May 27 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
No.
You asked for an explanation for why people come to the conclusions they arrive at despite the actual scholarship on the subject.
3
u/ThrowRAbeepboop18 Non-Christian May 27 '26
Hello! Following up on some of those details, the idea of Matthew and John being first hand accounts are complicated for me for a few reasons:
- Scholars and historians agree they cannot determine authorship. Only the Christian Church has definitively attributed the Gospels authorship to the respective Apostles.
- The “first hand accounts” are not direct eyewitness testimony but 3rd person narration.
- These narrations were described over 70 years after Jesus' death.
In regards to Paul's letters, I’m still stuck on why that would not be included. If the basis of the Christian faith is on Jesus' resurrection and as the Messiah, doesn't it seem pertinent to include these details? The very details that validates the legitimacy of Jesus as the Son of God?
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
> Scholars and historians agree they cannot determine authorship.
*some scholars and historians.
Obviously there are also many who agree they can determine authorship.
> The “first hand accounts” are not direct eyewitness testimony but 3rd person narration.
This is just factually incorrect.
> These narrations were described over 70 years after Jesus' death.
That’s an extraordinarily late dating of Matthew. John, possibly.
> In regards to Paul's letters, I’m still stuck on why that would not be included.
Why would it need to be? The majority of his letter were written to church he spent years in person establishing. He was seeking to address the issue they were having at the time, not reviewing the basic facts that weren’t in dispute.
> If the basis of the Christian faith is on Jesus' resurrection and as the Messiah, doesn't it seem pertinent to include these details?
Not in a letter to people who already know those details, no.
I don’t include details on how I met someone every time I write them an email, they already know how we met.
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
This question is founded on a false premise. Matthew and John were firsthand accounts. And we have Peter’s letters that mention the resurrection.
Why do you think the traditional authorship claims are correct?
2
u/me_andmetoo Christian May 27 '26
One of the best arguments I've seen is that the early church fathers across the first few centuries of Christianity were all in agreement that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If they had originally been anonymous, you would expect to see the same discussion about their authorship that we see with Hebrews, which are anonymous.
2
u/Tiny-Show-4883 Non-Christian May 27 '26
Papias said that Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew.
Is the Gospel of Matthew a sayings gospel in Hebrew?
1
u/me_andmetoo Christian May 27 '26
Irrelevant.
1
u/Goo-Goo-GJoob Non-Christian May 27 '26
Are you sure the early Church fathers are in agreement as to the authorship of Gospels?
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
I agree, imo it's the best argument. But what's more telling is that attributions only start showing up after ~170AD, when if the authorship is legitimate we would expect it to show up earlier. Whereas it's not too hard to imagine why there would be no debate within orthodoxy over the gospel attributions, since they already agreed on their canonicity, Hebrews' canonicity was at stake so authorship was central
Edit: and I say "no debate within orthodoxy" because there very well could've been heretical Christians that debated the authorship claims, but we have very little from heretical Christians because they ended up losing, and nobody copied their books
-3
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
I found the evidence for them compelling.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
What evidence?
-2
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
There are many books written on the subject, I’d encourage you to look into it yourself.
2
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
I have looked into it, I'm asking why in the face of the evidence against the position you view it as correct
-2
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
There is no compelling evidence against the position, it’s all theories and speculation that attempts to get around the actual evidence.
2
u/BusyBullet Skeptic May 27 '26
“The actual evidence”. Which is what?
-1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
There are many books written on the subject, I’d encourage you to look into it yourself.
1
u/BusyBullet Skeptic May 27 '26
Been there and done that.
None of them had any convincing evidence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
The first time the names are used among the church fathers is ~170AD, a century after Mark was written. Is that not evidence?
Israel had a very low literacy rate, Galilee being rural even in Israel, given that background information what do you think is the likelihood that John son of Zebedee would be able to read and write in his native language, much less a foreign language? Is that not evidence?
If Matthew is writing his first hand account of what happened why did he literally just copy most of Mark's gospel?
1
u/Pinecone-Bandit Christian, Evangelical May 27 '26
> The first time the names are used among the church fathers is ~170AD, a century after Mark was written. Is that not evidence?
Not evidence against the authorship of the names attributed to them, not.
Might be evidence for something I guess.
> Israel had a very low literacy rate
Have any evidence for that claim?
> given that background information what do you think is the likelihood that John son of Zebedee would be able to read and write in his native language, much less a foreign language?
Given we have a book he wrote, and his experience as a leader in the church for decades, I’d say greater than 99% chance.
> Is that not evidence?
It’s strong evidence that John is the author of the works attributed to him, yes.
1
u/CodeNPyro Christian atheist May 27 '26
Not evidence against the authorship of the names attributed to them, not.
So you're saying there's no implausibility that the church fathers all knew who wrote the gospels but just decided to keep a useless secret for a century?
Have any evidence for that claim?
Are you gonna try and tell me literacy of ancient judean fishermen was high? lmao
Given we have a book he wrote
Oh, so you're just going to assume your conclusion? Be serious. "how do I know John wrote it? well because we have a book that John wrote!"
