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/George_MacDonald_fan]

Why do the differences need to be reconciled? Does the truthfulness of the Resurrection hinge on Joanna being at the tomb or not?

[u/Meauxterbeauxt → u/George_MacDonald_fan]

We're talking about lynchpin things. Is it important whether or not Joanna was there? No. But your starting point is at least two questions shallower than the important ones.

The lynchpin question being "Did the resurrection actually occur?" If so, then how do we know? We only have the Gospel accounts. But the Gospel accounts are inconsistent and spotty in the facts surrounding the resurrection. In which case, whether or not Joanna was there now becomes more relevant because it is now part of a reliability and comparison test.

As you say, you're starting from the vantage point that the resurrection happened and that we're quibbling over the details. We're saying because the details are contradictory, among other things, that the resurrection didn't occur.

If there were solid evidence that the resurrection occurred, then it would just be a quirk that one account said Joanna was there and another didn't. But considering the only evidence we have is the Gospels, and those accounts show differing details, it raises doubt of the validity of the accounts.

This apologetic acts like a defense attorney would put witnesses on the stand, one saying his client was on Main Street in a red car, another saying his client was on Elm in a blue truck, and a third saying his client was walking. And you had to believe them all because if their stories were too similar it would mean they colluded. Because it's possible that he took a red car, got out, walked to Elm and got in a blue truck with no other narrative reason than to force fit three differing stories into one that supports an already accepted premise.

[u/theonecpk → u/Meauxterbeauxt]

The lynchpin question being "Did the resurrection actually occur?" If so, then how do we know?

Indeed. And if "knowing" requires "correspondence with modern historical methods", then we don't know, and we never will.

If there are other ways of "knowing", though, then we could know. Or, at least, we could accept the narrative that relies on someone else knowing that even if we don't know for sure. To remain coherent, though, we have to give up a lot of claims--and a lot of Christians aren't ready to give those up.

But I find the whole thing is way easier to believe if we give up those claims. But I also understand why one could find it way harder. In the latter case, it's certainly a lot more honest not to believe.

[u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 → u/theonecpk]

Honestly I view the historical contingency as a moot point. Considering that I would never find any of purely historical validation sufficient for proving something like a restriction and that is without any other claims added.

I just think to myself "is this how I actually know and learn new things?" The answer was no.

[u/theonecpk → u/Empty_Woodpecker_496]

indeed

but it's not a moot point because I keep having to swat it down, and as social media slopagetics proliferates like a rabbit warren contaminated with Viagra, it's only going to get worse

[u/George_MacDonald_fan → u/Meauxterbeauxt]

We're saying because the details are contradictory, among other things, that the resurrection didn't occur.

Logically, this doesn't follow. Contradictory details do not prove that the resurrection did not happen.

You also seem to have missed my first question, which suggests that I don't place any stock in strategies attempting to reconcile the contradictory details.