Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another and grow in the telling in chronological order. This is not expected from reliable eyewitness testimony but is more expected from a legend developing over time. In order to show the resurrection narratives evolve like a legend developing, I'm going to compare the ways Jesus is said to have been "seen" or experienced after the Resurrection in each account according to the order in which most scholars place the compositions. Remember, these accounts are claimed to be from eyewitnesses who all experienced the same events so we would at least expect some sort of consistency.

Beginning with Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus, he is also the only verified firsthand account we have from someone who claims to have personally met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than "visions" or "revelations" of Jesus. The Greek words ophthe (1 Cor 15:5-8), heoraka (1 Cor 9:1) and apokalupto (Gal. 1:16) do not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person and so cannot be used as evidence for veridical experiences where an actual resurrected body was seen in physical reality. In Paul's account, it is unclear whether the "appearances" were believed to have happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven, ultimately making the nature of these experiences ambiguous. Peter and James certainly would have told Paul about the empty tomb or the time they touched Jesus and watched him float to heaven. These "proofs" (Acts 1:3) would have certainly been helpful in convincing the doubting Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and also help clarify the type of body the resurrected would have (v. 35). So these details are very conspicuous in their absence here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark (70 CE) adds the discovery of the empty tomb but does not narrate any appearances so no help here really. He just claims Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. This is very unexpected if the account really came from Peter's testimony. Why leave out the most important part especially, if Papias was correct, that "Mark made sure not to omit anything he heard"? Did Peter just forget to tell Mark this!? Anyways, there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. 

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative, drops the remark that the "women told no one" from Mk
16:8 and instead, has Jesus suddenly appear to the women on their way to tell the disciples! It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account. Then, Jesus appeared to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, another uncorroborated story, and says some even doubted it! (Mt. 28:17) So the earliest narrative doesn't even support the veracity of the event! Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19? Well, under the development theory - John's story never took place! It's a later development, obviously, which perfectly explains both the lack of mention of any Jerusalem appearances in our earliest gospels plus the awkward "doubt" after already having seen Jesus alive!

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke (85 CE or later) - All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. Jesus appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then suddenly vanishes from their sight. They return to tell the other disciples and a reference is made to the appearance to Peter (which may just come from 1 Cor 15:5 since it's not narrated). Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports! Luke omits any appearance to the women and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. There is no evidence that Luke intended to convey Jesus ever appeared to anyone in Galilee. Moreover, Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearance because he has Jesus tell the disciples to "stay in the city" of Jerusalem the same night of the resurrection - Lk. 24:49. It looks as though the Galilean appearance tradition has been erased by Luke which would be a deliberate alteration of the earlier tradition (since Luke was dependent upon Mark's gospel).

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

John (90-110 CE) - the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb who does not recognize him at first. Then Jesus, who can now teleport through locked doors, appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke his wounds. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" you will be blessed. Lastly, there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21 in which Jesus appears to seven disciples. None of these stories are corroborated except for the initial appearance (which may draw upon Luke). It looks as though the final editor of John has tried to combine the disparate traditions of appearances.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

Challenge: I submit this as a clear pattern of "development" that is better explained by the legendary growth hypothesis (LGH) as opposed to actual experienced events. Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees to explain why the story looks so "developed" while simultaneously maintaining its historical reliability. In order to achieve this, one must provide other reliable sources from people who experienced the same events but also exhibit the same amount of growth and disparity as the gospel resurrection narratives.

Until this challenge is met, the resurrection narratives should be regarded as legends because reliable eyewitness testimony does not have this degree of growth or inconsistency.

[TRANSPONDER]

Matthew doesn't really tell did the women see the rolling. It is possible that the information game for example from the guards.

How do you imagine this happening? According to Matthew's story in 28:1-8, the women arrived, there was an earthquake, an angel that looked like lightning and dressed in white appeared, then rolled away the stone. The guards then passed out stone cold. The angels talked to the women, then the women immediately left.

So, your synthesis of these events is that the women were standing at the tomb and didn't notice the earthquake or a lightning-like angel rolling the stone away? Is that really how you harmonize this story with the ones that say the women arrived after the stone had already been rolled away?