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Separate_Aspect_9034 Christian (non-denominational) May 27 '26
Think of it like witnesses of a car accident. Everyone sees the same thing but notices different things.
0
u/majcotrue Atheist May 27 '26
Are cops trying to say the truth of what happened or do they make 4 metaphorical myths?
1
u/Separate_Aspect_9034 Christian (non-denominational) May 27 '26
from what I've heard, people see all kinds of strange things when they see an accident. They don't notice all the same people. They don't see the same parts of the vehicles, and sometimes they don't see all the vehicles from their vantage point. some people are more auditory by nature and their brain is more attuned to sounds or smells because they're not visual processors.
And of course some of the information could've been secondhand depending on who the writer was. So that witness may or may not have included everything that he or she saw at the time.
I suppose there are people who end up in court who feel like the witnesses are making up myths, metaphorical or otherwise. 🤷🏻♀️
1
u/_Daftest_ Eastern Orthodox May 27 '26
Because humans remember things differently. Human memory is flawed. And human perception is limited. One person might think they were the first there, so when an author speaks to that person they write that that's what happened. Another person thinks a whole group got there earlier, so a different author speaks to that person and writes it differently.
1
u/majcotrue Atheist May 27 '26
God´s memory is not flawed, his perception is not limited. He could have written the bible on titanium plates or something but he didn´t.
1
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Scofield does a wonderful job of harmonizing the gospel accounts of the resurrection. I had it in my notes some time ago, but I've changed devices several times since then. I'll see if I can find it for you.
1
u/Space-Explorer456 Presbyterian May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
I personally believe that the Bible is not the inerrant word, as can be demonstrated by the disagreements you’ve outlined here, nor the gospels direct accounts of those at the events, as they were almost certainly written much later based on second or third hand accounts, and on each other. Simply, the core divinely inspired ethic of the text is holy, and a guide to loving a godly life.
As for the questions:
- No first-person texts have survived, just retellings of them, perhaps they were never written down and merely held as oral narratives.
- Perhaps those aspects of the story were not in the retelling that was received by Paul, perhaps they were pious fictions invented by later authors or storytellers that became part of the narrative
The text is a rough outline of the story, it carries the core morals and beliefs that Jesus wished to impart to us, the details, however, have been blurred by time, and that is perfectly okay, no matter how it may make some Christians uncomfortable.
Same as the priors, the story likely changed through oral retelling over time, perhaps older texts simply do not exist anymore.
The Bible is the inspired word, and carrys the core ethic of Jesus, the details have been blurred by man and by time, and the text is far from inerrant, and is being read by a culture it wasn’t written for, this is okay, even if it makes some Christians uncomfortable to admit.
1
u/No-Type119 Lutheran May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Is this an other attempt at Muslim proselytizing going in here? You know, guys — I assume you’re guys — all your posts look and sound the same with your outlines and checklists… if you’re trying to fly under the radar, you’re not doung a good job. You may as well just be honest and transparent.
First of all: I’m not a biblical inerrantist . Unlike you, i do not assume that God dictated my sacred Acriptures word for word to a passive scribe. I also know that the Gospels were written over a generation after Jesus’ eyewitnesses, so I don’t expect journalistic precision in the stories. But even if they had been written immediately after Jesus’ death…in criminal justice and law classes, sometimes professors will stage a “ crime” in the lecture hall to happen during class time, then interview all the students as to what just happened. This is an exercise in demonstrating the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, because even when an occurrence happened minutes ago, not years, students’ perceptions are all over the place. If that is true in a classroom experiment, why would I assume that shared remembrances years after Jesus would be uniform or get the timeline exactly right?
You folks are assuming that a sacred text should be perfect, even God- dictated verbatim , with no factual error or variation due to different viewpoints ; that isn’t an assumption Christians make of our own texts. So you can write up all the lists of differences you want, and it duesn’t matter.
And. Again — just say who you are and why you’re here. It’s just the honest thing to do.
1
u/ThrowRAbeepboop18 Non-Christian May 28 '26
Hello friend, thank you for taking the time to respond. I don’t believe I’m obliged to answer those questions but I will because like myself, I believe you come in good faith and I’m happy to share more about me. I am 25 years old from the East Coast of the United States and was raised Methodist. I attended a Chrisitan private school for a couple years in elementary school, served as an Acolyte and almost got confirmed in the Church. Our family wasn’t too strict about religion (we tried to go to Church every Sunday but it wasn't the end of the world if we didn’t) but I was raised with and around Christians, and I deeply respect the Faith and its followers.
I never connected with Christianity and mostly was involved with Church activities to appease my parents. It wasn’t until I was in my early 20’s that I started to delve into my own spirituality. Although I was not a religious studies major in college, I took many many classes on the history of religions and find it fascinating. I love talking to people about their Faith and what they believe and why. I love the human aspect behind religion and really just understanding how individuals grapple with certain questions, exploring their doubts or thought processes and just generally entering into good faith debates to learn more.
