![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/ContradictionHead.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>. His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I am replying to Jonathan\u2019s paper, \u201cContradictions in the Resurrection of Jesus Accounts\u201d<\/a> (1-31-21), which is apparently actually written by one David Austin, but in any event, wholly endorsed<\/em> by Jonathan. It starts out with the usual laundry list of 18 alleged contradictions in the biblical accounts, in a neat little chart. This stuff makes the anti-theist atheist Bible bashers drool. They love it.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Most of these sorts of \u201calleged contradictions\u201d are simply recycled from some prior standard \u201cplaybook\u201d atheist volume, which may even be a few hundred years old. I highly doubt that most atheists actually sit reading the Bible, to come up with these bogus \u201ccontradictions.\u201d That\u2019s why most of these things never cross most Christians\u2019 minds (including my own): because you have to work very hard to notice them in the first place.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Atheists most assuredly do not<\/em> love it, however, when Christians refute<\/em> their bogus biblical claims. I have done so scores of times, and it\u2019s almost always so easy \u2014 usually involving the simplest of logical errors \u2014 that I have come to enjoy these challenges quite a bit; gives me something fun<\/em> to do. Answering all 18 points in the chart only took me a few hours. Readers can view the chart at the link above. I shall respond to each point by number below.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 1) \u201cWomen at Tomb<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Not contradictory because in questions of numbers of people said to do something or be somewhere, etc., an actual<\/em>\u00a0logical contradiction requires exclusionary clauses such as \u201conly<\/em> x, y, and z were there and no one else<\/em>\u201d or \u201conly three people<\/em> witnessed incident a.\u201d None of the Gospel texts do that here; hence, no demonstrable contradiction (see Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1-10; Jn 20:1). Some atheists who concede this logical shortcoming will nonetheless (rather desperately) go on to argue that it is still a \u201ccontradiction\u201d in some<\/em> sense because, after all, the texts don\u2019t all say exactly the same thing<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Unfortunately, that\u2019s not how logic works, and it is ridiculous and downright unrealistic to \u201cdemand\u201d that four separate accounts written by as many people must report what was seen in identical fashion<\/em>; otherwise, the ubiquitous atheist cry of \u201ccontradiction!\u201d will raise its ugly and obnoxious head.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 2) \u201cGuards at the tomb<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Not a contradiction merely because Matthew mentions this and the other three Gospels don\u2019t. Arguments from silence prove nothing. A true contradiction would require one or more of the other three to say something like \u201cthe tomb was unguarded.\u201d That<\/em>\u2018s a direct contradiction. It would be nice if once in a while atheists could actually produce one of those. As it is, they make fools of themselves all the time with these pseudo-\u201ccontradictions\u201d that aren\u2019t at all. It\u2019s embarrassing.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n One would think that logic<\/em>\u00a0(like fresh air, cute puppies, and the joy of ice cream) is something where Christians and atheists could readily agree with each other. But sadly, that\u2019s not the case: at least not in the \u201c1001 biblical contradictions\u201d sub-group of anti-theist atheists. They wouldn\u2019t know a real contradiction from a hole in the ground.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 3) \u201cTime of women\u2019s visit<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: the descriptions in RSV are \u201ctoward the dawn . . . [they] went to see the sepulchre\u201d (Mt 28:1) [David Austin describes it as \u201cday was dawning\u201d], \u201cvery early . . . they went to the tomb when the sun had risen\u201d (Mk 16:2), \u201cat early dawn, they went to the tomb\u201d (Lk 24:1) \u2014 clearly no contradiction so far \u2014 \u201c; then we have: \u201cMary Mag\u2019dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark\u201d (Jn 20:1). A plausible resolution is to posit that John describes an earlier<\/em> visit of Mary Magdalene only. She then would have gone back<\/em> with other women (since she is mentioned in all four accounts \u2014 as the chart notes in #1 \u2013, but alone only in John 20:1).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n The inevitable atheist objection might then be: \u201cwell, then why didn\u2019t the text say<\/em> it was an earlier visit?\u201d Because it doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to. It\u2019s a silly demand. They would simply be describing different visits to the tomb. It would be like my saying, \u201cmy daughter got up and ate breakfast\u201d [and shortly after I went off to work], and my wife [stay-at-home mom] saying [referring to the same morning], \u201cmy daughter and her brother ate brunch together.\u201d<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Though the two accounts don\u2019t reference each other, they don\u2019t contradict at all.