![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/12\/JesusResurrection.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 9 of my book (available for free<\/strong>\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved<\/em><\/a>. See the\u00a0Introduction<\/a>\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n In Hebrew idiom, the phrase \u201cone day and one night\u201d meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated. We see this, for example, in 1 Samuel 30:12-13 (cf. Gen. 42:17-18). We know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday because Scripture tells us that the Sabbath (Saturday) as approaching (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31). The \u201cday of preparation\u201d is Friday, the day before the Sabbath: Saturday, and the Sabbath was considered to begin on sundown on Friday, as with Jews to this day. We also know from the biblical data that the discovery of his Resurrection was on a Sunday (Mark 16:1-2, 9; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). And we know that \u201cthree days and three nights\u201d (Matt. 12:40) is synonymous in the Hebrew mind and the Bible with \u201cafter three days\u201d (Mark 8:31) and \u201con the third day\u201d (Matt. 16:21; 1 Cor. 15:4). Most references to the Resurrection say that it happened on<\/em>\u00a0the\u00a0third<\/em>\u00a0day. In John 2:19-22, Jesus said that he would be raised up\u00a0in<\/em>\u00a0three days (not on the\u00a0fourth<\/em>\u00a0day). It would be like saying, \u201cThis is the third day I\u2019ve been working on painting this room.\u201d I could have started painting late Friday and made this remark on early Sunday.<\/p>\n For both the ancient Jews (6 PM to 6 PM days) and Romans (who reckoned days from midnight to midnight), the way to refer to three separate 24-hour days (in whole or in part) was to say, \u201cdays and nights.\u201d We speak similarly in English idiom \u2013 just without adding the \u201cnights\u201d part. For example, we will say that we are off for a long weekend vacation, of \u201cthree days of fun\u201d (Friday through Sunday or Saturday through Monday). But it is understood that this is not three full 24-hour days. Chances are we will depart part way through the first day and return before the third day ends. For a Saturday through Monday vacation, then, if we leave at 8 AM on Saturday and return at 10 PM on Monday night, literally that is less than three full days (it would be two 24-hour days and 14 more hours: ten short of three full days). Yet we speak of a \u201cthree-day vacation\u201d and that we returned \u201cafter three days\u201d or \u201con the third day.\u201d Such descriptions are casually understood as non-literal. The ancient Jews and Romans simply added the clause \u201cand nights\u201d to such utterances, but understood them in the same way, as referring to any part of a whole 24-hour day. Thus the supposed \u201cproblem\u201d or so-called \u201cbiblical contradiction\u201d vanishes.<\/p>\n There was no stone yet in Luke 23:55 because this referred to the time when Jesus was placed in the tomb (see 23:53-54). When women went back two days later, they found the stone rolled away (24:1-2). John 19:41 simply doesn\u2019t mention the stone, but in John 20:1 we learn that there was one, which was rolled away. Therefore, all four Gospels \u2014 taken together \u2014 note that the tomb had a stone in front of it, which was rolled away. This is not contradiction; rather, it\u2019s complete harmony.<\/p>\n All it takes is one person, who communicated it to one or more of the evangelists or to oral traditions that helped formulate the Gospels. Two prime candidates were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both Pharisees and followers of, or sympathetic to Jesus. The meeting included \u201cthe Pharisees,\u201d after all. Simply because we can\u2019t\u00a0determine<\/em>\u00a0this with certainty from the texts\u00a0alone<\/em>, doesn\u2019t mean or logically follow that there\u00a0were<\/em>\u00a0none, or that this person or persons could not have communicated it. All it would take is one person at the meeting who was a follower of Jesus, or later converted to Christianity. This is not at all implausible.<\/p>\n The argument from silence doesn\u2019t prove anything, and saying nothing about a particular event can\u2019t possibly be contradictory to statements about said event because it has no\u00a0content<\/em>. Mark, Luke, and John would have to state something like \u201cno guard was ever<\/em> placed at the tomb\u201d for this to be a\u00a0real<\/em>\u00a0contradiction. And of course, they do no such thing. Therefore, it\u2019s yet another pseudo-, bogus \u201ccontradiction.