The gospels contain many contradictions. For a set of stories that claim to all be completely true, eyewitness accounts there sure are a lot of differences. For those of you who may not know, the canon gospels consist of the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the most similar and are referred to as the synoptic gospels.

This chapter is going to be a long one because I am going to try and be as thorough as possible.

~~~~
First we will look at the last words of Jesus. It is generally taught that many people were at the crucifixion of Jesus and ultimately witnessed his death. If there were so many witnesses, you would think there would be an overall consensus of what his last words were.

"Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23:46

"My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" Matthew 27:46

"It is finished." John 19:30

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Mark 15:33

I'll give it to them, Matthew and mark were very similar. But Luke and John are entirely different! The Bible cannot claim to be 100% true and unaltered if such simple differences exist. I feel as though the last words of Jesus while he was on earth are important and shouldn't have been so drastically changed.

~~~
Jesus is the son of God, but he is the son of Joseph as well. So who is Joseph's father? There doesn't seem to be one answer.

"And Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born" Matthew 1:16

"Jesus, when he began his ministry was about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, the son of Heli." Luke 3:23

Is it Heli or Jacob? Are these two translations of the same name? The genealogies of Matthew and Luke vary greatly because of each author's purpose, however a simple thing like the name of the Lord's grandfather cannot be mistaken.

I have seen this difference explained by the different ways Luke and Matthew traced their genealogies back, one looking to David and one looking to Solomon. However I don't understand how this could explain Joseph's father supposedly being two different people. Joseph can only have 1 birth father. That begs the question of who is Jacob and who is Heli?
~~~~

When was Jesus born? This is a very specific date, so we won't be getting it down to the exact day. However a rough estimate of the year he was born must be known, especially since the Bible claims to be 100% true and accurate down to every last detail. Right?

"In those days, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world shall be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was the governor of Syria." Luke 2:2-3

Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Keep that date in mind

"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King" Matthew 2:1

Scholars agree that King Herod died in 4BC. If Jesus was born while he was king, it would mean that he was born a decade before Luke says he was born. This verse couldn't be referring to King Herod's son because the boy was killed only 5 days before his own father's death.

~~~~
the 7 signs of Jesus are generally accepted to be ...
1. He turned water into wine
2. Healing the noble man's son
3. Healing the man at the pool
4. The feeding of 5000
5. Walking on water
6. Healing of the blind man
7. Resurrection of Lazarus

These each served to confirm the divine nature of Jesus.

According to Mark 8:12 "And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said 'why does this generation seek a sign?' Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation."

And according to Matthew 12:39 "an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

Wait but what about the seven signs? The seven miracles performed by Jesus?

And Mark says there won't be any sign at all, but Matthew says the prophet Jonah provided one.

I have heard that some people do not consider the seven listed as 'signs' but rather as 'miracles' and define the two differently.

Matthew does describe how the Pharisees requested 'signs' as proof of Jesus being the son of God. This is seen as them wanting to test God, which apparently is sinful.

Let's look at John now.

"This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him." John 2:11

So according to this passage, Jesus isn't performing one but many signs! Later in this chapter, he gathers quite the crowd because they heard of the signs he was performing.

"Now while he was at Jerusalem in the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name." John 2:23

~~~~

This next one may seem trivial, but I felt it needed to be included.

"And then he said to them, 'Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics." Luke 9:3-5

"Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor Two tunics, nor a staff, for the laborer deserves his food." Matthew 10:9-10

"He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff- no bread, no bag, no money in their belts." Mark 6:8

These verses are in reference to Jesus instructing his apostles what to carry on their journey.

~~~

After Judas turned Jesus in, he resorted to taking his own life. However there are 2 different theories on how exactly he went about doing that.

According to Matthew 27:5 he died by hanging himself. But in Acts it is suggested that he either fell or threw himself off of something and died from the impact. There's a gory description of his guts falling out.

The only explanation I have found for this is that they are two descriptions of the same event. I disagree with this. If he hung himself, how would he have fallen? And if he hadn't died by hanging, then why wouldn't it just say he jumped from a high place? Which is it?

According to acts, he bought a field and 'fell headlong.' This is a very different description than one of hanging.

According to Matthew he donated some money into the temple before hanging himself. The money was then used by the priests to purchase a field since it could not be sent to their treasury.

So which is it? Did Judas purchase the field and then die or did someone buy it with his money after he hung himself?
~~~

Where was Jesus taken after his arrest?

"Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphus the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered." Matthew 26:57

"And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together." Mark 14:53

"And they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house, and Peter was following at a distance." Luke 22:54

Okay it all tracks so far. They take Jesus straight to the home of the high priest right after his arrest. But let's look at John. Keep in mind, this isn't one of the synoptic gospels so even Christians admit that it is slightly different from the other gospels.

"First, they led him to Annas, for he was the father in law of Caiaphus, who was high priest that year... then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphus the high priest." John 18:13-24

Wait so they didn't take Jesus straight to the high priest, they have a whole side quest to visit the priest's father in law. Seems like an important detail to include in all of the gospels.

~~~~
Who was the first to discover the empty tomb?

Your answer might differ based on which book you're the most familiar with.

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb." John 20:1

Okay so here Mary is alone, going to visit the tomb of Jesus.

"Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb." Matthew 28:1

So Mary Magdalene isn't alone this time, she has a friend with her.
The other Mary here is believed to be Mary of Cleopas. It is the same in Mark, the two of them going to the tomb.

"It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles." Luke 24:10

So now it's Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and The Virgin Mary coming to the tomb with various other unnamed people.

Why is the details of who discovered the empty tomb so skewed throughout these books? How can we know which is the right account?

There are also various accounts on what exactly occurred when the women did discover the tomb, such as what they saw and what they did immediately after.

"And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Mark 16:8

"So they departed quickly from his tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples." Matthew 28:8

"And returning from the tomb they told all of these things to the eleven and to all the rest." Luke 24:9

"Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord' and that he had said these things to her." John 20:18

MAJOR differences in what occurred right after the empty tomb was discovered. I've listed the verses just in case you had any doubts.

~~~~

There are so many more but these are some that I came across. I'm going to keep reading and analyzing so I'll probably end up doing a part 2. Comment your thoughts and don't forget to vote