How much of the Jesus NT story really happened

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

How much of the Jesus NT story really happened

Post #1

Post by polonius »

Lets agree that Jesus was a historical figure who was put to death by the Romans for insurrection. That is claiming to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews.

The year was approximately 33 A.D.

Then there is the story that he was raised from the dead three days after his crucifixion.
Who witnessed that?

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #31

Post by polonius »

[Replying to post 21 by Eloi]


Eloi posted:

[ quote] I don't see any contradiction in the Bible, but I don't have time right now to talk about what you think is. If you think there is any contradiction, that would be enough prove for yourself that there was not any conspiracy among the writers ... and since all of them wrote about something the others did not, you can see no one of them copied from another one.
Have a good day.[/quote]

RESPONSE:

On the contrary.

I have been showing conflicts in what different gospel writers wrote.

Such as Matthew claim8ing that Jesus rode two animals into Jerusalem while Mark, Luke, and John claimed only one animal.

Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod who died in 4 BC, Luke has Jesus born during the 6 AD Census.

etc, etc. Your claim is without merit. Read more completely.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Post #32

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote:This is the most probable order of events since the earthquake in the tomb and the stone runs, until the women warn the apostles (notice that there are two different lines in the events: what Mary Magdalene does first, and what do the other women who had gone to the grave):

...

Seen in this harmonized way, what seemed contradictions are understood as details that an evangelist gave that another did not give. The fact that events have to be harmonized to understand the facts, demonstrates that they did not agree to invent any history, and that each of them was writing from their own collection or memory of the facts. That denies the alleged collusion they have been accused of, about inventing a story.
That contradicts each Gospel's order of events, Matthew's most egregiously, but the others as well. It's not even a proper harmonization, let alone "most probable." The courtroom-style, "different points of view" apologetic only makes any sense if you're allowing for faulty memories because at least some of the details must be wrong.

Even if you allow for that, though, that doesn't get rid of "collusion." There are near-verbatim agreements between the three Synoptics, often differing only in a verb's tense or aspect to intentionally change a detail from one evangelist to the next. If we arrange them in the order that they were likely written, they don't really sound like four independent stories with slightly different details, but one story repeated serially that just gets weirder each time it's retold.

Original Mark: the Marys and Salome went to the tomb after the sun was up. They were wondering aloud how they would roll the stone away from the tomb. When they looked up from their discussion, the stone had been rolled away. They didn't need to look in the tomb because a "young man" (presumably the angel) was already sitting on the stone and told them Jesus wasn't there. The angel told them to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, but they ran away instead and said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.

Matthew: the two Marys arrived before dawn and in time to witness an earthquake as an angel rolled the stone away and sat on it. The guards got scared and became "as dead men". The Marys didn't need to look in the tomb to see if it "seemed" empty, because the angel (singular) told them that Jesus was gone. The Marys ran to tell the disciples about the angel and whatnot, but met Jesus on the way (not at the tomb). While the Marys were enroute, the guards stopped being like dead men and ran to the city. Later, the Eleven went to Galilee, where they saw Jesus.

Luke: the Marys and Joanna ("the women") went to the tomb at dawn, where the stone had already been rolled away. No angels or fancy young men were there yet, so they had time to look in the tomb to see it empty. As they were trying to figure out what happened, two dazzling men (again, presumably angels) appeared next to them and told them that Jesus was dead. The the women went to tell "the Eleven and all the rest." Peter ran to the tomb, looked inside, and went home amazed. Later, Cleopas and someone else took a walk to Emmaus, during which Jesus appeared and talked to them, but they didn't recognize Him at first. They told Jesus that "some of" the disciples went to the tomb and saw that it was empty, just as the women said. Acts follows up with the disciples meeting Jesus in Jerusalem (instead of Galilee), where He bummed around for forty days before ascending to heaven.

Mark 16:9-20: Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and she told the disciples, but they didn't believe her. Then He appeared to two people taking a walk (presumably Cleopas and the other guy), but the others didn't believe those guys, either. Finally, Jesus showed up at dinner and yelled at the Eleven for not being credulous enough and, by the way, they can now pick up deadly snakes and drink poison. After He was done talking, Jesus went up to heaven.