\u201d One would think that\u00a0logic<\/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.<\/p>\n Matthew didn\u2019t mention Salome. So what? That\u2019s of no relevance. In light of Luke, we can conclude that several women (more than the two Marys) saw the empty tomb (though not necessarily the risen Jesus). None of this is inexorably contradictory. Mary Magdalene could have told these other women about the tomb and also the fact that she had seen the risen Jesus. This implies repeated trips to witness the empty tomb, which was easy because it was right outside of town. As for John, he may be describing an earlier, initial visit by Mary Magdalene alone: perhaps indicated by \u201cwhile it was still dark.\u201d Then she went again with others. The text never states that \u201conly Mary\u201d went to the tomb, or that \u201cMary alone and no other woman\u201d did so. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.\u00a0 As it is, no contradiction has been established.<\/p>\n Quite obviously, Mary Magdalene made an earlier pre-dawn visit, which appears to be the very first visit. It doesn\u2019t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Later on, several other women visited, along with her. But many skeptics seem to have the odd, inexplicable view that no one could have possibly visited Jesus\u2019 tomb (where the greatest miracle in history had just occurred) more than once.<\/p>\n It is readily observed also that the women saw the stone already rolled away when they arrived, as reported in Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1. So how does the believer in biblical inspiration explain away what seems at first glance to be a glaring contradiction in Matthew\u2019s account? Well, as is often the case and necessity, one has to examine the Greek word(s) involved and also the tense. Matthew employs an aorist participle, translated in some English versions in the English past perfect tense. For example, Weymouth states that an angel \u201chad\u00a0come and rolled back the stone\u201d; Young\u2019s Literal Translation has \u201chaving come,\u00a0did\u00a0roll away the stone.\u201d New American Standard Bible \/ Amplified Bible:\u00a0\u201cearthquake\u00a0had occurred\u201d; Williams: \u201cNow there\u00a0had been\u00a0a great earthquake\u201d; Wuest:\u00a0\u201can angel of the Lord\u00a0having descended\u00a0out of heaven and\u00a0having come\u00a0. . .\u201d It\u2019s true that this is a minority of translations, but it\u2019s significant, and shows that such a rendering is quite possible and permissible, according to the informed and educated judgment of these language scholars \/ translators. Moreover, the translations of Young, Wuest, and the Amplified Bible were specifically designed to bring out the\u00a0precise and exact meaning<\/em>\u00a0of the Greek, including the sense of tense.<\/p>\n There were two angels (they are often called \u201cmen\u201d in Holy Scripture) or more present in or near the tomb: as specifically affirmed in Luke 24:3-4 and John 20:12. Or Matthew was referring to the specific time when the stone was actually rolled away. As explained over and over in this book, different accounts do not contradict unless they explicitly rule out any other event than what they describe. In this instance, there could have been one angel inside the tomb, and later, two; the same for outside the tomb, or one angel could be seen in the tomb and a second hidden from the observer, etc. Any number of scenarios are logically possible, and logical inconsistency cannot be proven.<\/p>\n Matthew and Luke are non-contradictory.\u00a0 The third statement is a well-known atheist canard, but it presupposes that Mark ends with that verse. It does not. It continues on to verse 20.\u00a0Mark 16:9-20 is a disputed text among many Christians. That discussion is too complex and involved to delve into here, but if one accepts the arguments for the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20, then it\u2019s consistent with the other Gospels and doesn\u2019t contradict them. Even the words \u201cthey said nothing to any one, for they were afraid\u201d (16:8) suggested only a\u00a0temporary state<\/em>, out of initial fear.<\/p>\n John 20:17 in KJV, which this particular atheist skeptic utilizes, has the phrase \u201cTouch me not\u201d. But that\u2019s an unfortunate translation. RSV has \u201cDo not hold me.\u201d Baptist linguist A. T. Robertson, in his volume,\u00a0Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>\u00a0(1930) explains it:<\/p>\n Touch me not<\/strong>\u00a0(mh mou aptou<\/em>). 