On another forum, there was a discussion where a big deal was made out of the resurrection account containing contradictions. It seemed that one member saw the contradictions as discrediting the resurrection, while the other saw them just as minor issues:
For Debate:
1. Are there contradictions in the resurrection account?
2. Do the contradictions discredit the resurrection or prove that the accounts are all false? Do you agree with the any of the two explanations that I quoted above? If not, how should these contradictions be viewed?
- Posted hereTRANSPONDER post_id=1136072 time=1700595964 user_id=15510 said:So essentially, whether you dismiss or deny it, the gospel resurrection claims are invalid, as they contradict
- Posted hereGoose post_id=1123673 time=1686074052 user_id=9670 said:You have pointed to (ad nauseam) what you see as contradictions, minor inaccuracies, omissions, etc. If I were to grant for the sake of argument every single one where would that leave us? Clearly you see these issues as sufficient to render the Gospels as generally unreliable. What you aren’t showing is why that is the case; why those issues force us to conclude they are generally unreliable. All I have to do, at this point, is counter argue that other ancient texts, thought to be generally reliable, also have contradictions, minor inaccuracies, omissions, etc. We are then left with either throwing out most of ancient history or accepting the Gospels along with other ancient texts as generally reliable.
For Debate:
1. Are there contradictions in the resurrection account?
2. Do the contradictions discredit the resurrection or prove that the accounts are all false? Do you agree with the any of the two explanations that I quoted above? If not, how should these contradictions be viewed?