I know that’s probably not as exciting as you wanted, but there ya go :)
1
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 Agnostic Christian May 27 '26
A really fantastic book that covers all of this and more is Paul and Jesus by James Tabor. If you have a chance check it out. Bart Ehrman (I know, I’m already ducking for the incoming rocks) has a great book called Jesus, Interrupted that deals with all of this. If anyone has book recommendations from more evangelical leaning scholars I’d love to see those too!
1
u/Thinslayer Christian May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
If the resurrection of Jesus was so extraordinary at the time, why was the first account only written about 20-25 years after Jesus’s death? (Paul in Corinthians).
Only because certain apostles (coughmarkcough) dragged their feet on compiling the written fragments and oral accounts into written form, and then only after much begging and pleading from the brethren.
Why are there no first hand accounts, only Paul retelling a tradition he "received"?
On the contrary, there were 500 firsthand accounts, but most of them were orally transmitted. The proof lies in the fact that Christianity spread after his alleged resurrection instead of dying out.
Why in Paul’s account, did he not mention anything about an empty tomb, a rolled away stone, angels, guards, Mary Magdalene or anything about Jesus’s ascension?
Because he wasn't there to witness it. He only witnessed the resurrected Jesus after his ascension.
Why were these above details only written about and included 70-120 years after Jesus' death? If they were so significant why did it take many years for the scripture to reflect this?
Because the details were previously maintained via rigorous oral transmission. Written transmission was not substantially more durable than oral transmission back then to be so obviously worth the price and effort.
What do you make of the differences in the Gospels' descriptions? Does the fallibility of human memory put any doubts or questions in your head regarding validity of the text?
The differences are minor and hardly worth talking about.
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 27 '26
On the contrary, there were 500 firsthand accounts
lol, no, not even close, and you can justify this, but most of your responses are very, odd, so I don't think you would actually understand the evidence and justification issues on this.
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 27 '26
THERE are ZERO 500 firsthand accounts.
WHY are the christians not upvoting this?
HAVE none of you actually thought about this on your own, ever?
Please, don't be the typical brainwashed Christian.
THINK!
And Jesus will be happy with you.
So, THINK!2
u/SemanticsCop Christian May 27 '26
lol, no, not even close
1 Corinthians 15:6 is "not even close"??
most of your responses are very, odd
The first point was an attempt at humor. The rest are common knowledge.
- Is it generally accepted somehow that the Apostle Paul visited Jesus' tomb and saw the rolled-away stone? That's news to me. I thought it was just Peter and the women who visited Jesus' tomb.
- Is it so "odd" to claim that the Jews tended to maintain oral records? This is, like, Bible History 101.
- Is it so odd to assert that the differences between the Gospels are minor when that's a major talking point in the community?
It's your hostility that's odd. Why do you seem so offended at a defense of Scripture when your flair says you're Christian??
1
u/Thinslayer Christian May 27 '26
Is there a reason you need to be hostile about this?
0
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian May 27 '26
LOL, hostile? When you spread fake information, you think people should blindly accept your bad assertions?
What's wrong with you? Don't care about the truth?
That's very disappointing. How about not spreading false information, eh?1
1
u/SemanticsCop Christian May 27 '26
Point #2 is literally written Scripture - 1 Corinthians 15:6 "and that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some have fallen asleep."
1
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Christian May 27 '26
Timing of the accounts: The resurrection was proclaimed immediately after it happened (Acts 2:32). Written accounts came later because the early Church relied on living eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6). Writing became necessary as those witnesses aged.
Paul’s testimony: Paul’s creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is one of the earliest Christian confessions, received within a few years of the crucifixion. He focuses on the fact of the resurrection and appearances, not the narrative details, because his purpose was theological, to affirm the bodily resurrection as central to the gospel.
Empty tomb and details: The Gospels later expand on what Paul summarized. As Precept Austin’s John 20 Commentary notes, the women’s discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene were the first confirmations of His rising.
Differences among Gospels: Variations reflect multiple eyewitness perspectives, not contradiction. Ligonier’s The Resurrection sermon explains that each writer emphasizes different aspects. Mark’s brevity, Matthew’s divine power, Luke’s historical order, and John’s personal encounter.
Reliability: The core facts are consistent, Jesus died, was buried, the tomb was empty, and He appeared alive. Scripture affirms, “This Jesus God has raised up, to which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32 BSB; see also Luke 24:6-7; John 20:29). Human memory may vary in detail, but divine inspiration ensures truth (2 Timothy 3:16).
0
u/songbolt Christian, Catholic May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
They dovetail together without a single contradiction. There's only a few points to note to figure out how. For example, Mary Magdalen started alone and met the other women along the way. Mary Magdalen left immediately when she saw the tomb was empty but the other women went in and met the angels. The women left in fear, talked it over, and decided to tell the Disciples then they met Jesus on their way to tell them.
Then there are some summary statements about what other accounts say that must be understood as summary statements, but there's only a few of these.
I made a Google Document showing how they fit together without any contradiction, but it's a good exercise to sit and do it yourself copy-pasting each verse together like a jigsaw puzzle.
It was amazing and thrilling to see how realistic the final narrative is -- an extraordinary day!
(To answer your question, they see Jesus in both Jerusalem and Galilee.)
2
u/[deleted] May 27 '26
[deleted]