John: Mary Magdalene went to the tomb before the sun was up, where the stone had already been rolled away, but there were no angels. She ran to Peter and the beloved disciple, who then raced each other to the tomb and the beloved disciple won. The two of them went into the tomb, were amazed, and went home. Mary went back to the tomb and stayed there to weep. Now and only now, after the other disciples had come and gone, two angels appeared appeared. Jesus also appeared, but she didn't recognize Him. Then Mary went back to the disciples to tell them that she actually saw Jesus. Later that evening, Jesus teleported into the locked room where the disciples were, where they looked at the wounds. Eight days later, Thomas touched the wounds.

If you're willing to claim that a Gospel's failure to mention a detail means that it could have happened, then some of the details can be reasonably accommodated by all of the narratives. Jesus could have appeared to the Marys and to Cleopas, for example, or Jesus actually did teleport into a room later that night without doing much damage to the other narratives.

Some of the details could be harmonized with the other narratives in the sense of a logic puzzle or word game, but the harmonization isn't really plausible. Mark's "the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven," for example, is technically compatible with Luke's ascension, but only if "...after He had spoken..." means forty days after He had spoken. "The women" in each case is really the Marys, Salome, and Joanna, even though none of the Gospels includes all four. They met Jesus in both Galilee and Jerusalem, though no Gospel specifies both.

There's just no harmonizing some of the details, though, unless you're willing to accept that at least one evangelist got it wrong. That's possible with newspaper stories or a courtroom, but most Christians don't think that's possible with the Gospels. Were the angels there when the women arrived or not? Was the stone rolled away before or after the women arrived? Did Jesus speak to Mary Magdalene when she was at the tomb or away from it?

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Post #33

Post by Eloi »

[Replying to Difflugia]

Difflugia said: the harmonization isn't really plausible.
Not only it is plausible; it have been done just a few posts back. ;)

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Post #34

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: [Replying to Difflugia]

Difflugia said: the harmonization isn't really plausible.
Not only it is plausible; it have been done just a few posts back. ;)
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. You claimed to have performed a harmonization, but what you're calling a harmonization isn't one (or at least isn't a correct one).

Your items 1 and 2, for example, have the events of Matthew occurring in an order that contradicts (in the strictest logical sense of apologists) with Matthew. I laid out the order in my previous post, but a Matthew 28:11 offers a single-verse contradiction to your claimed harmonization. You wrote in your number 2 that "the women arrive at the grave and the guards are not there." Matthew 28:11 says that the guards didn't leave until after the women had already gone and thus were still there.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Post #35

Post by Eloi »

Difflugia said: Matthew 28:11 offers a single-verse contradiction to your claimed harmonization. You wrote in your number 2 that "the women arrive at the grave and the guards are not there." Matthew 28:11 says that the guards didn't leave until after the women had already gone and thus were still there.

... but that is not what that text says. It says:

Matt. 28:11 While they (the women) were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Post #36

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Difflugia said: Matthew 28:11 offers a single-verse contradiction to your claimed harmonization. You wrote in your number 2 that "the women arrive at the grave and the guards are not there." Matthew 28:11 says that the guards didn't leave until after the women had already gone and thus were still there.

... but that is not what that text says. It says:

Matt. 28:11 While they (the women) were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened.
You're right in that "going" is present tense, but I don't see a reasonable way to place that before the women arrived at the tomb (i.e. "as they were going to the tomb"). The guards had to be at the tomb when the angel appeared so he could knock them out or whatever and that happened after the women arrived.

I can't think of a way to make the argument without discussing Greek tenses. I don't know if any of this is familiar to you, but I'll try to avoid sounding either patronizing or like I'm hiding behind technicalities and jargon.

Most of the verbs in that pericope are in the aorist tense, indicative mood. I think Matthew intends it to be read (and I think the correct way to read it is) that the aorist indicative verbs happened in the order they're presented in the text. Verbs that happened out of order (such as already having been completed before or continuing through the end of the narrative) are in aorist participle, imperfect, or present tenses.

