How does Catholicism handle this?

[Athetotheist]

(This pertains specifically to the Catholic Church, since Mark 16:9-20 was officially declared canon by the Council of Trent.)

"But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen"
(Mark 16:9)

"When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus.
Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master)."
(John 20:14-16)

"And they went out quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples.
And behold Jesus met them, saying: All hail."
(Matthew 28:8-9)

How does Catholicism square Jesus' appearance to the women on their way to the disciples in Matthew 28:9 when Mark 16:9 has Jesus appear to Mary Magdalene first, and that doesn't occur until she has been to the disciples and returned to the tomb in John 20:14?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #10]

...And they can't all be true, because the various writers have the same people in different places at the same time, saying different things at the same time and feeling different ways at the same time.

Only if you combine them poorly.

When you combine them without embellishment.

Why combine them poorly, only to make it look like contradictory?

They make themselves look contradictory.

Is it required for atheism to work?

My argument has nothing to do with atheism. See my signature.


I'm relying strictly on what's written, because that's the only witness presented to us.

No, you are making assumptions that would make the stories look like contradictory.

Again, they do that on their own. That's why you have to make assumptions like Mary leaving the other women and the disciples taking an alternate route to the tomb.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #10]

...And they can't all be true, because the various writers have the same people in different places at the same time, saying different things at the same time and feeling different ways at the same time.

Only if you combine them poorly.

When you combine them without embellishment.

There is two options:
1) Combine them so that they look contradictory.
2) Combine them so that they are not contradictory.

Bible doesn't give any reason to combine them in contradictory way, so why choose to do so? Is the only reason to do that one could twist the Bible look contradictory?

That's why you have to make assumptions like Mary leaving the other women and the disciples taking an alternate route to the tomb.

Why would you assumption that makes it look wrong, be better?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #12]

There is two options:
1) Combine them so that they look contradictory.
2) Combine them so that they are not contradictory.

Bible doesn't give any reason to combine them in contradictory way, so why choose to do so? Is the only reason to do that one could twist the Bible look contradictory?

That's why you have to make assumptions like Mary leaving the other women and the disciples taking an alternate route to the tomb.

Why would you assumption that makes it look wrong, be better?

Each account being allowed to speak for itself, they don't fit together----and no one is under any obligation, either intellectual or moral, to try to make them fit together.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
---Galileo