"Well done, my good and faithful servant!"

Did the women in Mark tell the disciples about the resurrection? "And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid." ....

Sorry, I didn't find the scripture that says that, please tell where is that in the Bible?

Mark 16:8

Why would they all move exactly the same way? If we would make a story about how the writings in this debate was formed, it would be as complex, because that is how things go, when multiple people are involved. Why assume that it would have been some kind of simple day?

Who said I'm looking for "simple?" I'm looking for plausible, which I think is a reasonable expectation. The fact that you have to mischaracterize my expectations reinforces that you seem to know exactly why your harmonization is as implausible as it is.

There are also more contradictions that I have time to type them. And even more Apologetics attempts to pull the wool over our -all eyes.

Including the tatty old attempt to appeal to John's 'many other things' to imply that we can't rely on anything - except what the apologists claim, apparently, even where they make stuff up out of thin air like 'the women split up'.

But , yes, we don't even deal with matthew's daft angel or tomb guard, not hinted at by anyone else. Matthew even hints why he he invented it - because the Jews of his (later) day were claiming the disciples stole the body.

Who is to say they didn't, if we were to credit the account? With Pilate's help (he was synpathetic to Jesus, the Bible want to tell us) and the one who put the body in the tomb took him out.

I used to half believe that, but the contradictions argue that the whole thing was made up.

I've heard all the excuses, from 'the disciples were all dispersed and frightened' (but not Arimathea and Nicodemus) and the womens' testimony wasn't credited (which doesn't stop Cleophas reporting what they has seen and heard - just as Luke says - but no mention of running into Jesus. These are excuses to fool anyone wiliing to be fooled, but if I have Faith at all, it is in people really wanting to think that they have better reasons for their beliefs than denialist Faith.

And we know Blind, denialist, Faith when we see it.

[Goose]

Irenaeus also says...

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” – Against Heresies 3.1

Irenaeus would be direct evidence against your main contention that the resurrection accounts are not based on eyewitness testimony.

Usually when I debate people who believe this stuff, they assume the Church Fathers are reliable.

In an attempt to counter argue against the reliability of the Gospels you were the one who first tacitly appealed to the reliability of Irenaeus to provide information on the composition of the Gospels.

I'm under no obligation to believe anything they say.

Yet you appealed to Irenaeus to bolster your argument. Now you seem to be implying you don’t believe anything he said.

I'm simply making an internal critique based on what they are arguing vs what the sources say. He tried to throw Irenaeus under the bus when it contradicted his belief on the dates of the gospels but was unknowingly committed to what Irenaeus said elsewhere!

Like I said, you appealed to Irenaeus first.

If you don't think Irenaeus is reliable like him then that's fine.

The point is, you must think Irenaeus is reliable. After all, you appealed to him to bolster your counter argument. Now, when Irenaeus works against you, you seem to suggest he isn’t reliable.

Irenaeus was dependent upon Papias for that tradition but Papias' descriptions do not match our canonical Mark and Matthew.

That Irenaeus depends upon Papias is one theory. However, Irenaeus makes no direct claim as to where he received his information on Gospel authorship. If his source had been Papias why didn’t Irenaeus mention Papias as his source since he references Papias elsewhere (Against Heresies 5.33.4)?

Another option is that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp who, according to Irenaeus, had met John and others who had seen the Lord (as recorded by Eusebius Church History 5.20.5-6). In any case, Irenaeus represents a source within roughly one hundred years of the last Gospel attesting to eyewitness sources behind the Gospels. He's a source which can be connected to John and eyewitnesses (John/eyewitnesses -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus). Comparatively speaking Irenaeus is good external evidence for authorship by these criteria.

This, plus the empirical observation of Matthew's additions to Mark's narrative is enough to doubt historicity.

What do you mean by “empirical observation of Matthew's additions to Mark's narrative”? Markan priority and the two-source hypothesis, though the prevailing view, is one of several competing theories.

Matthew is clearly writing fiction when he adds a earthquake, a descending angel and says tombs of people opened up and that they "appeared to many." You'd think the other gospel authors would've noticed this stuff....

