Matthew 28:1-10 versus John 20:1 and 2

Matthew 28:1-10 says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John 20:1 and 2 say that when she came to the tomb and didn’t find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn’t know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn’t.

How can this be reconciled?

 

Since it has been a while, perhaps someone new looking in may have an idea.

 

Well, I know Peter was very jealous about Mary Magdalene's relationship with Jesus. Jesus taught her things about subjects like reincarnation and meditation that were not taught to the others. Probably because they were not ready for it. Maybe John was also a bit jealous of her, so bent the truth?

 

Care to tell the rest of us how you KNOW that Jesus taught Mary about "reincarnation and meditation"?

 

Now read the rest of chapter 20.

 

I have. What am I supposed to take from it with regard to this topic?

 

He's talking about the gnostic texts. I guess he's a Gnostic.

 

The key aspects of both stories are there.

What form of reconciliation are you looking for?

If you're looking for a perfect recounting of historical events, the Bible never promises this. The Bible states it isn't a history book a dozen times?

 

So why are we supposed to believe any claimed historical event recounted in the Bible that does not have outside corroboration?

 

Much of it is from various channeled works, such as "A course in Miracles", one of my favorite spiritual works. Ultimately, it states that reincarnation is impossible, because there is no time, no past, no future. Our lives, every life, and everything that has or ever will exist, is all simply god. Everyone you see around you is god experiencing itself from every conceivable point of view, through the illusion of time and separation. Ultimately, we are reincarnated infinite times, in every life that ever existed, because all of it is simply God. So the concept of reincarnation is useful, because in our perception of the illusion, that is what is happening, though in reality, it is just god experiencing himself in infinite ways. Meditation is a way of aligning to the truth of what is going on.

This passage in the Gospel of Mary also seems to hint in this direction, from page 7:

"Then will [matter] be [destroyed], or not?"

The Savior said, "Every nature, every form, every creature exists in and with each other, but they'll dissolve again into their own roots, because the nature of matter dissolves into its nature alone. Anyone who has ears to hear should hear!"

- Page 7, gospel of Mary Magdalene.

 

Matthew 28:1-10 appears to be a summary, and not a completely accurate one. The author is lumping together the angel that opened the tomb in the night with the angel that later talked to Mary Magdalene in the morning. Why would the author do this? For shortness, to not go on with unnecessarily excessive detail. Because back then everything had to be written by hand, a laborious task. But this still does not really have much to do with the alleged contradiction you are pointing to.

John 20:1-2 says:
"Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!'"

But you need to read the rest, verses 3 to 18. Mary Magdalene ran back to the tomb, for a second time.
She reached the tomb first, and that's when she saw two individuals, who we can presume must have been angels, and then also saw Jesus.

So there is no conflict there.

Matthew seems to give a different account in the sense that the two women met Jesus running on the way back from the tomb after talking to the angel, whereas John's account makes it seem like she turned around after talking to the angel and saw Jesus standing behind her.

Then Matthew states that the angel told the women that Jesus was going ahead of them to meet the disciples in Galilee. More likely it may probably have been Jesus himself who told that to the women, in actuality, although John omits that specific part.
It seems to me more likely that Matthew's account is the one that got a little mixed up or tried to oversimplify things.

 

Why are you using the Bible as history book? And why does the accuracy matter to you so much? Is this shaking your faith? Or are you just an atheist or socialist Gnostic here to mock the Bible?

What's your angle?

The Bible never claims historical accuracy. (For example, all the good kings reigned for 40 years . . . ) The Bible is pretty blunt in not trying to hide its inaccuracies. Luke mentions the other writings about Jesus and proceeds to say he wants to present an "orderly" account which implies the others at the time were not. Generally speaking, once you get out of the first bit of Genesis, the major events are likely to have happened. When I say major, I mean the Jews likely left Egypt, not necessarily by the Red Sea. There were likely not more than a 2 million of them. I would say a band of thousands or tens of thousands is far more likely. They likely invaded Palestine and settled in. Etc. etc.

Gnosticism is rampant in Christianity. So, many "Christians" believe the writers were zapped by a light in the sky, their eyes rolled into the back of their heads and they started scribbling madly in perfect script onto a scroll of fine Papyrus. This is what the pagans and Gnostics did and believed.

