>> OK - here is a really simple question. In Matthew chapter 4 and Luke
>> chapter 4 Jesus is tempted in the wilderness after his Baptism. Both
>> gospels describe in almost identical detail the three temptations, but
>> they list them in a different order. This is an apparent
>> contradiction. In a bible written by fallible human beings such
>> contradictions would be expected, and immaterial to the overall
>> message. In an infallible Bible such a contradiction would cast doubt
>> on the veracity and reliability of the whole scripture.

> On the other hand, I find such differences comforting.

Roy, what convinces you that the Bible is inerrant? What would conceivably convince you otherwise?

> For example, we have no problem accepting differing accounts from rival
> news media ..... the news story remains the same even if the reports
> take different perspectives or convey different details.

What you are trying to do, is maintain, that like differing news reports, the differing accounts in the Bible don't contain errors. That's a bad example; newspapers and other media often provide incorrect information.

A similar line that is often submitted, is that witnesses in a court will provide different accounts of an event. Same thing; some won't be telling the truth. While the recollections of some are coloured, others will lie.

> Like the replays of different camera angles of a football try, we are
> enriched with greater understanding of the event.

I prefer the ads.

Would you provide for us, an 'enriched' accounts of events surrounding the morning of the alleged resurrection, addressing the following points:

1. Who went to the tomb; was it Mary Magdelene (John 20:1), Mary Magdelene and the other Mary (Mat 28:1), Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1) or Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women - a total of at least five (Luke 24:10)?

2. Were they taking aromatic oils/spices and perfumes (Mk/Lk) to administer to Jesus' body (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1), or was it that they "came to look at the grave", (Mat 28:1 NEB)?

3. Did they need to anoint the body that morning (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1), or had that already been done when the body was wrapped, along with more than - take note - fifty pounds of spices (John 19:39)?

4. Were the spices, for the Sunday morning anointing, purchased before the Sabbath (Luke 23:56) or after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1)?

5. Was it just after sunrise when Mary of Magdala came to the tomb (Mark 16:2 NEB) or was it still dark when she (and others) came to the tomb (John 20:1 NEB)?

6. Was the tomb open (Luke 24:2) or closed (Mat 28:1-2) when the women arrived?

7. Was the angelic instruction a reminder that Jesus would go on before them into Galilee (75 miles away), where they should go and meet him (Mark 16:7, Mat 28:7) or was it a variation, a reminder of what Jesus allegedly told them when he was still in Galilee, with no suggestion that they should leave Jerusalem (Luke 24:6)?

Note: If keen, you can provide the 'enriched' story of the disciples obediently departing to Galilee (Matthew) while obediently remaining in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49).

8. Was Mary Magdelene first made aware of Jesus' resurrection when she saw him (John 20:13,14) or was it when the angels made the announcement that he was alive (Mat 28:5-7, Mark 16:6-7, Luke 24:6-7)?

9. Was the resurrected Jesus first encountered at the tomb (John 20:13,14), after they left the tomb (Mark 16:9, Mat 28:9), some time later (Mark 16:8) or after the women reported to the eleven (Luke 24:10)?

10. Whom did they see at the tomb; was it a flying angel (Mat 28:2), a young man (Mark 16:5), two men (Luke 24:4) or two angels (John 20:11-12)?

11. Were these men/angels inside the tomb (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12) or outside the tomb (Mat 28:2)?

12. Were they standing (Luke 24:4) or were they sitting (Mat 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12)?

13. Did the women report these events to the other disciples (Luke 24:8-9) or did they not (Mark 16:8)?

14. Did Mary Magdelene recognise Jesus when he first appeared (Mat 28:9) or did she not (John 20:14)?

15. Was Mary permitted to touch Jesus when he first appeared (Mat 28:9) or was she not (John 20;17)?

16. Did Jesus first appear to the two Marys (Mat 28:1,9), to Mary Magdelene alone (Mark 16:9, John 20:14-18) or to Cleopas and a companion (Luke 24:13-31)?

17. Who told the women that Jesus had risen? Was it the angel outside the tomb (Mat 28:5-6), the man on the right side, inside the tomb (Mark 16:5-6), two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:5-6) or Jesus himself (John 20:16)?

18. After discovering the empty tomb, did Mary report back with grave news that Jesus' body had been stolen (John 20:2) or the joyous news that he had risen (Mat 28:8)?

This testimony lies at the very heart of Christianity. Please don't waste time trying to rationalise just a few of the points. The world is still waiting for the 'enriched' story of the resurrection, not painfully contrived snippets.

> There're news items are given greater credibility as there is less
> likelihood of collusion. We know that any eyewitness could correct any
> poor reporting as was yesterday's case between Kennet and Carr over the
> management of NSW fire fighting services.

There is no guarantee that we always get the right news. You must remember that the gospels were not written in the geographical locations where the events allegedly transpired. You might ask yourself why that was the case. Also the spread of the gospels would have been a slow process. It would be about three hundred years before three or four biblical books would be bound together. The growth of Christianity followed a similar progress. They didn't have radio, TV, newspapers and the internet. About the time the gospels were being written, Jerusalem was undergoing its destruction and would neither be too aware nor care about, what would be regarded as, fictitious stories about some dead sage. As can be gleaned from the gospels, remarkable stories were common around the time of Jesus.

> Likewise, as the NT accounts were penned within the living memory of
> eyewitnesses, their silence on inaccurate NT accounts testify to the
> reality of the events concerning our Lord and Saviour.

So why didn't Judea adopt Christianity? Obviously the people in the best position to evaluate it, didn't believe it.

> Should any of the NT accounts be deliberately falsified, it would be
> foolhardy for anyone to fabricate, perpetuate and DIE for such lies.

Maybe yes, maybe no. To Mormons, Joseph Smith is considered a martyr. Do you believe that David Koresh and Jim Jones never lied to their followers? They're both dead, along with their followers.

Another assumption you seem to make is that the gospellers were providing independent accounts. It is now well recognised that Matthew used about 606 of the 661 verses of Mark in his gospel. Luke used about half that many from Mark. As you know, Mark was merely a companion of Paul. It wasn't collusion, it was plagiarism. Where they worked independently, there is a muddle of contradictions.

Yet a further assumption is that the stories of the martyred disciples are historical when actually, they are traditional.

Best Regards,

Sean McHugh