\u00a0 Our daughter ate two meals; one being alone and the other not. But in fact, in the Gospel of John the text does<\/em> show Mary visiting alone (20:1), then running to tell the disciples the tomb was empty (20:2), and then after<\/em> \u201cthe disciples went back to their homes\u201d (20:10), being outside the tomb again, weeping (20:11) and then seeing the risen Jesus (20:14-17) and then going to the disciples and telling them she saw Jesus risen (20:18).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 4) \u201cReason for visit<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: Matthew says two women \u201cwent to see the sepulchre\u201d; that is, they wanted to see if it was left as it was when Jesus was laid there: in order to apply burial spices. What other reason would there be? Mark and Luke mention the intent to anoint Jesus\u2019 body.\u00a0 Matthew doesn\u2019t contradict that. It simply (arguably) describes it in different terms. John gives no reason, but again, the logical thing is to assume it is referring to anointing of the body. They wanted to get it done as soon as the sun came up. It was Jewish ritual. In April 2019 I refuted atheist Bob Seidensticker (one of 71 unanswered times) regarding Jewish burial spices<\/a>. I made a humorous (but quite apt) analogy in that paper, relevant to this section:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n First of all, just because John does not\u00a0state<\/em>\u00a0the reason why Mary went to the tomb, it doesn\u2019t follow that no\u00a0reason existed. This is not a contradiction. . . . One might say, by the same token: \u201cEarly on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Bob Seidensticker went to the bathroom\u201d. Did he go\u00a0there<\/em>\u00a0for \u201cno reason\u201d too? Or is it reasonable to assume that he must have had\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0reason, which was not stated in this particular description, but also is not that difficult to surmise? Maybe an additional account (say, Bob\u2019s diary) could conceivably inform us that he went to empty his bladder, comb his hair, and brush his teeth (and perhaps also to spend a minute admiring a sophist in the mirror).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n Austin noted twice that John stated that the body was already<\/em> anointed.\u00a0But it\u2019s plausible to hold that the women thought it was hastily or insufficiently done after the crucifixion, for lack of time, since it was getting dark. So they went again (after the Sabbath day was over). It\u2019s just another trumped-up faux-\u201ccontradiction\u201d that is not at all.\u00a0 One wearies of this. Believe me, as an apologist who deals with this all the time, it\u2019s far beyond frustrating by now. On the other hand, I\u2019m delighted to have these golden opportunities to demonstrate the bankruptcy of anti-theist attempts to tear down the Bible and Christianity.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 5) \u201cStone rolled away<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Matthew seems to mention it as occurring in the women\u2019s presence; the other three Gospels portray it as having already happened when they got there. Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard ably tackles this one:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Once again, the objection makes a false assumption\u2014namely, that Matthew is intending to assert that the women\u00a0witnessed\u00a0<\/em>the angel rolling away the stone. But a close examination of the text proves otherwise. First, as A. Jones argues in\u00a0A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,\u00a0<\/em>the entire passage concerning the angel, the stone, and the guards who \u201ctrembled and became like dead men\u201d (Matt. 28:2-4) seems to be a parenthetical statement. It\u2019s unlikely that the women would have conversed with the angel while the guards laid\u00a0there as if dead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Furthermore, the details concerning the angel and the stone are introduced with the Greek conjunction\u00a0gar<\/em>: \u201cAnd behold, there was a great earthquake;\u00a0for\u00a0<\/em>[Greek,\u00a0gar<\/em>] an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it\u201d (28:2,\u00a0emphasis added). Such an explanatory conjunction is used to introduce a clarification of a previous part of the sentence. For Matthew, the angel rolling away the stone is his explanation for the earthquake, not to assert that the women witnessed a stone-moving spectacle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This answer could be further supported by Matthew\u2019s use of an indicative mood in the aorist verb tense of\u00a0ginomai<\/em>: \u201cAnd behold,\u00a0there was\u00a0<\/em>[Greek,\u00a0egeneto<\/em>] a great earthquake\u201d (28:2,\u00a0emphasis added). The aorist verb tense in the indicative mood usually denotes the simple past. So a possible translation is \u201can earthquake had occurred,\u201d implying the women didn\u2019t witness it. Even the angel\u2019s descent can be described as having already occurred, since the aorist participle\u00a0katabas<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cdescended\u201d) can be translated with the English past perfect: \u201cfor an angel of the Lord\u00a0had descended<\/em>\u201d (28:2; ISV, emphasis added). (\u201cBiblical Resurrection Reports Are Not \u2018Hopelessly Contradictory\u2019 \u201c<\/a>, Catholic Answers<\/em>, 7-11-17)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n 6) \u201cEarthquake<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: Only Matthew mentions it, but this is explained in the explanation provided for #5 above. It was a past incident.