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<\/em>) and worship (prosekunhsan<\/em>) as we read in\u00a0Matthew 28:9.<\/p>\n Hence, almost all modern English translations have \u201chold\u201d or \u201ccling\u201d or suchlike. And with this clarification, the supposed contradiction vanishes.<\/p>\n In Matthew 28:10, Jesus tells his disciples to \u201cgo and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.\u201d The disciples\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0see Jesus in Galilee after he was risen (Matt. 28:16-17; John 21:1). In Luke 24:49\u00a0<\/strong>Jesus told them to \u201cstay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.\u201d This is \u201capples and oranges.\u201d Matthew is talking about post-Resurrection appearances. Luke\u2019s passage, on the other hand, which describes what occurred after<\/em> what Matthew described, has to do with the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which happened right in Jerusalem. It\u2019s described by the same writer, Luke, in Acts 2:1-4 (cf. language of Luke 1:35; 9:1; see also the related passage Acts 1:8). In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascends to heaven. Likewise, in Luke 24:51, He ascends to heaven. Both passages describe the same event, and are written by the same author. Matthew and Luke + Acts, then, refer to completely different things. But it\u2019s fascinating that this couplet is somehow\u00a0thought<\/em>\u00a0to be a contradiction, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n \u201cSome [not all] doubted\u201d (as Matt. 28:17 states), and for a time, yes. It was the typical human skepticism regarding miracles, among \u201csome\u201d of the disciples. The enemies of Jesus believed no such thing<\/em>. They called Jesus an \u201cimpostor\u201d (Matt. 27:63) and the gospel and Christianity a \u201cfraud\u201d (27:64). They were worried that the disciples would \u201cgo and steal him away\u201d (27:64) and fake his Resurrection, which is why they asked for a guard in front of the tomb. I search in vain for any \u201ccontradiction\u201d here. It\u2019s literally impossible for it to be a contradiction because this is referring to two completely different groups of men. What it actually<\/em> is (if the challenge were actually accurate<\/em>: which it isn\u2019t<\/em>) is a failed attempt to establish a significant oddity or anomaly (Pharisees believing in Jesus while his own disciples doubted him). The problem is that it does so by making a false blanket statement about the disciples and an equally untrue description of the Pharisees and their allies. This won\u2019t do. It\u2019s lousy, if not outright dishonest, argumentation. Seeking in vain to embarrass Christians and to mock the Bible, they only embarrass themselves, which is only poetic justice, from where we sit.<\/p>\n The two attributes aren\u2019t mutually exclusive. One can be both bold and operate in secret. Every special forces raid is of such a nature, as is every clandestine espionage assignment. It was \u201cbold\u201d to ask Pilate (not the nicest guy) this, whether it was in secret or not. This is a classic example of a desperate, trumped-up alleged \u201ccontradiction.\u201d But I can assure everyone that it\u2019s authentic. Some skeptic came up with this. I didn\u2019t invent it.<\/p>\n These things aren\u2019t mutually exclusive. Matthew merely adds the information that it was Joseph\u2019s\u00a0own<\/em>\u00a0planned tomb. Someone\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0asserting a thing consistent <\/em>with what it does<\/em> assert, doesn\u2019t contradict another\u00a0asserting<\/em>\u00a0that same thing.<\/p>\n This presupposes that the women knew<\/em> there was a guard. They had observed Jesus being placed in the tomb on Friday (Mark 15:46-47; Matt. 27:57-61), but the guard was not posted till Saturday, the \u201cnext day\u201d (Matt. 27:62).<\/p>\n In Mark 16:8, the risen Jesus had not yet been seen. But Mark 16:9-10 asserts: \u201che appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him.\u201d Elsewhere I argued that Mary Magdalene first saw the risen Jesus earlier in the morning on Sunday. Matthew doesn\u2019t declare that the women \u201cimmediately\u201d told the disciples. It states, \u201cthey departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples\u201d (28:8). Therefore, a gap in time is possible<\/em> that is harmonious with the data of Mark 16:8-10 and an earlier visit by Mary Magdalene. Likewise, Luke 24:10 reports that they \u201ctold this to the apostles\u201d with no indication that it was \u201cimmediate.