GOD'S INERRANT WORD - V (Easter)

With Easter fast approaching... ( you know, the annual celebration of virgin-born Attis who was believed to have died and then resurrected about this time each year)... it's time for another look at the God inspired, inerrant Words of God. And we won't even include Matthew 27:52-53 where the graves opened and many dead saints came out and were seen by many in Jerusalem and then disappeared from recorded history (the Gospel of Nicodemus [ http://bibleprobe.com/descent.htm ] claims 12,000 of them wandering thru Jerusalem for 40 days).

Here's your Easter exercise: Take all four gospels, then start at Easter Morning, Matt 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1 and John 20:1. Your task is to read each one to the end of the story (and take good notes). Then, using all the facts from those four narratives, answer a few questions. BUT, you can't leave out any details.

Who came to the tomb that morning?
Why did they come?
How did they get the stone rolled away from the grave opening?
How many messengers were waiting at the tomb and were they sitting or standing?
And where did Jesus first appear to the disciples after being resurrected?

There's plenty of additional questions which could be asked, but these will suffice.

Now... the problem. God was an eye witness to his (Jesus') own death. This same all-knowing, all-powerful God then inspired four gospel authors to record, inerrantly of course, what he (God) personally witnessed. So.... why are the "inerrant" testimonies so inconsistent?

Philippians 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have"

Luke was a doctor, and a historian, and one of the greatest writters of the Bible in my opinion.
Luke didnt just want us to take his word of it, he starts his Gosple by telling us he "carefully investaged everything from the beginning" so that we would " know certainty of things" we have been taught. Luke 1:3-4
He goes on to tell us that after JEsus suffered, he showed himself to these men and gave many CONVINCING proofs.
ALl of Christianity hings on the ressurection, and Paul said that " without the resurrection of Christ, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith.
The resurrection of Christ is the proof of Christainity.
Now that being said, I will move on here in answer to your questions, to sum it all up in your own words, "why are the "inerrant" testimonies so inconsistent?"
Good question.
Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John all gave differant detales about the resurrection. When you compare the stories of these 4 men, you immediately find differances in the details.ALot of people like you dismiss the accounts of the resurrection because all 4 mens accounts differ from one another.
I say that the differances amongue the 4 accounts are, in fact, a powerful evidence FOR, rather than against the truthfulness of the recorded accounts.
Why?? Simple.
Even though the four accounts differ from one another, they dont contradict each other. Take Matthew. He begins his account of Easter Sunday by saying," After the Sabbeth, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magadlene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. Matt. 28:1. Mark begins his account by saying, " When the sabbeth was over, Mary magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices so that they might anoint Jesus' body." Mark 16:1
Matthew has two women visiting the tomb at daybreak. Mark has three. Is that a contradiction>>
No, its just a differance, and differances are not necessarily contridictions.Take this example ok?
Suppose you arrived at church one Sunday to find a visiting minister. You ask the person on your left," Wheres Pastor Smith? She replies," He went on vacation." Then you ask the person on your right,"Wheres Pastor Smith?" He says to you, " He and his wife are on vacation".Would you then exclaim,"THERES A CONTRADICTION HERS< SOMEONES TELLING A LIE!! OF course you wouldnt.
You would easily realize that the ones on your left and right were not making up false and independant stories of one another.Neither, obviously, were they in collusion. They were just relating the SAME FACT from two differant, but noncontradictory views.
DIfferances in the stories are not necessarily contradictions in history. On the contrary, these MINOR differances provide powerful evidence that the accounts are TRUE.
You know, in a live court of law, ( you people are always putting Christianity on trail, hence the phase) ,when you have two or three witnesses whose stories are all presented exactally alike, you begin to suspect that they have gotton together ahead of time to rehearse their accounts. You then begain to stronglt suspect collusion. But, if each person tells the story from their own perspective, each adding differant details and yet not contradicting the testimony of the others, you can more easily assume you are getting a genuine story.

Neat post Bella, made me do some thinking and digging which is good whether or not we agree.


First off your, "carefully investaged everything from the beginning" and "The resurrection of Christ is the proof of Christainity." statements. Luke says he investigated, but doesn't say how. Others' written testimony? A verbal relating of some other verbal telling.... alias "hearsay." This goes right along with "the bible is true because the bible says it's true" -- circular reasoning. Homer's Iliad tells about the battle at Troy, which truly happened, but that doesn't mean all his references to Gods are true. But on to your sample.

Re the pastor's vacation. Let's change that a bit... a car accident. Witness #1 says a woman was driving. #2 says a man was driving. Sheriff says two occupants were killed. Possible that both witnesses strongly believe they are each telling the truth but... obviously their testimonies are DIFFERENT and INCONSISTENT. At least one of them is wrong. And look at the differences in comments about men or angel(s) at the tomb, and whether the stone was already rolled or rolled by an earthquake (which no one else mentions???).

But all of the above (yours and mine) glosses over the real question. Since God is all-knowing and that same God was an eyewitness and the same God wrote/inspired the gospels and insured that there were no errors in HIS WORD, why all the differences/inconsistencies? If God made the effort to write/inspire a set of inerrant gospels, wouldn't he (being all-knowing) immediately realize that there were differences in what was being written and "inspire" a correction?

You missed the whole point of my post.
There isnt any real differances in what the writters wrote.