In fact, the Bible is quite different. For example, the books of Esther and Jonah are very clearly satires which may have been inspired by real life peoples and events but likely didn't happen. The Bible doesn't hide this. The Bible doesn't lie and say these stories are 100% accurate descriptions of historical events. Yet, certain gnostic Christians tend to insist on this flat view of the Bible. And then atheists and gnostic socialists like to insist on this interpretation so that they can mock the Bible.

But before I continue, I want to know you angle. Why is this important to you?

 

I'm an atheist.

My "angle" here is to get more people to critically look at the Bible and their beliefs. As many more prominent atheists before me have said (and my own personal experience can attest to) the best way to make a person an atheist is to have them actually read the Bible.

 

You know what I find funny? This question about an alleged "inconsistency" could have easily been resolved if the first poster had bothered actually looking through the scriptures in Matthew and John, and reading the full chapters -- the full description of the events it is talking about. And then giving it a little basic thought.

But instead it seems the first responses in this thread immediately jumped to Gnostic gospels and the Book of Mary (which are considered heretical by mainstream Christianity).

I notice that Atheists and Bible-haters seem to love Gnosticism.

 

The Catholic Church would have a much better answer for you on that than most protestants. Because it was not only written down but came through a line of oral tradition and succession. Large numbers of people believed it was true even in the first 40 years after it happened. (I doubt you will find many serious historians who would disagree with that claim)

But for that reason, moreover, how can we really trust any ancient historical record?
The reason people are specifically skeptical of the Gospels is because the story involves supernatural miracles, and, if it were true, it would require a very significant personal change in the way individuals carry out life.

 

Supernatural claims do require a level of evidence that is not provided...but even then just the historical narrative is weak. There are many things talked about in the Bible that we know today, from an historical perspective, just are not true.

 

I don't need Gnostic gospels to disbelieve what is in the Bible.

 

That is debatable. You shouldn't make a claim like that without a link to another thread about that specific claim.

It's true supernatural claims require a much higher threshold of evidence, but would you at least be willing to accept the parts of the story that do not necessitate supernatural events as likely being true? For example, Jesus existed, Jesus was killed on a cross, the body went missing, etc.
Maybe even accept the claim that Mary Magdalene likely may have told the disciples that she saw some supernatural things when she went to the tomb.

If the Bible were about something else, secular historians would have accepted it as a historical narrative. A record that was likely mostly true, even if they had doubts about the reliability of every last detail. For example, mainstream historians accept the account of Josephus as mostly true.

That's all I am going to say. You seem to be trying to change the topic.
Allegations are easy to make, but it takes too many words to put up a defense against them.
So please stop making any claims like that which are off topic from the original subject of the thread, because no one is going to bother arguing with you.

 

Reading the Bible shouldn't cause anyone to be atheist.

What happens is usually the following:

1. Someone grows up in the church or in a "Christian" family and is told a bunch of lies about what the Bible is. They are told such things like it is perfect and without error. Everything in the Bible happened exactly as it says it did. The Bible is perfectly preserved. They are also taught to hold and use the Bible like a talisman.

2. They find out what they've been told is a bunch of rubbish.

Now there's a split.

3a. The person never had any interest in the first place. Church and religion were always a means to an end.

3b. The person willfully denies that what he was told growing up is rubbish, doubles down, and repeats the rubbish.

3c. The person completely rejects the Bible and follows another religious/philosophical tradition - Islam, Hinduism, atheism, etc.

3d. The person accepts the Bible for what it is and continues to study and follow the faith with renewed understanding.

The atheism occurs many times because the difference between what the Bible is and what they were told it is is so great the betrayal causes people to want to have nothing to do with the ones who betrayed trust by telling such lies to young children.

 

You are exactly right. We have four Gospels from four different aspects with emphasis on different points.

 

In the form of a scriptural explanation for the seeming contradictory accounts with regard to Mary M's trip to the tomb.

 

Years ago I read that accounts of the Resurrection read like eye witness accounts of automobile accidents: they differed in the details.

 

There are many seeming contradictions in the Bible. I just ignore them and chalk it up to my own lack of understanding. And I don't allow it to complicate what I do know, which is that God is real, that he lives, and is divine. You don't stop loving and honoring your Father, just because he says or does something you don't understand or seems contrary to his former counsel. Many people jump on these inconsistencies and say aha, it is gibberish and there is no God. But that is simply them from the start. They are strangers to God and are often playing to an audience.

 

So are you saying that they can't be reconciled?

 

No, I'm saying that maybe some day I will understand them, just like scriptures that don't make sense to me on the up front.