Believer says: An historical resurrection of Jesus is the only reasonable explanation for what really happened. The fact of the Resurrection is just as the New Testament tells it. All naturalistic explanations are doomed to fail.
But skeptic says: I say the most reasonable explanation is the story was made up. There are conflicting versions of it. For example, the Gospel of John says Mary Magdalene took herself to the tomb. She was alone. The other Gospels say she went in the company of friends. Somebody was wrong.
The Gospel of John gives the impression she was alone
The other Gospels say she went in the company of women. For example, Mark
Mark 16:1 After the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices to go and anoint the body of Jesus. 2 Very early on Sunday morning, at sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3 On the way they said to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?" (It was a very large stone.) 4 Then they looked up and saw that the stone had already been rolled back. 5 So they entered the tomb ...
As I said, somebody was wrong.
And Mark says there was an angel, who told them Jesus had been raised.
But John says she took one look inside the empty tomb, then ran to Peter and another disciple and told them.
Mark says an angel spoke to the women, but they ran away and didn’t tell anyone
Mark says an angel spoke to the women, but they ran away and didn’t tell anyone
Mark 16:8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Other details fail to match up with John, too. I'll provide a link to it on my other blog:
Recap: I say various and radical differences in the resurrection accounts show there were several rumors of the resurrection. Rumors are the best explanation for the stories. Namely, they're fictions. The rumors are incompatible and attempts to harmonize them have failed. They have too many conflicting details.
No comments:
Post a Comment