The fact they didn’t argues strongly against your premise that the narratives “grow in the telling.”

[TRANSPONDER]

Isn't the problem really that Mark as it is now has no original resurrection other than the angelic explanation (and John refutes that)? The later cobbled together account is irrelevant.'Mark' as it is does not validate a resurrection.

Thus appeal to church fathers does nothing to verify the later gospels even if it supports Mark. And the reciting of Church claims like mark was a secretary to Levi or Cephas who dictated everything to him is about as reliable as the early Church martyrdom stories.

[AchillesHeel]

In an attempt to counter argue against the reliability of the Gospels you were the one who first tacitly appealed to the reliability of Irenaeus to provide information on the composition of the Gospels.

Yet you appealed to Irenaeus to bolster your argument. Now you seem to be implying you don’t believe anything he said.

Like I said, you appealed to Irenaeus first.

The point is, you must think Irenaeus is reliable. After all, you appealed to him to bolster your counter argument. Now, when Irenaeus works against you, you seem to suggest he isn’t reliable.

No. Please re-read for context. The comment I responded to was:

The gospels were written in the lifetimes of the witnesses.

But if what Irenaeus says is true, then that claim is at least partially false regardless of the authorship claim. I don't need to assume Irenaeus is reliable. All I need to do is show this person's claim contradicts what Irenaeus said.

That Irenaeus depends upon Papias is one theory. However, Irenaeus makes no direct claim as to where he received his information on Gospel authorship.

Then why are you assuming what he says is reliable regarding authorship? If the only source we know about is Papias and he gives no other, then how exactly are we supposed to trace the origins of what he says prior to 180 CE?

If his source had been Papias why didn’t Irenaeus mention Papias as his source since he references Papias elsewhere (Against Heresies 5.33.4)?

If that passage shows knowledge of Papias' books, then it follows that Irenaeus was dependent on Papias. Plus, you can see from the wording that he follows "common elements" (your own words) from what Papias says.

Another option is that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp who, according to Irenaeus, had met John and others who had seen the Lord (as recorded by Eusebius Church History 5.20.5-6). In any case, Irenaeus represents a source within roughly one hundred years of the last Gospel attesting to eyewitness sources behind the Gospels. He's a source which can be connected to John and eyewitnesses (John/eyewitnesses -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus). Comparatively speaking Irenaeus is good external evidence for authorship by these criteria.

Any option you give is crushed under the weight of the internal legendary growth throughout the sources. They simply cannot be based on eyewitness testimony per my challenge which you've yet to respond to. Internal evidence always trumps external and uncertain attestation.

What do you mean by “empirical observation of Matthew's additions to Mark's narrative”?

The addition to the end of Mark's gospel and removal of the "said nothing to anyone" comment, the addition of the virgin birth, the addition of a descending angel, earthquakes, tombs opening up and formerly dead people walking around the city, adding two donkeys to the Jerusalem entry scene, adding the part where Peter walked on water with Jesus, says "news spread all over Syria" not just Galilee as Mark says, sermon on the mount, Mt. 8:28 says Jesus restored TWO demon possessed men instead of one in Mark, Mt. 20:29-34 heals TWO blind men instead of just Bartimaeus from Mk. 10:46-52.

Are those enough examples to show the story has grown between Mark and Matthew?

Markan priority and the two-source hypothesis, though the prevailing view, is one of several competing theories.

The documents share verbatim Greek which is evidence of copying. I don't think it makes sense for Mark to be copying Matthew for reasons which I don't really feel necessary to get into. The "prevailing view" should suffice.

The fact they didn’t argues strongly against your premise that the narratives “grow in the telling.”

Each document grows in various ways from what Paul and Mark, our earliest sources, say regarding how Jesus was experienced post-Resurrection. I never said Luke and John were dependent on what Matthew said and my original comparative analysis was regarding the Resurrection narratives. Matthew's zombie apocalypse is just icing on the cake that add weight to the idea that these authors were not interested in recording actual things that happened.

But enough with the nonsense. My challenge remains unaddressed so the gospel resurrection narrative still remain legends until proven otherwise.

