Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 396 by Claire Evans]

Hey Ancient of Years, just wondering. Claire here is linking to the Institute of Creation Research, and quoting them to back up her points. They have a Statement of Faith. Surely by now you've read what I have to say about Statement of Faith'ers. I'm wondering if you're like me in this regard i.e. do you automatically distrust whatever it is Faith'ers have to say about their religion, because they admit to tainting evidence?
Claire, that is why I myself won't believe your points. They might be true...but the chance is far too high that ICR have manipulated whatever evidence they have. After all, they admit to it, although not to the same degree as say the infamous Ken Ham (it has to be read between the lines, but it is there to be seen, especially when they declare certain books and ideas to be truths before the evidence has been found, such as declaring that life was supernaturally created and that the Bible is perfect and infallible)

A few points I want to raise with Claire

Additions to a story does not necessarily mean they are contradictions.

It does in this case. The analogy of which stores a couple went to on a completely boring shopping trip doesn't work here. That's something they do all the time. However, when the women went to the tomb (which women? The gospels are all different on this matter too), they reported either one angel, two angels or two men.
If it was two angels, why the account that mentions just one? Why did whoever mentioned one angel not actually say there were two (who could honestly get mixed up as to how many ANGELS they saw)? Remember, these are the women going to the tomb of a man whom Mary supposedly was told by an angel would be the greatest man ever, would do great things. It doesn't make sense to allow contradictions in accounts here. It was either one angel, two or two men (or none at all). It makes no sense that the woman who said one man just didn't bother mentioning the second man, or the angel, or that the woman who said the angel didn't bother mentioning the two men.

If a wife only mentions the cinnamon rolls, no biggie. However, if the wife only mentions going to a cafe and buying cinnamon rolls, and makes no mention of her and the husband going to the hunting supplies store and being held up by robbers...something odd is going on. Why would she not mention being held up? Why would the non angel accounts not mention the angel if there was in fact an angel?
The empty tomb account is just fraught with so many conflicts that I honestly cannot believe any of them until the conflicts are resolved. We can't even tell for certain who was at the tomb. Was it one woman, or more? Which account of which women? I mean, it seems to be jumping the shark a bit to try and figure out how many angels/men were at the tomb if we can't even figure out how many women wen to the tomb, isn't it? If it was a group

I agree that there were different motives to why the gospels speak on different things but does that automatically false things were included?

Not falsify, just hard to belief. There's true and false...and then there's being completely unsure, we don't know. I don't know what happened on that day 2,000 years ago. You don't know. None of us do. We have four gospels that all tell a different story about who went to the tomb and who was already there and what happened. However, we cannot pick one from the other. I can't shrug my shoulders and say they're all true. I do say that absent any evidence, I cannot believe any of them. I await the evidence, which I honestly don't believe will ever be found.

Admittedly, it is entirely possible that the whole of John 21 is made up. It matters not to me either way.

Again, I find it quite odd that the person who believes these texts is telling me and the other non-believers that the texts are untrustworthy and quite frankly, couldn't give a you-know-what if they're true or not. You believe Jesus went and did certain things, but the only things that serve as evidence to them (the gospels), you honestly don't care if they're true? You believe Jesus did {X} sans evidence. Evidence doesn't play a factor in your belief system. You just believe anyway. [/quote]

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 396 by Claire Evans]

Hey Ancient of Years, just wondering. Claire here is linking to the Institute of Creation Research, and quoting them to back up her points. They have a Statement of Faith. Surely by now you've read what I have to say about Statement of Faith'ers. I'm wondering if you're like me in this regard i.e. do you automatically distrust whatever it is Faith'ers have to say about their religion, because they admit to tainting evidence?
Claire, that is why I myself won't believe your points. They might be true...but the chance is far too high that ICR have manipulated whatever evidence they have. After all, they admit to it, although not to the same degree as say the infamous Ken Ham (it has to be read between the lines, but it is there to be seen, especially when they declare certain books and ideas to be truths before the evidence has been found, such as declaring that life was supernaturally created and that the Bible is perfect and infallible)

Every time I have looked at the ICR site they have been seriously misrepresenting something or other. This time it is the claim that cuttlefish disprove evolution because they are smart (relatively speaking). ICR claims that intelligence derives from social interaction and long lifespan, yet cuttlefish live only about a year. On the contrary intelligence requires a brain capable of it. Cuttlefish have a very high brain to body mass ratio for an invertebrate. They are born with an inherent ‘smartness’ factor. This is not that unusual in cephalopods, the octopus being another example. All cephalopods have larger heads for their body size than fish. And they all have all those tentacles to control. Plus they are predators. Larger brains should not be a big surprise. BTW the intelligence level exhibited is learning to solve mazes and then learning that when one of two exits is closed this means that the other one is open.

