Matthew 20:1-10 versus John 20:1and 2.

[Katabole]

Hi rstrats.

I don't have any problem discussing this topic, however, you evidently see some contradiction that is not apparent to me.

You asked, "Do you believe that Mary M. was included in the “they” in verse 8? If so, what do you think her “great joy” was about?"

Yes. Her great joy was knowing that Christ was risen from the dead. That doesn't mean she was convinced. She is only convinced after Christ calls her by her name, Mary, in John 20:16. I don't believe it was the gospel writer's intentions to create contradiction, the subject is Christ rising from the dead and by Christ's witness to the women, it clearly showed that women, not just men, were included in Christ's ministry.

I included the link, Six days before the Passover, because I wanted to show you that there is a defined sequence of events with no contradictions, described by the gospel writers, both before and after the resurrection which I have included for you.

I don't know how to describe it any simpler. Maybe some other members on the forum can shine some light on this subject for you.

Peace. Ron.

[Byblos]

This link gives a very reasonable explanation of how things may have transpired. The problem with reading these supposed contradictions is that they assume everything in them is stated exactly as it occurred, as if they were reciting events chronologically. It's a silly assumption considering the time factor in between the actual events and their recording. I'd be a whole lot more skeptical if they were identical or didn't contain inconsequentially seeming discrepancies.

[musician]

I tend to fall into the camp that believes that God did not make automatons of us. The testimony of scripture is that God made us, that we break ourselves and are broken, and yet God uses us to accomplish His good work. Given this perspective, I find the different nuances between the gospels to be refreshingly faithful to actuality under the assumption of what I just said.

I don't have all the answers, because if I did I would be in a sense claiming to have the mind of God. The best I can do is to operate from my perspective, and hopefully stay mindful of the limitations that come with doing so and be prepared to correct accordingly.

As for me, I agree with Byblos' final statement. I have a feeling that if accounts of varying relationship in time and proximity to the event of the resurrection were letter-for-letter identical, then a whole different set of objections would be made; that they were plagiarists or some such thing. There also wouldn't be much point in including four identical gospel texts in the canon of scripture either.

That being said, I am repeatedly puzzled by the pointed skepticism of Christianity (as opposed to honest exploration of it) I read about because it is inevitably the result of taking a certain perspective as presupposition and then "begging the question" with it. Every time, a new "white elephant" or "800 pound gorilla" is brandished as if it is the knife-edge between truth and fiction. No one on this planet knows the entire, absolute truth with certainty, and yet there are those on both sides of the fence that act as if they do - whether it be a militant antitheist or a militant fundamentalist.

For instance, Abraham is perhaps the greatest illustration of faith in God next to Christ crucified. Knowing that, go to one of those extremely dogmatic Churches and ask them if Abraham was headed for hell because he believed that God could/would raise Isaac from the dead when in fact God did not allow Abraham to kill him in the first place, and therefore Abraham believed falsely? The testimony of scripture is in fact that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness, even though a friendly antitheist or dogmatic christian should by their own standard believe otherwise.

The testimony of scripture, history, and tradition is all there. The options are pretty simple: God did and is, or God didn't and isn't - very in keeping with Pascal's wager.

- Nathan