[Mae von H]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another and grow in the telling in chronological order. This is not expected from reliable eyewitness testimony but is more expected from a legend developing over time. In order to show the resurrection narratives evolve like a legend developing, I'm going to compare the ways Jesus is said to have been "seen" or experienced after the Resurrection in each account according to the order in which most scholars place the compositions. Remember, these accounts are claimed to be from eyewitnesses who all experienced the same events so we would at least expect some sort of consistency.

Beginning with Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus, he is also the only verified firsthand account we have from someone who claims to have personally met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than "visions" or "revelations" of Jesus. The Greek words ophthe (1 Cor 15:5-8), heoraka (1 Cor 9:1) and apokalupto (Gal. 1:16) do not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person and so cannot be used as evidence for veridical experiences where an actual resurrected body was seen in physical reality. In Paul's account, it is unclear whether the "appearances" were believed to have happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven, ultimately making the nature of these experiences ambiguous. Peter and James certainly would have told Paul about the empty tomb or the time they touched Jesus and watched him float to heaven. These "proofs" (Acts 1:3) would have certainly been helpful in convincing the doubting Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and also help clarify the type of body the resurrected would have (v. 35). So these details are very conspicuous in their absence here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark (70 CE) adds the discovery of the empty tomb but does not narrate any appearances so no help here really. He just claims Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. This is very unexpected if the account really came from Peter's testimony. Why leave out the most important part especially, if Papias was correct, that "Mark made sure not to omit anything he heard"? Did Peter just forget to tell Mark this!? Anyways, there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. 

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative, drops the remark that the "women told no one" from Mk
16:8 and instead, has Jesus suddenly appear to the women on their way to tell the disciples! It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account. Then, Jesus appeared to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, another uncorroborated story, and says some even doubted it! (Mt. 28:17) So the earliest narrative doesn't even support the veracity of the event! Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19? Well, under the development theory - John's story never took place! It's a later development, obviously, which perfectly explains both the lack of mention of any Jerusalem appearances in our earliest gospels plus the awkward "doubt" after already having seen Jesus alive!

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke (85 CE or later) - All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. Jesus appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then suddenly vanishes from their sight. They return to tell the other disciples and a reference is made to the appearance to Peter (which may just come from 1 Cor 15:5 since it's not narrated). Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports! Luke omits any appearance to the women and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. There is no evidence that Luke intended to convey Jesus ever appeared to anyone in Galilee. Moreover, Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearance because he has Jesus tell the disciples to "stay in the city" of Jerusalem the same night of the resurrection - Lk. 24:49. It looks as though the Galilean appearance tradition has been erased by Luke which would be a deliberate alteration of the earlier tradition (since Luke was dependent upon Mark's gospel).

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

John (90-110 CE) - the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb who does not recognize him at first. Then Jesus, who can now teleport through locked doors, appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke his wounds. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" you will be blessed. Lastly, there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21 in which Jesus appears to seven disciples. None of these stories are corroborated except for the initial appearance (which may draw upon Luke). It looks as though the final editor of John has tried to combine the disparate traditions of appearances.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

Challenge: I submit this as a clear pattern of "development" that is better explained by the legendary growth hypothesis (LGH) as opposed to actual experienced events. Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees to explain why the story looks so "developed" while simultaneously maintaining its historical reliability. In order to achieve this, one must provide other reliable sources from people who experienced the same events but also exhibit the same amount of growth and disparity as the gospel resurrection narratives.

Until this challenge is met, the resurrection narratives should be regarded as legends because reliable eyewitness testimony does not have this degree of growth or inconsistency.

These assumptions ignore the fact that the authors were old and feeble or already dead at the time the authorship is accredited to them. The internal information provided in the texts themselves shows the above to be completely absurd. What we see here is cherry picking what the author likes to prove his a priori position. This is done to discredit the whole works. That millions have died because the believed and followed the directions within those works is ignored.