A few points I want to raise with Claire

Additions to a story does not necessarily mean they are contradictions.

It does in this case. The analogy of which stores a couple went to on a completely boring shopping trip doesn't work here. That's something they do all the time. However, when the women went to the tomb (which women? The gospels are all different on this matter too), they reported either one angel, two angels or two men.
If it was two angels, why the account that mentions just one? Why did whoever mentioned one angel not actually say there were two (who could honestly get mixed up as to how many ANGELS they saw)? Remember, these are the women going to the tomb of a man whom Mary supposedly was told by an angel would be the greatest man ever, would do great things. It doesn't make sense to allow contradictions in accounts here. It was either one angel, two or two men (or none at all). It makes no sense that the woman who said one man just didn't bother mentioning the second man, or the angel, or that the woman who said the angel didn't bother mentioning the two men.

If a wife only mentions the cinnamon rolls, no biggie. However, if the wife only mentions going to a cafe and buying cinnamon rolls, and makes no mention of her and the husband going to the hunting supplies store and being held up by robbers...something odd is going on. Why would she not mention being held up? Why would the non angel accounts not mention the angel if there was in fact an angel?
The empty tomb account is just fraught with so many conflicts that I honestly cannot believe any of them until the conflicts are resolved. We can't even tell for certain who was at the tomb. Was it one woman, or more? Which account of which women? I mean, it seems to be jumping the shark a bit to try and figure out how many angels/men were at the tomb if we can't even figure out how many women wen to the tomb, isn't it? If it was a group

I agree that there were different motives to why the gospels speak on different things but does that automatically false things were included?

Not falsify, just hard to belief. There's true and false...and then there's being completely unsure, we don't know. I don't know what happened on that day 2,000 years ago. You don't know. None of us do. We have four gospels that all tell a different story about who went to the tomb and who was already there and what happened. However, we cannot pick one from the other. I can't shrug my shoulders and say they're all true. I do say that absent any evidence, I cannot believe any of them. I await the evidence, which I honestly don't believe will ever be found.

Who went to the tomb and how many angels there were are really minor matters. But what the disciples did next is very important because it is radically different in the two stories that give any significant details. Matthew has them go to Galilee. Luke has them stay in Jerusalem. The two simply cannot be reconciled. Matthew has been focused on Galilee all along, avoiding Jerusalem until it is time for the Passion Week narrative. Luke has Jesus focus on going to Jerusalem very early. Luke reverses Matthew at many points, including subjects that otherwise appear only in Matthew but presenting them in ways totally opposite to Matthew. These are not the same stories told from different viewpoints. They are contradictory and can be seen as inventions supporting opposing agendas.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

"Evidence from ancient documents suggests that the persecution of Christians by the Roman government did not occur until the reign of Nero.[51] In 64, a great fire broke out in Rome, destroying portions of the city and economically devastating the Roman population. Tacitus records (Annals 15.44) that Nero was rumored to have ordered the fire himself, and in order to dispel the accusations, accused and savagely punished the already-detested Christians. Suetonius mentions that Christians were killed under Nero's reign, but does not mention anything about the fire (Nero 16.2)[55] Scholars disagree about whether Christians were persecuted solely under the charge of organized arson or for other general crimes associated with Christianity.[51][56]"

Here is a good example of Christian martyrdom:


"Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]
Neither Pliny nor Trajan mention the crime that Christians had committed, except for being a Christian; and other historical sources do not provide a simple answer to this question, but a likely element may be the stubborn refusal of Christians to worship Roman gods; making them appear as objecting to Roman rule.[3][4]
Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and "depraved, excessive superstition". However, Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of this "superstition"; and views Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.[4]"

Pliny the Younger (circa 61 AD-113 AD) reported on Christians in the second century. There is no doubt that there were indeed Christians by the second century.

