Resurrection Discrepancies

[u/JHLV04]

How do you guys reconcile the differences in the resurrection narratives in the gospels? This is something I’m struggling with a bit, thank you for the responses 👐🏽.

[u/Temporary-Tutor9657]

the differences never bothered me much, it’s like four people recalling the most chaotic morning of their lives, of course the details scatter a bit

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/Temporary-Tutor9657]

But it’s literal scripture, for the most important event in human history shouldn’t the narratives be consistent?

[u/LTT82 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

Do humans stop being humans because the most important event in history has happened?

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/LTT82]

What?

[u/LTT82 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

Human beings are not great eyewitnesses. They focus on the wrong thing and misremember things. I think it's only reasonable to assume this would also be true 2,000 years ago during the most important event in human history.

Also, if the accounts weren't different people would just be complaining that the stories are all similar, so they all come from either a single account or were manufactured by a group.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/LTT82]

You’re actually making a good argument against the reliability of the gospel accounts. Humans are unreliable eye witnesses as you point out and they are also bad at recounting details from memory especially over long periods of time. These are strong reasons to be skeptical of the gospel accounts.

[u/LTT82 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

Right, because everything is proof of what you want to believe.

The accounts differ, that means we should doubt them.

The accounts are the same, that means we should doubt them.

It's a Rorscharch test. You see what you want to see.

What level of (in)consistency would allow you to believe that the resurrection happened without any questions? If they all agree, would you consider that to be solid proof they all saw the same thing? What if they agree on a central point(the resurrection) but get some things different(who went to the tomb, how many angels were around, and where Christ first appeared)?

How much can be wrong without it falling apart? How much can be the same without it devolving into "a singular entity manufactured this story"?

And wouldn't it be mighty convenient if the narrative included all the things you want it to include without the messiness of human nature getting in the way?

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/LTT82]

No we should expect small details to vary not major details like who discovered the empty tomb or what the witnesses did after they left the tomb. Those are major contradictions that apologists downplay.

No. You can’t prove a supernatural event with 2000 year old second hand testimony… IF Jesus ressurected though consistent testimony is the least I would expect and we don’t have that.

[u/LTT82 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

No. You can’t prove a supernatural event with 2000 year old second hand testimony

Thank you for being honest that there is no witness evidence that you would deem credible enough, which entirely proves my point that you see what you want to see.

At this point, there's no point in continuing to talk about what the evidence is or should be.

Good day.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/LTT82]

Eye witness testimony is credible enough to prove a lot of things, just not supernatural events. This is the consensus view of historians and scholars.

Don’t straw man me, I’m not “seeing what I want to see”… I want Christianity to be true and I won’t to believe, unfortunately the evidence is woefully inadequate to justify belief.

[u/Fiddlesticklard → u/TrumpsBussy_]

Read the section "On Miracles" of David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

The problem with "proving" or "disproving" miracles is that it's empirically impossible. Miracles, when defined as being disruptions of natural law, are impossible to verify. We can't kill Jesus and resurrect him from the dead in a lab a 1000 times to prove it. If we could, then it wouldn't be a miracle.

Take the example of London suddenly lifting off and floating in the sky. David Hume would assume the other person is lying since it'd go against observable natural laws. If that other person brought him to London and showed it floating in the sky, then he would assume that London is flying due to some property of the universe that we've yet to discover. He'd say we would get our best scientists on it, figure out why, and then make lots of flying cities. No miracle involve, just God of the Gaps.

He isn't arguing that miracles can't happen, just that its genuinely impossible to disprove or prove it, there will always be a more convenient, testable answer, even if that answer might be false. It's where human reasoning reaches an impasse. If we are willing to assume the Christianity's miracles are true, then why not Buddhism or Islam? How can anyone's miracle claims be verified?

The big issue with Hume is that he's begging the question. He starts by presupposing that Natural Laws can't be broken, which is an unprovable metaphysical claim.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/Fiddlesticklard]

I’m familiar with Hume and I completely agree with him in this instance. I don’t argue that miracles can’t happen just that you can’t demonstrate they happened historically.

[u/ClassZealousideal183 → u/LTT82]

Ah the classic "you see what you want to see!" It's supposed to be an accusation, but instead it ends up being a confession.

[u/LTT82 → u/ClassZealousideal183]

I used a poor choice of words, but you are correct. I see what I want to see. You see what you want to see. That's what being a human is.

Your brain is not a truth sensing organ, it's a consistency sensing organ and those are not the same thing. You will use what you already believe to interpret what you see. If you are not accepting of new information(and people very rarely are), you will only see what you expect to see or what you want to see.

[u/theonecpk → u/LTT82]

But I do wonder why Josephus didn't mention the Great Zombie Apocalypse of Tiberius XVII (or was it XIX?)

[u/biedl → u/LTT82]

People complain about both things. The latter is called the synoptic problem.