What all of this continues to show me is that the words of Jesus are so true. If anyone wants to know the truth of what is written in the Bible, he must be willing to do what Jesus taught. That is the only way. Those who have done so can testify that they have come to know the truth thereby and have laid down their lives rather than embrace a lie. Atheists refuse to do as Jesus teaches even though it is superior morally and ethically to the "survival of the fittest" moral code evolution teaches and so they do not know the truth. The above is another reason not to do what it takes to find the truth.

[1213]

...Luke had Cleophas repeat to Jesus what they had seen - angels who said Jesus was alive. This contradicts Matthew, who said that they had run into Jesus. It is absurd to think that Cleophas would have left that out.

I don't think Matthew has event he word Cleophas. Please show what scripture you are talking about?

It means of course that Matthew has invented that rather pointless encounter. On top of that, John has no angel or message and Mary (and another implied by her saying 'we' do not know where they have put him'), contradicts the Synoptics and their explanatory angel. Quite apart fromLuke altering the message to suit his amended narrative.

John tells the story from John's and Mary's point of view, that is why it includes the things they know. And the story shows the disciples were not all the time in a same place, which is why they can't be identical. If they would be identical, then they could not be true, because the story shows they can't be identical. The stories are not contradictory, only parts of bigger story that comes visible, when on connects them correctly. The Gospels are like a movie that tell the same story from multiple point of views. And then obviously there is differences, because people get into the situations in different ways.

Luke saying Mary Magdalene and the others saw all these things clobbers the attempt to invent the women splitting up.

Why are you again spreading that lie, when I just showed that Luke doesn't say "saw all things". Luke says "told these things". Are you hoping that people read only your last post and believe everything you say?

[1213]

Matthew doesn't really tell did the women see the rolling. It is possible that the information came for example from the guards.

How do you imagine this happening? According to Matthew's story in 28:1-8, the women arrived, there was an earthquake, an angel that looked like lightning and dressed in white appeared, then rolled away the stone. The guards then passed out stone cold. The angels talked to the women, then the women immediately left.

So, your synthesis of these events is that the women were standing at the tomb and didn't notice the earthquake or a lightning-like angel rolling the stone away? Is that really how you harmonize this story with the ones that say the women arrived after the stone had already been rolled away?

By what I see, the story went so that while the women were on their way to the tomb, the stone was rolled away. And that was witnessed by the guards that told it to other people. Women saw only that the stone was rolled away. And then they wondered about it awhile, and soon after that they saw the angels. But, Mary was not there, because she left to tell others that they found the empty tomb.

Did the women in Mark tell the disciples about the resurrection? "And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid." ....

Sorry, I didn't find the scripture that says that, please tell where is that in the Bible?

Mark 16:8

Ok, thanks. I think that can mean they didn't tell instantly, not that they never told anything. And before that it is said:

But go, say to the disciples and to Peter, He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there, even as He told you.
Mark 16:7

That is why I understand, on their way, they did not tell anything for other people. But, obviously they told the things for other disciples, when they met, as I think also Mark tells after that.

Why would they all move exactly the same way? If we would make a story about how the writings in this debate was formed, it would be as complex, because that is how things go, when multiple people are involved. Why assume that it would have been some kind of simple day?

Who said I'm looking for "simple?" ...

How you see the story, tells you are looking for simple.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Luke had Cleophas repeat to Jesus what they had seen - angels who said Jesus was alive. This contradicts Matthew, who said that they had run into Jesus. It is absurd to think that Cleophas would have left that out.

I don't think Matthew has event he word Cleophas. Please show what scripture you are talking about?

What else but the chat with Jesus on the road to Emmaus. Where else does Cleophas appear? Luke has him report what Mary Magdalene had seen and heard but no mention of neeting Jesus, as matthew claims. A six year old could put this together in their head, but not you... nor 2,000 years of Biblescholars, it seems.

It means of course that Matthew has invented that rather pointless encounter. On top of that, John has no angel or message and Mary (and another implied by her saying 'we' do not know where they have put him'), contradicts the Synoptics and their explanatory angel. Quite apart fromLuke altering the message to suit his amended narrative.