For the first 35 years or so after Jesus was executed, it was not illegal under Roman law to be a Christian, and Rome did not persecute Christians during this period. History attests to the fact that during the second and third centuries Christians came under persecution by the Romans. Christianity had already fractured into various groups by then however, and many of these groups would eventually be declared heretical by the Catholic church, after that organization came into being in the fourth century. many of those who proclaimed themselves to be "Christians" in the second and third centuries you would not recognized as "true" Christians today. These people were "being thrown to the lions" (persecuted) by the Romans as well, since the Romans would have little cared about differences in Christian doctrine.

"About 187 Irenaeus listed twenty varieties of Christianity; about 384 Epiphanius counted eighty." ("The Story of Civilization Vol. 3 - Caesar And Christ," Pg. 616, by Will Durant.)

In the fourth century after Constantine legalized Christianity, and Christians were allowed to practice their beliefs openly, the newly "outed" Christians discovered that many people who called themselves Christians were actually "false" Christians. The result was that these various groups felling into vicious fighting over doctrine. Constantine, who had considered Christianity a vehicle for promoting peace in the empire, was appalled. He called the leaders of the various Christian congregations together for the purpose of working out a universal doctrine. This was the beginning of the Catholic or "universal" church. This was also the beginning of what would eventually evolve into modern Christianity. In 325 the Council of Nicea began the task of determining which of the many and varied existing religious documents on Jesus and Christian doctrine that were then in circulation would become official church doctrine. The current 27 books of the NT wasn't finalized until the Second Council of Trullan of 692, however. A span of time between the time of Jesus greater than between you and Columbus. This would, more or less, be the Jesus of popular conception today. The original Yeshua, the individual who left NOTHING written in his own hand to carry down to us through the ages, has been totally buried under centuries of mythology and lost forever. The Jesus that people believe in today is the construction of centuries of debate and disagreement. Debate and disagreement which still continues to this day, I might add.

I don't think it is Christ's resurrection that they are denying but the resurrection of people after death. Paul is arguing that it doesn't make sense to believe that Jesus rose from the dead but not them.


"...that at Corinth there were probably those who refined away the doctrine of the resurrection into merely a rising from the death of sin into a life of righteousness, something after the manner of Hymenæus and Philetus (2Timothy 2:17-18), who taught that “the resurrection was past already.�

The past resurrection being Jesus' resurrection.

The Pharisee and their followers believed in bodily resurrection from the dead. It was a part of their religious doctrine. Resurrection from the dead was not a Jewish concept however. Nor was the belief in heaven or eternal life. These things are not found in the Torah. This was the basis for continued strife between the Pharisee and their followers, and the more orthodox Jews like the Sadducee's.

[Claire Evans]

REPLYING TO CLAIRE EVANS

Matthew and Luke share some material found in Mark. Matthew has much material not found in Mark or Luke. Luke has much material not found in Mark or Matthew. Matthew and Luke share much material not found in Mark. Luke omits considerable material found in both Mark and Matthew. (The Great Omission) Luke has material found in Matthew but radically rearranged. Luke has considerable material that is the exact opposite of material in Matthew but that no one else has. (Genealogies, Nativities, Sermons, Galilee/Jerusalem dichotomy, post-resurrection narratives)

This is all true. It fails to address the question of why Mark Luke and John left out so incredibly important a detail as the guard at the tomb however. It's as though they didn't believe it themselves, or knew for a fact that it wasn't true. The same might be said for Matthew's "Resurrection of the saints." Resurrected dead people wandering the streets should have provoked SOME reaction one would think. It's very difficult not to conclude that these stories were pure bull snot, and everyone knew it at the time.

And of course even you have acknowledged that the story of the resurrected saints is probably not true. But in doing so you have established the unreliability of Gospel Matthew. Some of the things detailed in the Gospels ARE PROBABLY NOT TRUE. Give that some thought and see of you can begin to understand which of those things probably are not true.

It actually had to do with what gospel was addressing whom:

"Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience, and one of his purposes was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that He was the long-expected Messiah, and thus should be believed in. Matthew's emphasis is that Jesus is the promised King, the “Son of David,� who would forever sit upon the throne of Israel (Matthew 9:27; 21:9)."