\u201d No undeniable contradiction can be asserted, based on the false premise in the charge regarding Mark\u2019s account, and the fact that all three accounts imply, prima facie<\/em>, in my opinion, that the disciples were told fairly soon.<\/p>\n The account in Mark is an example of what is called\u00a0\u201ccompression\u201d or \u201ctelescoping\u201d: literary techniques which were common, especially in ancient literature, and sometimes appear in the Bible. The text simply \u201cjumps\u201d to a future occurrence. It\u2019s obvious that the disciples weren\u2019t indoors watching the Ascension, for how could they see Jesus being \u201ctaken up into heaven\u201d if so (Mark 16:19)? The present-day Bethany is located on<\/em> the Mount of Olives, a little less than a mile from the Chapel of the Ascension. But Bible commentators note that it was the district<\/em> of Bethany being referred to in Luke 24:50, which included the Mount of Olives. There was both a town and a district, just as is the case of my own present town in Michigan, which has a township around it with the same name. It was a system of toparchies, dating from the reign of Solomon We know this from the Old Testament, which contains (in RSV) the word \u201cdistrict\u201d eighteen times in four different books (1 Kings; 2 Chron., Neh., Ezek.), including \u201cdistrict of Jerusalem\u201d (Neh. 3:9, 12). Of particular note is Ezekiel 45:7, which refers to \u201cthe land on both sides of the holy\u00a0<\/strong>district\u00a0and the property of the city . . .\u201d And in the New Testament, references to \u201cdistrict\u201d (in Israel) occur six times in Matthew and Luke (e.g., \u201cdistrict\u00a0of Caesarea Philippi\u201d: Matt. 16:13). Mark 8:27 also references the \u201cvillages\u00a0of Caesarea Philippi.\u201d<\/p>\n What an odd choice of example, since \u201cchief priests and the scribes stood by\u201d (Luke 23:10) as did Herod\u2019s \u201csoldiers\u201d (Luke 23:11). All it would take was one or two of these (perhaps one who was a Christian or later became one) to report about this encounter, which entered into either oral tradition or directly into one of the Gospels. But as it is,\u00a0Luke records<\/em>\u00a0not a single word<\/em>\u00a0that Herod said (so much for an absurdly alleged \u201cremarkably well-preserved\u201d verbal account); he only notes that \u201che questioned him at some length\u201d (Luke 23:9). Since only Luke reports this incident, there was no secret or \u201cmiraculous\u201d knowledge involved. All that is reported is that Herod questioned Jesus. We\u2019re supposed to believe that no follower of Jesus could have\u00a0possibly<\/em>\u00a0known that that happened? It\u2019s ridiculous. It took only one follower to follow the irate persecuting crowds with Jesus from a distance and see them enter into Herod\u2019s palace.<\/p>\n Luke 23:56 doesn\u2019t assert this. It says they \u201creturned [back home], and prepared spices and ointments.\u201d Then they brought them to the tomb on Sunday (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). Pondering this sterling example, one wonders whether this biblical skeptic even\u00a0read<\/em>\u00a0the passages in his or her zealous rush to find a \u201cgotcha!\u201d contradiction to embarrass Christians with. This one abysmally fails as an objection, and so do all the others detailed in this book.<\/p>\n In Luke it was because they (just two of them, not \u201cthe disciples\u201d) \u201csupposed that they saw a spirit\u201d: an event which almost always causes fear in recorded instances in Scripture. Then Jesus showed them his hands and feet (24:39) and they settled down. The text gives no indication of this being the first time they saw the risen Jesus. In John (a different incident, and seemingly the first time, in context) they were glad for the same reason: because he \u201cshowed them his hands and his side\u201d: quickly proving that he was Jesus, so they wouldn\u2019t be afraid. The text informs us: \u201cThen<\/em> the disciples were glad . . .\u201d No contradiction exists, once the texts are actually analyzed and examined more closely (which the atheist skeptics, alas, never seem to have the time and\/or desire to do).<\/p>\n Mark and Luke don\u2019t\u00a0deny<\/em>\u00a0that Jesus\u2019 body was anointed. If they don\u2019t, there is no necessary contradiction. I submit that the women simply weren\u2019t\u00a0aware<\/em>\u00a0that at least some spices had been applied (as indicated in John 19:39-40). In any event, no contradiction has been proven.