John tells the story from John's and Mary's point of view, that is why it includes the things they know. And the story shows the disciples were not all the time in a same place, which is why they can't be identical. If they would be identical, then they could not be true, because the story shows they can't be identical. The stories are not contradictory, only parts of bigger story that comes visible, when on connects them correctly. The Gospels are like a movie that tell the same story from multiple point of views. And then obviously there is differences, because people get into the situations in different ways.

Excuses and evasions. A miserable mix of inventing stuff (different places) and appeal to 'minor disagreements'. Peter and the others, all referred to as being the ones Mary Magdalene (John and Luke specifically say so) ran back to. John says nothing about an angelic explanation, and Mary Magdalene does no know what has happened to Jesus.
Luke says she (specifically named) told (you make an evasive fiddle of this) these things (what the angel explained and seeing the tomb empty, which contradicts John who has no such report with the same scene and person (Mary magdalene). And neither of course have them running into Jesus as Matthew claims. These are the same people and events and the disciples who were there, being the ones who were there. You wriggling, evasion, invention, misdirection and denial only makes you and all the Bible apologists look bad. And that's being polite about it.r

Luke saying Mary Magdalene and the others saw all these things clobbers the attempt to invent the women splitting up.

Why are you again spreading that lie, when I just showed that Luke doesn't say "saw all things". Luke says "told these things". Are you hoping that people read only your last post and believe everything you say?

You are doing mental gymnastics. What 'things' would Mary Magdalene and the other tell? What they had seen and heard, of course. And you are a fine one to accuse me of 'spreading that lie' when your apologetics reek of filling, evasion and denial. I am so very thankful to be an atheist and i don't have to do such things to my brain.

[AchillesHeel]

These assumptions ignore the fact that the authors were old and feeble or already dead at the time the authorship is accredited to them. The internal information provided in the texts themselves shows the above to be completely absurd. What we see here is cherry picking what the author likes to prove his a priori position.

What is being "cherry picked" exactly? When investigating the veracity of the resurrection claim, it makes sense to investigate the texts which speak of the resurrection, correct? What else are we supposed to look at? You still have no explanation for why the story looks like it evolved over decades...

What all of this continues to show me is that the words of Jesus are so true. If anyone wants to know the truth of what is written in the Bible, he must be willing to do what Jesus taught. That is the only way. Those who have done so can testify that they have come to know the truth thereby and have laid down their lives rather than embrace a lie. Atheists refuse to do as Jesus teaches even though it is superior morally and ethically to the "survival of the fittest" moral code evolution teaches and so they do not know the truth. The above is another reason not to do what it takes to find the truth.

Ah yes. When all else fails, start preaching....

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.Faithclaims, preaching, witnessing, noneof that matters a damn.

Examination of the Data or evidence matters.

If we are to excuse stuff on the grounds (broadly) that we can't credit, trust, understand or rely on what, how and why they wrote what they did, then there is no reason to credit any of it.

And yet, people aren't stupid, just too willing to beleive what they are told.

We all have a mental image of the nativity, with a shed with a few farm animals and a star overhead, with the shepherds and 3 kings present. Usually in a snowscape. This is a mix of peddled collective images with the unfounded supposition it was a t December, even though it doesn't snow in Judea, even in December.

But serasonal commentary, the resurrection is also fiddled together, leaving out the bits that don't fit, or trying to pretend they were a different event altogether.

Like our pal 12-13 trying the idea that Mary Magdalene rushed off as soon as she saw the empty tomb, which is absurd. Luke has her report that Jesus has gone, the tomb is empty, and the angels say Jesus is risen. This is confirmed later when Cleophas reports what the women said, and it must have been all of them as Cleophas waited until the disciples came back from the tomb, and John says Mary magdalene was with them.

But John has no angelic message about Jesus having risen and neither John nor Luke have the women running into Jesus.

None of this is in the easter card of a selected scene and ignoring the one that contradicts. We have been peddled an edited composite science and I can only guess the perpetrators of this fairy tale hope that nobody checks up.

I needn't labour or even labor the semantic juggling that goes on to make the bible not say what it says, but the Atheist Axiom is 'when people have been shown how a magic trick works, they won't be fooled by it ever again'.