Now Matthew thought it was vital to include the parts of the guards because He was putting emphasis on the fulfillment of the prophecies.

"Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ as well as being a friend of the apostle Peter. Mark wrote for a Gentile audience, as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45)."

A Gentile audience probably wouldn't have been interested in Jewish guards.




"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles. Luke is the only Gentile author of the New Testament. He has long been accepted as a diligent master historian by those who have used his writings in genealogical and historical studies. As a historian, he states that it is his intent to write down an orderly account of the life of Christ based on the reports of those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). Because he specifically wrote for the benefit of Theophilus, apparently a Gentile of some stature, his gospel was composed with a Gentile audience in mind, and his intent is to show that a Christian's faith is based upon historically reliable and verifiable events. Luke often refers to Christ as the “Son of Man,� emphasizing His humanity, and he shares many details that are not found in the other gospel accounts."

I also don't believe Theophilus would have been interested in all the details of the resurrection.


"The gospel of John, written by John the apostle, is distinct from the other three Gospels and contains much theological content in regard to the person of Christ and the meaning of faith. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels� because of their similar styles and content and because they give a synopsis of the life of Christ. The gospel of John begins not with Jesus' birth or earthly ministry but with the activity and characteristics of the Son of God before He became man (John 1:14)"

And the Gospel of John is actually just mystical.
http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html

[Claire Evans]

Tacitus was a great historian who wrote about his father-in-law, Agricola, the famous general, and in that account we have the speech of the native Briton, Calgacus, into whose mouth Tacitus puts the words: solitudinem faciunt , pacem appellant (they make a desert and call it peace). Eloquent as it is, the speech is hearsay.

Tacitus could not have known about that quote. He made literary work and the so-called speech is empathetic writing that historians use.

I see -you are differentiating between hearsay and invention. I've read plenty of Tacitus - one of my favourite authors at school - and I would not be making the statement that he never used hearsay. It made for a good story. Suetonius, another much-used historian, loved hearsay.

I would say he would report on hearsay if it was to his advantage but did he ever state any hearsay as fact?

"There were exceptions to Tacitus' reliability."

Of course. But you are arguing MY point, not the one you originally made.

Yes, and I have subsequently researched and have realized the style of Tacitus' writings.

Sorry, Tacitus regarded the ragbag of Christians at Rome as a social nuisance. You've made up this scenario.

You're right. It was Nero who found Christians a threat, not Tacitus.

I'm happy to accept this. Suetonius tells us pretty shocking things about the man. But there are some modern historians who believe Nero got a bad press.

That's interesting because Tacitus, as you can see, thought Nero was going a bit far. Maybe he was great with the Romans but he certainly was a monster when it came to the Christians

But it's true, no Roman is going to let Jesus down from the cross if He wasn't dead. Thrusting a spear in the body was a way to find out. You think my diagnosis is not correct? Do you even know the the extent of Jesus' injuries?

I have read the accounts. The difference between us is you accept the veracity of the written accounts - even though you've taken the trouble to explain that with the best historians, facts get confused with fiction. You are then led to the conclusion that a dead man rose up. I don't believe this, and I think there will be other explanations such as trickery. We should not discard the rational in favour of the irrational unless all rational considerations have been ruled out. They haven't.

If you believe Jesus was crucified, do you think the "Swoon theroy" is possible?

Christianity has spread not through resurrections of corpses, but through Roman and Spanish steel. Islam has wiped out Christ's eternal message in vast areas, again with steel.

Through Roman and Spanish steel? Please elaborate. Now it's one thing to spread. It's quite another to be established in the first place.

I meant that the big breakthrough for Christianity came when Constantine decided it was to be the Empire's religion, for his own ends. Glance at South America and ask what turned the native people there into lovers of Christ. It was the swords of the conquistadors, who enforced their views with the utmost brutality.

Yes, he certainly had his own agenda when legalizing Christian. However, that doesn't explain why there were Christians converts in the first place.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

My point is, Muslims do really think Allah is the true god even though, for argument's sake, it isn't true. They believe a lie. However, are the apostles going to die for something they know is a lie?

Everyone dies. Please establish for us that scripture indicates the apostles were martyred for their beliefs.

Acts 12

[Claire Evans]

We have to ask ourselves, "Why did the apostles find the courage after Jesus' death to witness for Him to the execute they died for Him?" It's one thing to die for a lie one believes is true as is not. It's quite another to die for the truth when one knows the truth.

