Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

[AchillesHeel]

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Goose is right that IF Paul is not talking about a solid - body resurrection (to make the point clear) then it has to be something else, because on my assessment of Paul earlier letters at least, I am convinced he was a real person, talking about real disciples who followed a (probably) real Jesus, whom they eved resurrected.

If it was not as in the gospels, it must be something else.

Fortunately loking honestly at Paul's reference it IS something else. It is visionary and therefore imaginary.

Not only does that give us transition from a walking Jesus to a spiritual (imaginary) resurrection, but it is supported by the (oft overlooked) difference and explains the contradictions in the gospel accounts - the were invented to turn an imaginary claim into a real event.

That explains why Mark doesn't have such a full account. The excuses such as everyone knew the story, it is effective as it was, or the ending got lost (so did the nativity, apparently) have to recognised as such: a faithbased rejection of unwelcome evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

sorry, duplication.

but since it is here, I'll mention other problems swept under the rug. I have already done the discrepant story of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the tomb. Mark says they ran away and said nothing to anyone.

That wouldn't do, so the other writers had to invent more. The Synoptics parked an angel there to tell us what we are supposed to believe. But John has no such thing and Mary doesn't meet Jesus until the disciples have gone to check the tomb.

This is obviously even more at variance with Matthew who says they ran into Jesus on the way to tell the disciples, and I hardly need dwell of the shabby efforts to rewrite the Bible (leaving even more contradictions) in order to concoct a unified tale.

But a universally overlooked problem (If the lauded Ehrmann has noted this, please let me know) is that Luke has altered the angel's explanation so the command to go to Galilee is gone, changed to what Jesus said in galilee. And we even know why; Luke had to write acts because he knew the disciples did not spread the word to all nations, but they stayed put in the Jerusalem are and it was Paul alone who started off Gentile - friendly Jewish messianism or (in Greek) Christianity.

That also explains why nobody else has the ascension. And I needn't rehearse the excuses made to try to explain why this wasn't worth mentioning by anyone else but Luke. Just, he saw Paul's letters and nobody else did.

This even explains his adding Jesus appearing to Simon, not described in Luke (he gets us out of the way, on the road to Emmaeus just so the appearance can happen without having to describe it). Because Luke only knows that Jesus appeared to Simon but doesn't know how.

Again, I could be wrong, but this explains every problem, whether anyone else has noticed them or not.

[AchillesHeel]

Yes. Goose is right that IF Paul is not talking about a solid - body resurrection (to make the point clear) then it has to be something else, because on my assessment of Paul earlier letters at least, I am convinced he was a real person, talking about real disciples who followed a (probably) real Jesus, whom they eved resurrected.

If it was not as in the gospels, it must be something else.

Fortunately loking honestly at Paul's reference it IS something else. It is visionary and therefore imaginary.

Not only does that give us transition from a walking Jesus to a spiritual (imaginary) resurrection, but it is supported by the (oft overlooked) difference and explains the contradictions in the gospel accounts - the were invented to turn an imaginary claim into a real event.

That explains why Mark doesn't have such a full account. The excuses such as everyone knew the story, it is effective as it was, or the ending got lost (so did the nativity, apparently) have to recognised as such: a faithbased rejection of unwelcome evidence.

One can grant that Paul and the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection but it is a non-sequitur to conclude "therefore, they really saw the physically resurrected Jesus."

I see this conflation a lot when making this criticism of Paul's view of the Resurrection. What type of bodily resurrection Paul believed in is entirely separate from the type of appearances. But it's only the appearances that can actually serve as evidence for the Resurrection. A mere belief in a physical resurrection is not evidence one occurred.

Paul's resurrection theology seems to imply instant exaltation to heaven - Phil. 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20. So if they believed the ascension happened simultaneously with or immediately after the Resurrection, then that means there were no earthly appearances and instead they were all understood as post-ascension like Paul's experience.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Goose is right that IF Paul is not talking about a solid - body resurrection (to make the point clear) then it has to be something else, because on my assessment of Paul earlier letters at least, I am convinced he was a real person, talking about real disciples who followed a (probably) real Jesus, whom they eved resurrected.

If it was not as in the gospels, it must be something else.

Fortunately loking honestly at Paul's reference it IS something else. It is visionary and therefore imaginary.

Not only does that give us transition from a walking Jesus to a spiritual (imaginary) resurrection, but it is supported by the (oft overlooked) difference and explains the contradictions in the gospel accounts - the were invented to turn an imaginary claim into a real event.

That explains why Mark doesn't have such a full account. The excuses such as everyone knew the story, it is effective as it was, or the ending got lost (so did the nativity, apparently) have to recognised as such: a faithbased rejection of unwelcome evidence.

One can grant that Paul and the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection but it is a non-sequitur to conclude "therefore, they really saw the physically resurrected Jesus."