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 7) \u201cAngels\/men seen at the tomb<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Again, the explanation in #5 accounts for the uniqueness of Matthew\u2019s account (angel sitting on a rolled-away stone). The various reports of angels\u2019 actions are not necessarily<\/em> contradictory at all. Angels are (in the biblical view: believe it or not), extraordinary supernatural creatures, and they do lots of appearing and disappearing. Austin makes an issue out of Matthew and John referring to \u201cangels\u201d but Mark and Luke calling them \u201cmen.\u201d But he notes that in Luke they were later referred to as \u201cangels\u201d (24:23).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n And that\u2019s because both terms are used for angels. In Genesis 19, for example, \u201ctwo angels\u201d visit Lot (19:1), but in the same passage they are also called \u201cmen\u201d twice (19:10, 12) and then \u201cangels\u201d again (19:15) and \u201cmen\u201d again (19:16). In Judges 13, this interchangeability is striking, with reference to an \u201cangel\u201d\u00a0 (13:3, 6, 9, 13, 15-18, 20-21) and \u201cman\u201d (13:6, 10-11): referring to the same being.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 8) \u201cDid women\/woman enter tomb?<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: Mark and Luke say they did. Matthew and John don\u2019t. But to contradict the other two reports, they would have to outright deny<\/em> that it happened. And of course they don\u2019t do<\/em> that, so (sorry, guys!), no contradiction is present. Matthew strongly implies that they did<\/em>, however, because the angel says to them, \u201cCome, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead . . .\u201d (28:6-7).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 9) \u201cDid disciple[s] visit tomb?<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: John says Peter and John (\u201cthe other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved\u201d: John\u2019s humble terminology to refer to himself); Luke says \u201cSome of those who were with us [i.e., apostles: 24:10, 13] went to the tomb\u201d [24:24]. It doesn\u2019t specify Peter, as Austin claims, but it might be taken as strongly implied by \u201cThe Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!\u201d (24:34). No contradiction so far (by the same logical criteria I have repeatedly explained, here, and many times to atheists in the past).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Matthew doesn\u2019t specifically say, but it says that the women \u201cran to tell his disciples\u201d (28:8). Now what would you<\/em> do if you were Jesus\u2019 disciples \u2014 in despair over His crucifixion \u2014 and were told that He had risen from the dead? Of course, you would run to the tomb to see<\/em>, which is exactly what Luke and John report, and which Matthew surely strongly insinuates. Austin presupposes the view that Mark 16:9-20 is not actually part of the Gospel. For a great refutation of that, see\u00a0Dave Miller: \u201cIs Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?\u201d Apologetics Press, 2005\u00a0[link<\/a>] ). But either way, Mark 16 (long or short) doesn\u2019t specifically say that a disciple went to the tomb. But it doesn\u2019t deny<\/em> it, either, so it is the good ol\u2019 notorious argument from silence again. So: no problem in the final analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 10) \u201cDid disciple[s] enter tomb?<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: John says Peter and John did; the others say nothing (argument of silence and thus, no contradiction). To not mention something is not the same as a denial. If I don\u2019t mention that the sun came up this morning, it doesn\u2019t follow that I denied<\/em> it. If I forget to say \u201cI love you\u201d to my wife one day, I highly doubt that she will conclude that I don\u2019t, based only on that. This kind of \u201creasoning\u201d is just dumb. It\u2019s unworthy of any thinking person.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 11) \u201cWhat did disciple[s] see?<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: Luke and John saw \u201clinen\u201d cloths in the tomb. Matthew and Mark are silent; so no contradiction. Atheists seem to not realize that the four Gospels are obviously complementary to one another. No single one of them is required to report every jot and tittle of an event. They differ (but don\u2019t contradict) just as any four witnesses of a crime usually will report or emphasize different aspects of the truth of what occurred, and perhaps miss some details that other witnesses saw. All of them together, if consistent, verify each other\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Likewise, what one Gospel doesn\u2019t mention is usually mentioned by another. In fact, this silly chart bears strong witness to that, even in its dumbfounded opposition to biblical inspiration and harmony. I\u2019m sitting here (as always) having my faith in biblical inspiration strengthened, because the critical objections are so ridiculously weak and non-substantial. This is the blessing of apologetics.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 12) \u201cDid women\/woman meet Jesus?