A common apologist response when faced with all the disparities and contradictions in the gospels is “If all four gospels were exactly the same, the atheist/agnostic argument would be ‘they all colluded to get their story straight.’ Rather, you have four different letters written by four different authors, with four different backgrounds/education, to four different audiences. It IS historically accurate.”
What a load of horse manure.
The gist of this argument is that inconsistency about all sorts of details is a sign of truth…and you and I both know that inconsistent testimony is evidence of the exact opposite. They NEVER address any of the data points … the number of women present, why they were going to the tomb, who was there, how many angels, what time they went, whether the sun was shining or not, whether the stone was rolled away when they arrived or rolled away after they arrived, whether there was an unrecorded earthquake, whether the graves were opened and zombies walked around, what the angels (young men?) said, were they inside the tomb or outside the tomb, were they sitting on the stone or on the bed or were they standing, was Jesus present or not, etc. etc. etc. They want to say that the “basics” of the story are the same … that he died by crucifixion and was raised from the dead and this is the only thing that matters.
It isn’t.
The list of incompatibilities, inaccuracies, and outlandish tales is long and the mental gymnastics it would take to force it to work due to the “perspectives of the writers and their intended audiences” would most likely cause a thinking apologist to have to rightly question his/her own faith in this scenario.
But they don’t want to do that. One even told me, "PLEASE let me believe" as if I had any say in that matter. They just don't want to face the truth or the facts or the evidence.
Cellular necrosis is an irreversible process.
Caption this Meme