You seem to be saying that the Apostles would not have offered their lives for something that was false. Therefore what they believed was true.

I should imagine that you do not subscribe to the truth of Islamic beliefs. Today people offer their lives believing in Allah. Is Allah therefore true?

For people to act fanatically it is sufficient that THEY believe what they are doing is right.

My point is, Muslims do really think Allah is the true god even though, for argument's sake, it isn't true. They believe a lie. However, are the apostles going to die for something they know is a lie?

Not outside the realm of possibility. It could be that the apostles knew Jesus didn't resurrect, but believed that teaching that he did would be better for society, so were willing to teach something they knew to be a lie and were willing to die for it.

Something changed them after the resurrection of Christ. They went into hiding fearing for their lives and then preaching boldly the resurrection of Christ. They had no more fear.

The question is, how did the apostles manage to convince anyone of the resurrection if it didn't happen? It first needs to be established before you can die for it.

[Claire Evans]

a. The statement of Pilate is actually in the form of the
PRESENT IMPERATIVE in the Greek – which would be more
correctly translated as, "HAVE A GUARD!" In other words,
Pilate is telling them they CAN have a guard, rather than
saying “you already have your OWN guard.�
(1). In fact, a marginal note in the English Revised Version
(1885) says Pilate meant, "TAKE" a guard.

Do you suppose the words of Pilate were so precisely recorded that we can rely on the grammatical construction of his statement to draw conclusions? Had it been Pilate himself who was writing there might be some justification for reading meanings into jussive subjunctives, imperatives or anything else.
In any case "have a guard" doesn't necessarily produce the meaning you want. It can mean: make sure you supply guards. This seems more plausible than the indifferent Pilate's generously offering a Roman guard. But it's a small point and the world won't be change whatever interpretation you take, and bodies will still stay in their graves.

It's got to do with what word Pilate called the guard.

In the original Greek gospel, we have:

efh de autoiV o pilatoV ecete koustwdian upagete asfalisasqe wV oidate


Koustwdian means custodian.

Sentry:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1. (n.) A soldier placed on guard; a sentinel.
2. (n.) Guard; watch, as by a sentinel.

... guard, sentry. Of Latin origin; "custody", ie A Roman sentry -- watch. (koustodian) --

An officer of the Temple guard was known as � στ�ατηγός. This is not the word Pilate used. There is also no one guard. The temple guard made up many guards.

It would have been prudent for the chief priests to ask for a Roman soldier. That way, if the body got stolen, or was missing somehow, they could blame the Romans for that and not be open to criticism themselves.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 404 by Claire Evans]

The question is, how did the apostles manage to convince anyone of the resurrection if it didn't happen?

How did Muhammed's followers manage to convince anyone that he flew to heaven on a winged horse if it didn't happen?

You're trying to make out the people of that society to be skeptics on par with the skeptics of today. I'm not knocking them, but they would not and could not have had the advantages of skeptical thought and science that were raised only in the centuries since then.
You're not thinking of all the other people throughout history who also were willing to die for their claims, yet you don't believe their claims are true. Japanese fighter pilots in World War II grew up not willing to die, but during the war? They were very willing to die. Something changed. Does this mean that their belief that Emperor Hirohito was a god was actually true?
I suggest you take a read of one of my latest threads, the one about Confidence. Just because people are confident about a belief, even willing to die for it, doesn't indicate that it is true.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

"Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience, and one of his purposes was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that He was the long-expected Messiah, and thus should be believed in. Matthew's emphasis is that Jesus is the promised King, the “Son of David,� who would forever sit upon the throne of Israel (Matthew 9:27; 21:9).

