Christians which is the real story of the resurrection?

Question

Is it Matthew 28:1-10 or is it John 20:1-18? Considering how much they differ they obviously cannot both be right. So which one is lying and why is it in the New Testament?

There are different accounts of who was there, where Jesus was, how many angels were present, the sequence of events etc...

The accounts are not slightly different, they are radically different. If you read both those accounts and come to the conclusion they are the same.....the only thing I have is WOW

Answer 1

Plenty of viable versions since Christianity is based totally on "belief." Christians can tell you their "belief" about creation, Jesus, and heaven/hell. One of these days they'll be telling us what happened before creation!

Answer 2

I cannot tell you who exactly was present at the resurrection of Jesus. But I believe that Mary Magalene was probably first, and then Peter probably followed. I believe that the angels were probably there on both occasions. We must realize that Matthew and John both wrote of this great event while under the enfluence of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that either one were lying, simply because they may mention different people who were present. The main thing that I am concerned about, and very thankful for, is that I know in my heart that Jesus most certainly came forth from the grave, remained upon the earth for forty days, was resurrected back up into Heaven, and that He is going to return again real soon to take back to Heaven, those who have believed upon Him, and repented of their sins. I do not allow little circumstances such as this, to cause me to stop believing the Bible whatsoever. The main thing that matters, is that we all repent of our sins, and allow Jesus to be both Savior and Lord of our life. If we do not do so, we will have much more to be concerned about than just who was present at the resurrection. Regardless of whether or not we with our feeble minds completely understand every little part of the Word of God, that make's it no less the truth from God. God's Word is infallable; in spite of what any of us may think of it. And what it says is what will stand when we stand before God's throne on the day of eternal judgment; which you can rest assured, is not that far away.

Answer 3

It's a real hoot watching some of these so-called Christians answering these questions.

gg said: "Matthew AND John were both apostles, so they were both there."

*** Neither Matthew nor John were apostles. The first gospel written was Mark, some time around the beginning of the 2nd century. Matthew and Luke were written years after that, both using Mark as a template, and adding in made-up situations to provide a vehicle for inserting 'sayings' into Jesus' mouth. The source of those 'sayings' was the 'Q-document', which seemed to have been a collection of wisdom from the Greek 'Cynic' school of philosophy, with a little bit of 'Stoic' stuff thrown in... and re-worked in accordance with attempts by some Jews to 'modernize' their religion.

John was written still later... but he apparently did not have access to the 'Q-document', so his stuff is even more discrepant that the other gospels.

None of the gospels were written by 'witnesses' to the supposed crucifixion; in fact, none of the first century writings give any indication of a 'historical' Jesus, at all.
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/puzzle1.htm

impossble_dream said: "I dont see how either have to be "wrong" accounts. John was an eyewitness so he is speaking from how events unfolded for him."

*** Again, John was not one of Jesus' posse, and certainly not a witness to the supposed crucifixion. Jon was not written until AFTER the beginning of the 2nd century... and more likely around 120... between 70 and 90 years AFTER the supposed events.

Kansas said: "for more info, read 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel."

*** Lee Stobel's book was thoroughly and devastatingly de-bunked by Earl Doherty, in his "CHALLENGING THE VERDICT: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ."
http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/ctvadvert.htm

Answer 4

There are actually 4 stories of the resurrection.....one in each gospel. christ actually DID rise from the dead, as there are numerous written testaments to that affect. All of them are "correct" but since translations and time have affected Scripture, they do appear to be "contradictory".

Chalk it up to the following:

Did you ever ask a few people about a memory of a specific event, and they all give you exactly the same story? Face it, human memory is fallable.

Matthew AND John were both apostles, so they were both there.

Answer 5

The two different stories are two eye-witness accounts from differing perspectives. They are both true. All the overlapping facts agree, just one witness saw a little more of one part, and the other winess saw more of the other. I'll give you a couple of examples:

1)If you go to the opera and sit on the right side, you'll see differently than if you sit on the left.

2)If you and 6 other people witness a car crash, all 6 people will tell about the yellow datsun colliding with the black BMW. But they will have seen it differently, and will have different parts of the story.

I challenge ANYONE to read both references and find one SIGNIFICANT difference in the basic facts.

Answer 6

It's not quite right to assume that one is "lying."

When CNN and Fox report on a given news event, and there are slight discrepancies in their respective reports, we would not accuse one of them of "lying." It's just human nature that two different people (or news outlets) would have slightly different versions of the same general event.

As for the Gospel stories of the Empty Tomb, here's what the study notes of my Bible have to say about them:

"The story of the empty tomb is found in both the Matthean and the Lucan traditions; John's version seems to be a fusion of the two."

Answer 7

John was written after Matthew to supplement the accounts found in the other Gospels. John has many things that were obviously based on gathering eye witnesses. There were more detail throughout His writtings.

Answer 8

Simple, Matthew wrote his gospel first (about 30-35 years) before John wrote his. When John wrote, he usually avoid material already told in Matthew, Mark and Luke (the three of them are about 90% the same - with including stories unique to their own work. He gives details and information not included by the others.For example, Mark tells us about both the Marys who went to the tomb and show it empty. John follows only Mary and also tells us that she went and show the empty tomb, but goes on to tell how she told the disciples, returned with them to the tomb, remained to see Jesus, and then went to tell the disciple again. John simply includes more details - most of which is not told in the others. Why repeat something that has already been told three times?

Answer 9

No one who wrote those stories was even around at the time. They're made up from legends that circulated after Jesus's death, with some wild imaginitive elements. Jesus didn't actually come back to life, but rumors persist, and those rumors got written down in different versions of the story.

Answer 10

okay, firstly you have to understand why the book of John was written. it was written much later than any of the other gospels and it's purpose was to fill in the blanks of the other historical accounts of Christ. I read both of those passages and see no contradiction, only that John was filling in the blanks, expanding on what had already been written so that we today might have a more clear picture.
for more info, read 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel

Answer 11

I dont see how either have to be "wrong" accounts. John was an eyewitness so he is speaking from how events unfolded for him. Does he need to account for who was with Mary? Does he need to record what she saw as well? He doesn't mention an earthquake, do we know she told him there was one? The writers of the Gospels write according to what THEY saw or what they were told to write. John didnt go to the tomb with Mary so I dont see why he would record everything she saw.