<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Since Mark and Luke are silent on this aspect, they can\u2019t contradict. Austin attempts to make hay out of the women grabbing Jesus\u2019 feet and worshiping Him in Matthew, but Mary Magdalene later being told \u201cnot to touch\u201d Jesus in John 20:17. A. T. Robertson\u2019s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em> explains this:<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Touch me not<\/b>\u00a0(mh mou aptou<\/i>). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning \u201ccease clinging to me\u201d rather than \u201cDo not touch me.\u201d Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan<\/i>) and worship (prosekunhsan<\/i>) as we read in\u00a0Matthew 28:9<\/a>\u00a0. The prohibition here reminds Mary that the previous personal fellowship by sight, sound, and touch no longer exists and that the final state of glory was not yet begun. Jesus checks Mary\u2019s impulsive eagerness (A T Robertson,\u00a0Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/i>, John 20:17<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n Almost all more recent English translations reflect this more specific (prolonged, more intense) sense of touch: *<\/p>\n RSV<\/em>: hold<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n TEV \/ NIV \/ NRSV \/ Beck<\/em>: hold on to<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NAB<\/em>: holding on to<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ESV \/ NKJV \/ Weymouth \/ Barclay \/ Goodspeed \/ NEB \/ REB \/ Jerusalem \/ Knox \/ Amplified<\/em>: cling<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n NASB \/ Williams \/ Wuest \/ Moffatt:<\/em> clinging<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n So (guess what?), no contradiction again<\/em>.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 13) \u201cWhat did Jesus say to the women\/woman?<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Mark and Luke are silent; Matthew and John say two different, but not contradictory things. So to be contradictory, one or both would have to say, Jesus said only<\/em> [whatever]. But they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 14) \u201cWhere was 1st Jesus appearance to Disciples?<\/span><\/strong>\u201d Mark doesn\u2019t say. The others don\u2019t indicate that their account was the \u201cfirst\u201d appearance (Austin baldly assumes this to be the case), so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a \u201ccontradiction\u201d impossible to undeniably construct).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 15)\u00a0\u201cWhere was 2nd Jesus appearance to Disciples?<\/span><\/strong>\u201d Matthew and Mark are silent, and so irrelevant. John doesn\u2019t specify that there were no visits in-between the two he mentions, and \u201cfirst and second\u201d can only apply to his version itself (not to the other Gospels), even if we assume that the two mentioned are directly chronological. The same factors apply to Luke\u2019s account.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 16)\u00a0\u201cWhere was 3rd Jesus appearance to Disciples?<\/span><\/strong>\u201d Only John mentions a third in his own account, but this doesn\u2019t prove that it is the third time, period. My replies to #14-15 apply here too. These challenges get easier the more they continue! It\u2019s pretty tough to come up with 18 fake biblical \u201ccontradictions\u201d; not even one having any validity or force. Whoever devised this list surely flunked logic (assuming he even took it: and that\u2019s a huge<\/em><\/strong> assumption).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 17) \u201cWhen did the Disciples receive the \u2018Holy Spirit\u2019?<\/span><\/strong>\u201c: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are silent. But as Austin notes, Acts [2] places it 50 days later (and most Christians believe Luke wrote Acts). John 20:22 has Jesus visiting ten disciples (minus Thomas and the fallen Judas) and bestowing on them (\u201creceive<\/em>\u201c) the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 is a completely different public event, with tongues of fire and speaking in tongues<\/a>. There is no contradiction present. Here they (disciples and any others, too) are described as being \u201cfilled<\/em> with the Holy Spirit\u201d (2:4). Apples and oranges. An apple doesn\u2019t \u201ccontradict\u201d an orange.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n 18) \u201cWhen & where did Ascension happen?<\/strong><\/span>\u201c: only one mentions it, so how can it be a contradiction? Acts appears at first glance to conflict with Luke (which would be a self-contradiction), but there are adequate explanations for this. I have already dealt with this topic.<\/a> * \u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n [to be continued]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>geralt<\/a> (8-18-16)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]\u00a0<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher. His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0. ***** I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":54574,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,31],"tags":[4121,4129,12966,1043,258,522,1472,1473,525,524,514,2637,1879,1633,1878,1387,1386,535,4068,140,4107,12640,1347],"class_list":["post-54573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-a-tippling-philosopher","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-alleged-resurrection-contradictions","tag-anti-theism","tag-atheism","tag-atheist-biblical-exegesis","tag-atheists-the-bible","tag-atheists-theology","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-non-contradictory-biblical-numbers","tag-resurrection-of-jesus"],"yoast_head":"\n