Eyewitness Testimony – God or Delusion?

The Resurrection Accounts Don’t Agree—And That’s a Problem

📅 Today is Day 5 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

🧠 Today’s Big Question

If the resurrection really happened as the defining moment of Christianity, why do the four Gospel accounts contradict each other at nearly every major detail?

Wouldn’t something this miraculous—something this pivotal—warrant a consistent, unified report?

📜 A Quick Glance at the Conflicting Accounts

Let’s break down just a few of the major discrepancies in the Gospel resurrection stories (found in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20–21):

Element	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Who went to the tomb?	Mary Magdalene & “the other Mary”	Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, & Salome	A group of women, unnamed at first	Mary Magdalene (alone), then others
Was the stone already rolled away?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Who was at the tomb?	One angel	One young man	Two men in dazzling clothes	Two angels inside tomb
Where were the angels/men?	Sitting on the stone	Sitting inside	Standing inside	Sitting inside
What was said to the women?	“He has risen… go tell…”	Similar message	Similar message	Angels say little; Jesus speaks
Did the women tell the disciples?	Yes	No—they said nothing (original ending)	Yes	Yes
Who saw Jesus first?	Women (Mary Magdalene, etc.)	Not shown in earliest version	Two disciples on the road to Emmaus	Mary Magdalene alone
Where did Jesus appear?	Galilee	Galilee (as predicted)	Jerusalem	Jerusalem

And these are just a few of the inconsistencies. When you compare the full narratives, it becomes clear: these are not four people describing the same event. These are four theological retellings—written decades apart—for different audiences, with different agendas.

🔍 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

Let’s examine the resurrection accounts using our critical thinking lens:

1. Do the accounts rely on evidence or belief?

All the Gospels rely on hearsay and secondhand testimony. There is no contemporary, verifiable documentation of these events—just writings decades later by authors who were promoting a specific theological message.

2. Are alternative explanations addressed?

No. The Gospel writers do not account for inconsistencies or attempt to harmonize the contradictions. Apologists today often try—but the results require cherry-picking, assumptions, and speculation.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

None. All four Gospels are religious texts written within the same faith community. No non-Christian source from the 1st century documents a resurrection, empty tomb, or angelic appearances.

4. Are the claims falsifiable?

No. These are miracle claims presented as divine truth. Any contradiction is explained away as a “matter of perspective” or “complementary” rather than being taken seriously as a credibility issue.

5. Do the contradictions raise more questions?

Absolutely. If the resurrection were a historical event, why do the supposed eyewitnesses disagree so wildly on who saw what, when, and where? If God wanted us to believe it, wouldn’t he have made sure the story was consistent?

💭 Conclusion

For a faith that hinges entirely on the resurrection, these Gospel contradictions should give any honest seeker pause.

We’re not talking about minor differences in wording—we’re talking about clashing stories that disagree on the key details. And when sacred stories look more like legend development than eyewitness reports, we have every reason to question their truth.

The God Question isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions. Because if we’re going to stake our beliefs—and our lives—on something, it should be grounded in truth, not tradition.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube Video:
🎥 Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions

A breakdown of how and why the resurrection accounts differ—and why that matters.

📌 Daily Reminder

Today is Day 5 of our 20-Day Easter Special.
We’ll return to our regular Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday posting schedule after Easter—on April 21st.

Can We Trust the Gospel Witnesses?

Today is Day 4 of The God Question’s Easter Special — a 20-day journey examining the Resurrection of Jesus using reason, history, and evidence-based inquiry. Each post applies The God Question’s Core Philosophy: open-minded skepticism, critical thinking, and truth over tradition.

👁️ Can We Trust the Gospel Witnesses?

The New Testament Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are often treated by believers as eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. But can these texts be trusted as historical documentation?

Christians assert that these books offer reliable, firsthand testimony from people who saw Jesus alive, watched him die, and later encountered him resurrected. The implication: the Gospels are ancient biographies based on direct observation.

But is that really the case?

📜 Who Wrote the Gospels?

Despite traditional attributions, most scholars agree that none of the four Gospels were written by the people whose names they bear.

The texts themselves are anonymous—the names “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John” were added decades later.
These books were written 35 to 65 years after the events they describe, in Greek, not Aramaic (Jesus’s spoken language), and by people far removed from the original events.

Furthermore, there’s no internal claim of being eyewitnesses. Even Luke openly admits he’s compiling secondhand information (Luke 1:1–4).

👀 Eyewitness Reliability — A Psychological Reality Check

Even if we had actual firsthand witnesses, how reliable would they be?

Psychological research on memory shows:

Memory is reconstructive, not reproductive.
Eyewitnesses often misremember details, especially under stress.
Accounts are shaped by bias, group pressure, emotion, and time.