<\/p>\n What happened is (humorously) explained right in the challenge! The women failed to see that Jesus\u2019 body was prepared with spices, because the Sabbath was quickly approaching (John 19:42) \u2014 during which time this work would be disallowed \u2013, so that they probably concluded that there hadn\u2019t been enough\u00a0time<\/em>\u00a0for such preparation. The women saw that Jesus was laid out with a linen shroud (Luke 23:53-55), but wouldn\u2019t necessarily know if he had been anointed with spices. Therefore, they prepared the spices and ointments (23:56) and returned after the Sabbath to apply them (24:1).<\/p>\n Because, as the same passage states, she \u201csaw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.\u201d An angel had already removed the stone and as a result, \u201cthe guards trembled and became like dead men\u201d (Matt. 28:4). Presumably they also\u00a0fled<\/em>\u00a0as a result (likely for fear of their lives, for the penalty for not properly guarding something was death in Roman law); therefore, Mary didn\u2019t see them.<\/p>\n Luke 24:12 is a disputed verse, not found in the earliest manuscripts, which is why RSV doesn\u2019t even include it. In other words, it can\u2019t be considered as part of the New Testament. Therefore, it\u2019s irrelevant to the discussion of consistency of accounts or reputed lack thereof.<\/p>\n John refers to Mary\u2019s pre-dawn visit alone, and doesn\u2019t refer to multiple \u201cwomen\u201d (the alleged charge is incorrect in that way), but only to Mary Magdalene. Mark and Luke refer to another visit of Mary Magdalene with other women (Mary the mother of James, and Salome: Mark 16:1, and \u201cJoanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them\u201d: Luke 24:10), when (unlike Mary\u2019s first visit) they did enter the tomb. It\u2019s different things happening at different times and hence, no contradiction. I know it must be frustrating for the skeptic (who is convinced of massive biblical \u201ccontradictions\u201d yet can never find an undeniable one), but logic is what it is. I didn\u2019t make it up.<\/p>\n I propose that John records a pre-dawn Sunday visit by Mary Magdalene, which was the first recorded post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to anyone. She returned later with other women and they all saw him. But the text in Matthew doesn\u2019t claim that this was the first time she <\/em>saw the risen Jesus.<\/p>\n Mark doesn\u2019t say one way or the other. The others don\u2019t indicate that their account was the \u201cfirst\u201d appearance, so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a \u201ccontradiction\u201d impossible to undeniably construct).<\/p>\n John\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0makes it clear that it was \u201cearly, while it was still\u00a0dark<\/em>\u201d (20:1). The same \u201cdark\u201d scenario is described in 21:4: \u201cJust as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.\u201d<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t rolled away so Jesus could \u201cget out,\u201d but rather, to be a graphic visual demonstration that he rose from the dead.<\/p>\n Acts doesn\u2019t claim that that is the entire number of Christians in the world; only the amount in that place, who were living together. It\u2019s sheer speculation to assert otherwise. Jesus appeared for forty days after he rose again (Acts 1:3), and so 500 Christians could have easily existed by the end of that period, seeing how wildly enthusiastic the early Christians were to spread the Good News of his Resurrection. 500 doesn\u2019t contradict 120, as long as the latter is not stated to be the sum total of all Christians. Paul doesn\u2019t say 500 is the grand total, either.<\/p>\n In 1 Corinthians, either it was after the departed (and dead) Judas\u2019 replacement with Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), so there were again twelve, or the title \u201ctwelve\u201d was being used as a description of the group, which is done several times in the New Testament (including in John 20:24). Matthew 28 describes a time right before Jesus\u2019 Ascension, before Judas had been replaced. Hence, \u201celeven\u201d is used in the text (including Thomas). John uses \u201ctwelve\u201d as the group title, even though Judas had by then departed, and there would have been literally eleven disciples, and ten without Thomas (John 20:24 again). No problem here (as always). In English usage, we also sometimes describe groups with a certain number, which isn\u2019t literal. For example, the Big Ten Conference in NCAA (college) football actually has fourteen members. It began with ten. Yet it continues to be called \u201cBig Ten\u201d and not \u201cBig Fourteen.