I see this conflation a lot when making this criticism of Paul's view of the Resurrection. What type of bodily resurrection Paul believed in is entirely separate from the type of appearances. But it's only the appearances that can actually serve as evidence for the Resurrection. A mere belief in a physical resurrection is not evidence one occurred.

Paul's resurrection theology seems to imply instant exaltation to heaven - Phil. 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20. So if they believed the ascension happened simultaneously with or immediately after the Resurrection, then that means there were no earthly appearances and instead they were all understood as post-ascension like Paul's experience.

Yes. I think we are dealing with three different things, called by the same name.

1. Spirit or visionary resurrection, of Jesus. Give or take the Gabriel stone, I propose that the disciples thought Jesus' spirit has resurrected, and I believe, also expected his spirit to return at the Last days.

(2) the Pharisee resurrection. This is the Last trump resurrection, which of course conflicts with the Judgement after death belief of Christianity, though they try to pretend both are true and never mind contradictory beliefs. Paul's talk of the dead rising to meet Jesus is when he (in a new form, I suppose) returns at the Last days and is the idea put into Jesus' mouth when he tells the Sanhedrin he'll come in power with ticker tape and a marching band. This rising of the zombies does not mean that Jesus (spirit) resurrection has to be solid body, too.

(3) Jesus walking. I won't go into my argument that the solid body resurrected Jesus was elaborated in different and contradictory ways, but the theory has to explain how a (claimed or hypothesised) messianic spirit - belief by the disciples and Paul became a walking corpse. It has to be because a risen spirit claim with the dead body still there is a claim with no force. I suggest the body itself had to vanish and be seen to vanish, which is why the original stopry of the empty tomb became a thing, with the women visiting because there had to be witnesses.

If indeed one argues that the empty tomb is true, that just leaves that the disciples took it away - no doubt for burial in Galilee. Resurrection is not the go - to explanation and never was.

[JehovahsWitness]

... why would the author of Mark read Matthew 28 or Luke 24 and end his gospel with this?

Mk 16:8
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

That would make him quite the liar wouldn't it?

It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark's unsatisfactory ending.

What exactly is the lie you suggest is contained in Mark's short conclusion?

[JehovahsWitness]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another ...

As has already been pointed out, this is a vague, unsubstantiated opinion based statement. The baseline ( the acceptable degree of deviation) has not been established, doubtless because it is probably an impossible premise given the multitude of editorial choices available to any writer.

[AchillesHeel]

... why would the author of Mark read Matthew 28 or Luke 24 and end his gospel with this?

Mk 16:8
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

That would make him quite the liar wouldn't it?

It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark's unsatisfactory ending.

What exactly is the lie you suggest is contained in Mark's short conclusion?

For starters, there is the fact that Matthew and Luke say the women told the disciples which is an explicit contradiction of Mark 16:8. There is also an immediate appearance of Jesus to two women right after they leave the tomb in Matthew. Oh, and then there are appearances to the Eleven and the witnessed ascension. Anything other than Markan priority doesn't make sense of this.

As has already been pointed out, this is a vague, unsubstantiated opinion based statement. The baseline ( the acceptable degree of deviation) has not been established, doubtless because it is probably an impossible premise given the multitude of editorial choices available to any writer.

No, we have multiple written examples of people who all witnessed the same historical event. None of them have the same degree of deviation as the Resurrection narratives (they basically tell entirely different stories of what took place). So the baseline is what we see in other accounts that no one doubts are reliable. Now we have an idea of what we'd expect to see when dealing with a set of reliable eyewitness testimony. Well, the Resurrection narratives completely violate that expectation so the most probable explanation is that something else is going on here. Given the obvious growth and progression, I've argued it's due to legendary embellishment. This explains the data perfectly.

Again, if you disagree you should be able to find an example that shows otherwise. If the Gospel resurrection narratives are as "reliable" as apologists say they are, then that entails other examples of this phenomenon exist in other sources we have no trouble calling "reliable". So where are they?

[JehovahsWitness]

For starters, there is the fact that Matthew and Luke say the women told the disciples which is an explicit contradiction of Mark 16:8.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction


That is hardly "an explicit contradiction". And claimed "contradiction" depends on if one reads Mark statement to be relative or absolute. What proof do you have that the writers intentions were the latter? Unless you lay claim to mind reading capacities, any response you provide is a mere supposition, hardly catagoric and verifiable "proof".

Supposition does not a contradiction make.



RELATED POSTS

Did the women tell anyone what happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p908395

Did the women report seeing Jesus or angels ( Cleopas)?
viewtopic.php?p=1039084#p1039084

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[JehovahsWitness]

... an immediate appearance of Jesus to two women right after they leave the tomb in Matthew.

Which specific words in the book of Mark are you claiming constitute a lie in this regard? A biblical reference would be helpful.