Let’s apply that here:

The Gospels were written decades later, in an age without recording technology, in a culture that valued oral storytelling and theological symbolism over journalistic accuracy.
Inconsistencies between the Gospels—who saw Jesus first, where he appeared, what he said—strongly suggest that memory (or theology) shaped the stories more than factual recall.

🕵️‍♂️ Were These Even “Witnesses”?

The Gospels aren’t memoirs. They’re faith documents, written by communities of believers to convince others of Jesus’s divine nature. That’s not inherently wrong—but it does mean their agenda was evangelism, not objectivity.

They don’t read like courtroom testimony. Instead, they contain:

Miracles and supernatural events no one else documented.
Contradictory details across parallel stories.
Later theological developments that reflect church growth, not eyewitness experience.

🔍 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

Let’s ask the hard questions:

1. Does the claim rely on empirical evidence or faith?

It relies on faith in tradition, not verified eyewitness documentation.

2. Are alternative explanations considered?

No. Memory distortion, myth-building, and oral evolution are never addressed in church circles.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

No. Outside of the Gospels and early Christian writings, there is no independent evidence verifying the events they describe.

4. Are the claims falsifiable?

No. When contradiction or implausibility arises, it’s often explained away as “mystery” or “divine truth,” placing it outside the bounds of critical inquiry.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions?

Absolutely. Why would God rely on flawed human memory and anonymous authorship to share the most important story in human history?

📺 For Further Exploration

🎥 Who Wrote the Gospels? (by Bart Ehrman – 19 min) Dr. Ehrman discusses the authorship and dating of the New Testament Gospels, providing insights into their origins.

🧠 Final Thought

If the Gospels were submitted as evidence in a courtroom, they would be disqualified for lack of credibility, author transparency, and corroboration. While they may offer spiritual insights, their status as historical documentation is deeply compromised.

Faith may not require evidence. But truth-seeking does.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time.

When Were the Gospels Written—And By Whom?

📅 Today is Day 3 of The 20-Day Easter Special Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

The New Testament Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—form the backbone of the resurrection story. But before we can trust what they say about an empty tomb or post-death appearances, we must first ask:

When were these texts written—and who really wrote them?

✍️ The Traditional View

Most churches teach that the Gospels were written by:

Matthew: a disciple of Jesus
Mark: a companion of Peter
Luke: a companion of Paul
John: the “beloved disciple” of Jesus

These attributions create the impression that the Gospels are firsthand, eyewitness accounts. But when we examine the historical and scholarly consensus, a very different picture emerges.

🕰️ The Likely Timeline

Scholars date the Gospels as follows:

Gospel	Approximate Date	Notes
Mark	~70 CE	Likely the earliest written, around or just after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Matthew	~80–90 CE	Uses much of Mark’s content. Adds infancy stories and teachings.
Luke	~80–95 CE	Also uses Mark; adds new parables and details. Claims to be written after “careful investigation.”
John	~90–110 CE	Theologically distinct; includes no parables or exorcisms. Presents a more divine Jesus.

None of the Gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses—nor do they identify themselves by name within the texts. The familiar titles (“The Gospel According to Matthew”) were added later, not by the original writers.

🔍 Why This Matters

If the Gospels were written 40–80 years after Jesus’ death, and not by the disciples themselves, we’re dealing with decades of oral storytelling, theological editing, and cultural transmission. This opens the door to:

Myth-building and embellishment
Theological agendas shaping the text
Memory errors and historical distortion

Would we accept this level of hearsay and delay in reporting for any modern claim of a miracle? Of course not. So why make an exception here?

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the resurrection story rely on firsthand evidence? ➤ No. The Gospels are secondhand at best, with Mark being the earliest and anonymous. John, the latest, presents a very different version of events.

2. Is the claim falsifiable? ➤ Not easily. These texts are written decades later, with no external verification. They claim eyewitness accounts but never name their sources.

3. Are alternative explanations considered? ➤ Not in church settings. Most believers are never told the Gospels are anonymous, late, and often contradictory.

4. Is there independent corroboration? ➤ No. We have zero contemporary, non-Christian sources verifying that Jesus rose from the dead—or even that a specific tomb was found empty.

5. Does this raise more questions than it answers? ➤ Yes. Why would an all-knowing God leave the most important message in history to be pieced together from decades-old, anonymous texts filled with contradictions?

🔚 The Bottom Line

We’re not saying the Gospels are worthless. But they are not historical documentation in the way believers often assume. They are faith documents, written by unknown authors, shaped by theology, and compiled long after the events they describe.

To treat them as courtroom-level evidence of a supernatural event is not just uncritical—it’s dangerous.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: Dr. Bart Ehrman – Who Wrote The Gospels?

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.