In fact, Papias, Polycarp, and Eusebius all wrote that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel for the Hebrews during the time that Peter and Paul were traditionally supposed to have been founding the church in Rome. That is taken to be the years 60-64. It is for this reason that Gospel Matthew is traditionally placed first in the order of the Gospels, because this would have been prior to Gospel Mark. As usual there are a few flies in the ointment of doctrine here however. First, Gospel Matthew largely IS Gospel Mark. Virtually the entire Gospel of Mark is contained in Gospel Matthew. That's reasonably hard to explain if Gospel Mark had yet to be written when the apostle Matthew was writing his Gospel. A second question arises from the fact that Papias, Polycarp, and Eusebius all specifically indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. Aramaic. Canonical Gospel Matthew, the ones found in all NT's however is written in pure Koine Greek, and show absolutely no signs of having been translated from so cumbersome a language as Aramaic. In fact all the Gospels were written in pure Koine Greek, and as mentioned, Gospel Matthew largely IS Gospel Mark. The canonical Gospel Matthew, so familiar to modern Christians, cannot be the Gospel attributed to the apostle Matthew as described by Papias, Polycarp, and Eusebius. There was a Gospel written in Aramaic known to exist in the early years of Christianity, but it disappeared in about the fourth century. All that remains of it are some few small fragments. So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your NT, the one the contains most of Gospel Mark? KNOW ONE KNOWS!

Now Matthew thought it was vital to include the parts of the guards because He was putting emphasis on the fulfillment of the prophecies.

Without the guard at the tomb it is immediately obvious that the followers of Jesus are the logical suspects to have removed the body from the tomb. If it is a true story then the other Gospel writers should have placed an emphasis on THAT! They omitted it entirely from their own narrative however. That's very difficult to explain. What prophasy did the guard at the tomb fulfill, exactly?

"Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ as well as being a friend of the apostle Peter. Mark wrote for a Gentile audience, as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45)."

There is absolutely nothing to connect Mark the cousin of Barnabus to the author of Gospel Mark, other than the name. A very common name, I might add. Papias in the second century indicated that the author of Gospel Mark served as a translator for Peter, but specifically noted that Make did not himself know the Lord, but wrote down some of the things that Peter told him.

A Gentile audience probably wouldn't have been interested in Jewish guards.

Don't you really? The point of the guard, whoever they were, is that they serve to discredit the claim that the disciples moved the body of Jesus from the tomb. Which makes it hard to explain the omission of such an important fact from the other Gospels, if true. But as we have seen, Gospel Matthew's attempt to put a band-aid on the problem fails, and only serves to emphasize the disciples as the overwhelmingly obvious suspects anyway.

Matthew 27:
[64] lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

THIS ONE VERSE SERVES TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.

"Luke, the “beloved physician� (Colossians 4:14 KJV), evangelist, and companion of the apostle Paul, wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the apostles. Luke is the only Gentile author of the New Testament. He has long been accepted as a diligent master historian by those who have used his writings in genealogical and historical studies. As a historian, he states that it is his intent to write down an orderly account of the life of Christ based on the reports of those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). Because he specifically wrote for the benefit of Theophilus, apparently a Gentile of some stature, his gospel was composed with a Gentile audience in mind, and his intent is to show that a Christian's faith is based upon historically reliable and verifiable events. Luke often refers to Christ as the “Son of Man,� emphasizing His humanity, and he shares many details that are not found in the other gospel accounts."

Again, there is nothing in scripture to connect the individual "Luke, the “beloved physician� mentioned by Paul to Gospel Luke and Acts other than the name. I happen to share a name with several presidents, but I have never been elected to that office. One of the very few things that CAN be agreed oh however, is that The Gospel and Acts were written by the same person. Declaring the authors of Gospels Mark and Luke to have been the John Mark the cousin of Barnabus and and Luke the beloved physician are yet more examples of Christian tradition at work. They have simply been declared to be true. The do have the POSSIBILITY of being true however, as opposed to the popular assumption of Roman guards at the tomb.

I also don't believe Theophilus would have been interested in all the details of the resurrection.

Does Theophilus mind that you are making decisions on what interested himfor him? I suppose Theophilus was the best judge of that.

"The gospel of John, written by John the apostle, is distinct from the other three Gospels and contains much theological content in regard to the person of Christ and the meaning of faith. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the “Synoptic Gospels� because of their similar styles and content and because they give a synopsis of the life of Christ. The gospel of John begins not with Jesus' birth or earthly ministry but with the activity and characteristics of the Son of God before He became man (John 1:14)"

Gospel John was written by a friend of Papais' that Papais referred to as Presbyter (elder) John. An entirely different John from the apostle.

" If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

And although the author of Gospel John does not identify himself, the author of the Epistles of John does.

2John.1
[1] The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

3John.1
[1] The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.