\u201d Is that a \u201ccontradiction\u201d? No; it\u2019s not literal, figurative usage, and non-literal language in a well-known established title. And so it was like this with the disciples in some passages, because they were first (and famously) numbered twelve.<\/p>\n This is one of the more bizarre charges (and, like all of these, was actually brought up by a real, live atheist (whose name shall be kept secret for the sake of charity). Right after<\/em> Paul noted that Jesus was buried, he added, \u201che was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time . . .\u201d (1 Cor, 15:4-6). In Colossians 2:12 he states that \u201cGod, . . . raised him from the dead.\u201d That is an empty tomb. He already mentioned that he was buried. In order to rise from the dead and to appear to others in many different places, the tomb necessarily (by virtue of logic) had to be empty. In Acts 13:29-31 Paul wrote: \u201cthey took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.\u00a0But God raised him from the dead;\u00a0and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem . . .\u201d There\u2019s the tomb: specifically mentioned. And if Jesus appeared risen in Galilee, he could hardly have still been in his tomb, could he? This is an exceedingly odd<\/em> objection. There are many many more references to Jesus\u2019 Resurrection in Paul\u2019s writings (Acts 17:2-3, 30-31; 26:22-23; Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:3-8, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8).<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians doesn\u2019t claim that he \u201cfirst\u201d appeared to Cephas, but that he appeared to him before he appeared to the other disciples: a completely different proposition. Peter is singled out as a witness not because he was the absolutely first person to see the risen Jesus, but rather, because he was the leader of the disciples and the early church (see the first half of the book of Acts). Mark 16:9 actually does expressly affirm that Mary Magdalene was the \u201cfirst.\u201d And so she was. John\u2019s account is consistent with that notion. Does Matthew contradict this because of the second Mary? Not necessarily. Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages. For example, maybe \u201cthe other Mary\u201d happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly \u201cmet them\u201d, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of his appearing to her, except with another woman, too. Luke 24 has the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus. Nothing definitely indicates they were the first; indeed, they could not have been because other Gospels record Mary Magdalene and the other Mary seeing Jesus early in the morning on the first Easter Sunday, whereas in this account it is said that the time was \u201ctoward evening\u201d with the day being \u201cfar spent\u201d (24:29). Acts states that the disciples were in the select group to whom Jesus appeared, as opposed to \u201call the people.\u201d But it doesn\u2019t say they were\u00a0absolutely the first<\/em>, and doesn\u2019t therefore rule out Mary Magdalene being the first person, which is expressly stated in Mark. Conclusion?: all of these passages are perfectly harmonious and pose no problem for biblical infallibility or self-consistent accuracy and trustworthiness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***** Photo Credit<\/strong>: Resurrection of Christ<\/i>, by Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572)<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/ Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution 3.0 Unported<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Ch. 9 of Dave Armstrong\u2019s book, \u201cInspired!\u201d: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapter 9 of my book (available for free\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the\u00a0Introduction\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted. **** How could Jesus be killed on a Friday and rise from the dead on Sunday, when Matthew 12:40 states: \u201cso will the Son of man […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":78317,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[172],"tags":[2519,1472,9024,2637,18260,18266],"class_list":["post-78314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-alleged-biblical-contradictions","tag-atheists-the-bible","tag-biblical-inerrancy","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-inspired-191-supposed-biblical-contradictions-resolved","tag-jesus-burial-resurrection"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*<\/p>\n