New answers tagged

4

Commentators who consider the Bible inerrant and attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy agree that Luke is simply omitting details that John includes. For example, James Burton Coffman writes: Here Luke abbreviated the whole incident so fully presented in John 20:1-9, omitting not only John's participation in it, but also, the fact of Peter's ...


1

As eminent a theologian as Archbishop Carnley, former Anglican primate of Australia, did not believe they could be reconciled literally, saying (The Structure of Resurrection Belief, page 47) that the reconciliation of all four accounts of the empty tomb must be based on the history of gospel development: The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of ...


0

They likely cannot be reconciled. The Church Fathers never maintained that Scripture is wholly without discrepancies. John Chrysostom (4th c.) stated that the very fact that there were occasional differences in recollections between the Evangelists was proof that the stories were not concocted. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their ...


0

To apprehend the theological meaning of this passage we need to take into account three data items: The isolated statement "I Am" (Ego Eimi), with which Jesus identifies Himself twice in the passage, appears in 4 previous verses in John's Gospel: «for unless you believe that I Am, you will die in your sins.» (Jn 8:24) «When you have lifted up ...


0

I will provide an answer which has a component of NT textual criticism, because it is based on a biblical verse whose text is contested: "No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (Jn 3:13) The ending who is in heaven is omitted in some old manuscripts of Alexandrian text-type (P66, P75, ...



Top 50 recent answers are included