Here's the Matthew 28 resurrection pericope from the ESV with verses marked so I can refer to them.
1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow.
4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.
5 But the angel said to the women, “...�
...
8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
9 And behold, Jesus met them...
...
11 While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.
  • 1: The ESV's "toward the dawn" literally means it is toward the dawn in the present tense. This sets the beginning of the narrative. The women "came to see the tomb" in the aorist indicative, marking the first action of the story.
  • 2: "Behold" is a command to the reader, in the aorist indicative tense. The women have arrived and we are to "behold" what happens next.
  • "Descended" and "came" are in a different aorist tense ("aorist participle"). Here, that means that "descended" and "came" happened before the other events, describing the state of the angel like an adjective. The angel had already "descended and come," so the women didn't witness the angel's arrival.
  • The "earthquake happened" and the stone was "rolled back" in aorist indicative again, so these are within the sequence of the narrative and the women witnessed them.
  • 2-3: "Sat" and "his appearance was" are in the imperfect tense, which means they haven't completed; the angel sat down and appeared like lightning and continues sitting and looking like lightning through the end of the narrative.
  • 4: The guards "trembled" and "became like dead men" in the aorist indicative again. The dazzling appearance of the now-sitting angel caused them to panic and faint in front of the women.
  • 5: Next the angel "said to the women" in aorist indicative again.
  • 8: In the same tense as the earlier "descended and came," the women were "gone out from the tomb" as an adjective. They "ran" in aorist indicative to tell the disciples.
  • 9-10: I chopped most of the Jesus scene for simplicity, but it is a mixture of aorist indicative and present tense. This is the culmination of the story for the women. They began "toward dawn" by coming to the tomb and at the end are now speaking with Jesus.
  • 11: "Going" here is a present participle, which means that the action is ongoing and grammatically at the same time the reader is commanded to "behold" that the guards (who are in the state of "having gone" as an adjective) "reported to the chief priests."
  • I think the "going" is also intended to match up with the women leaving the tomb to go see Jesus, so the discussion with Jesus is happening at the same time that the guards are reporting. I don't think that's necessarily dictated by grammar, but I also don't see any other possibility that makes both grammatical and narrative sense.
Here's a link to an old commentary that will hopefully show that I'm not completely full of beans, even if you don't end up agreeing with me.
Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Post #37

Post by JehovahsWitness »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:47 am
Difflugia wrote:
Original Mark: the Marys and Salome went to the tomb after the sun was up.
#What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)




#ANSWER: Harmonizing the narratives: All the women set out just before the dawn and arrived as the sun rose






RELATED POSTS
To learn more please fo to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY and ...BIBLICAL INERRANCY
INDEX

When was the Passover meal?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 32#p893932

When (what time) did the women visit the tomb? (this post)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 82#p986082

Why did the women visit the tomb
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p926941

Who were the women that visited Jesus tomb?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p908331

How many women visted Jesus' tomb
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p908331

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 35#p908335

How can Mary's various testimonies be explained?
viewtopic.php?p=1058230#p1058230

Who was at the tomb when the women arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 36#p908336

How many messengers (angels) were present when the women arrived?
viewtopic.php?p=1016247#p1016247

Where were these messengers (angels) situated when the women arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p926581

What did the messenger(s) say?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p926557

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

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p926568

When did Mary first see Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 69#p926569

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 06#p908706

After the women, to whom did Jesus "first" appear?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 74#p926574

Where and when did Jesus first appear to his disciples?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 76#p926576

Did the disciples doubt?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 40#p927240

Did the APOSTLES believe the two men (Cleopus & his companion)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 71#p926571

What happened at the appearance?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p926577

Did the Apostles travel to Galilee on the first Sunday?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p927277

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p926579

Why is there no mention in the gospels of 500 eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 16#p970816

Where did the ascension take place?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p926561
Synopsis
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p926583

Sequencing & Related Posts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p926585


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

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*
* harmonizing the resurrection narratives




Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction
Image
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply