The physical resurrection of Jesus was a legend that evolved over time

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by KnowMoreThanYou

Mike555 care to actually address the apparent evolution in the story or are we done here?

I've already addressed on the other thread https://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...urrection.html the fact that you can't prove any evolution in the story. Your whole argument depends on late dating the synoptic Gospels which you simply cannot prove and on denying that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved which makes him an eyewitness. You choose to ignore these facts and say ''well that's the scholarly consensus.'' And so yes, know it all, we are done. You however are free to keep barking your head off barking 'Nuh uh.'

[KnowMoreThanYou]

Originally Posted by Mike555

I've already addressed on the other thread https://www.city-data.com/forum/relig...urrection.html the fact that you can't prove any evolution in the story. Your whole argument depends on late dating the synoptic Gospels which you simply cannot prove and on denying that the Gospel of John was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved which makes him an eyewitness. You choose to ignore these facts and say ''well that's the scholarly consensus.'' And so yes, know it all, we are done. You however are free to keep barking your head off barking 'Nuh uh.'

Actually, even if you disagree with scholarly consensus dating you still have to account for the obvious evolution on the story. The inconsistencies and discrepancies still remain. Why do you all of a sudden have no response to that? You've ignored it in every single post and instead continue to hammer on the false assertion that John is a firsthand source.

One of your arguments for early dating of the gospels was that they don't mention the destruction of the temple. Well, for one, that's false. Luke shows clear knowledge of the Temple's destruction because he turns Mark's ambiguous prediction into an explicit reference to the Roman siege. Acts was written after Luke. Moreover, none of the gnostic gospels mention the destruction of the temple. Should they therefore be dated early too?

[TRANSPONDER]

We can see a sort of evolution in the synoptics in a development of the Jesus character from a meat puppet propelled about by the spirit of God (which itself was a progression from Paul who saw it as being a body occupied by the Messianic spirit- the new Adam making up for the disobedience of the old one - and in Matthew is more politely Led, and in Luke full of the Holy spirit, goes along himself.

In John, we don't have that episode at all and, therefore, like a lot of these episodes, that suggests that it was itself an evolution of the Jesus story. The Lazarus event, mentioned earlier is a case in point. I at first took it as factual, and if so, like the resurrection, is a clear description of a con -trick: a faked miracle to make Jesus look good.

I'll explain just how if anyone wants to know, but the point is that there was a problem; why wasn't it is the synoptic gospels? I first thought that it was dropped from the synoptic version because it looked too much like a trick. But there was a problem. If the loaves an fishes was a non -miracle event (as one poster argued, the disciples turning up with packets of freeze -dried fish jerky) wouldn't they have dropped that? Of course not. The synoptic gospel rewrote it to make it look miraculous, and it didn't even bother Mark and Matthew that they had another version (feeding 4,000)which was obviously the same, with the disciples during the later feeding asking Jesus yet again how they are going to feed the 5,000. And not only do the writers not query that, but none of the other Bible believing experts - Church fathers to modern apologists - seem to notice it. Which is probably a good reason (or excuse ) to not allow ourselves to be beaten into silence with Church fathers or Bible apologetic Authorities.

So. Why, then, didn't the Synoptic writer simply rewrite the Lazarus display resurrection (a dry run indeed for the Big One) to remove the fishy elements? It is simply too good to just lose, and they were not inclined to be too critical about fishy - looking miracles (like the healing at a distance, the daughter of Jairus and the healing of bar -Timaeus (you can see why I thought originally that these were true, but faked to impress the crowd of followers).

So I had to admit the strong possibility that the raising of Lazarus never happened, and I cannot be much impressed by those who claim that Just because the synoptic gospels doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Yes: that they don't mention it is very good reason to think it didn't happen. But even if it did, like the other Big Four, and the resurrection itself, it demonstrably reads like a plot.

Another evolution is the addition of stories, which I already touched on, and we already know of a lot of additions and total different events, like the excluded gospels. I doubt that any would argue that they have to be true because they were oral traditions handed down about Jesus. Nope. They were invented tales, and the early church fathers agree by not including them in the gospels. Because they knew what had really happened? Not a bit of it - on doctrinal reasons. The gospel of Peter has Arian Heresy in it. Other than that they might have happily included that in the canon.

So why should the conflicting stories or tales in one gospel that the others don't seem to have heard of be considered reliable tradition or report and that there is probably some good reason why the others didn't mention it? The good reason is that one of the writers invented it and the others never knew of it. And it adds not a jot or tittle of credibility to the mobile star, Magi and massacre (which Josephus as well as Luke, John and Mark - the latter two have never even heard of a birth in Bethlehem - has never heard of) the shekel -eating fish, Luke's attempted assassination in the synagogue, penitent thief and Jesus being shuttled over for Antipas to have a look at, not to mention the miraculous draft of fish shared with John, but in a totally different setting: the calling of disciples and an event that the other synoptics are unaware of (though Matthew may have heard of the story and made (13.47) a parable of it), and moreover, Luke fiddles the Angel's message to go to Galilee because he knows (from Paul's letters) that they don't go to Galilee, but stay in Jerusalem and set up the Apostolic community.

Evolution indeed; and this is the man whose Acts we are supposed to treat as seriously as Paul's letters. Not in a million years. It is full of nonsense, mistakes (1) and what appears to be contradiction of what Paul actually says. No, I would not trust Luke/Acts with my bank account details (the bastard seems obsessed with money, too) and neither would I place trust in any Church fathers that seemed to accept all this stuff as reliable, or any Bible scholars who don't see any problems, nor indeed any poster of apologetics that want to use Fathers and Authorities as reasons why we should acquiesce in shrugging off or waving away real serious problems and questions about these improbable and contradictory tales.

Which brings me to the final argument that always gets trotted out. "The disciples believed the resurrection". They did, but a spiritual resurrection. That was the one that Paul had (unless one believes he really was sucked up to the 3rd heaven [II Cor.12] to have tea and a Nag with Jesus) and is also the kind of Jesus that first Cephus sees (I Cor. 15.3), then all the disciples and then 500 altogether and (finally) the pragmatic James who was merely the Lord's brother, gave in and had a vision of Jesus (or said he did) (2).

This, not a solid body walking Jesus is three contradictory tales, is what the disciples believed in (and perhaps even died for) and the final evolution of the story was making good the omission of a more convincing resurrection than a spirit Jesus in heaven while the earthly Jesus (dead or alive) was taken out of Arimathea's tomb (3) since he wanted to use it himself, and shipped off to Galilee. So the original story that said (all four agree) was the women turned up at the tomb and found it empty and Jesus gone. A handy angel explaining that Jesus has risen (which is not in John, note) just wasn't good enough and so three contradictory stories had to be written to have Jesus walking about and letting people maul him to prove that it was the body, not just a spirit, so there.

And the final Evolution of course was cobbling these stories together to provide the missing resurrection for Mark, who had neglected to provide one himself. And rewriting the Bible (in the head if not in actuality) is a process that is still going on today.


(1) Gamaliel's speech gets the revolts of Judas and Theudas chronologically back to front and has James misquote a bit of scripture to make a point at the council of Jerusalem.

(2) the two clues to support this are that the conversion of the road to Damascus is not a solid Jesus but a visionary one. That's if you take the story as reliable. And the other is (Luke 24.35) where Luke says that Jesus has appeared to Simon. That is not only not known to anyone but Luke. Nor indeed is Matthew's appearance of Jesus to the women on the way from the tomb to the disciples (the appearance to Mary in John is after they come back with the disciples and in fact is More contradiction of Matthew), but Luke does not even describe it himself. But Luke does know that Paul said in his letter that Jesus appeared first to Cephas, so he tries to fiddle in a "First" appearance (the details of which he cannot describe or he surely would) to Simon into his story.

Paul is not referencing the Gospel resurrection stories but some visions of Jesus in the head, or as we call it today, the imagination.

(3) Mike 555 is right in that his version of the gospel story (based perhaps an an eyewitness account but heavily edited to suit John himself), the disciple that Jesus loves was Lazarus and Lazarus or John shows up at the crucifixion. Given that Arimathea's new Tomb couldn't be in the city or even the suburbs (where the Holy Sepulchre and Garden tombs now are) but in Jesus' time it had to be on the mount of Olives. Given that it was in a garden, we can guess which garden it was and who owned the garden and the Tomb.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Mike555

The text says that John is an eyewitness account.

So show that the text is true.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by KnowMoreThanYou

Actually, even if you disagree with scholarly consensus dating you still have to account for the obvious evolution on the story. The inconsistencies and discrepancies still remain. Why do you all of a sudden have no response to that? You've ignored it in every single post and instead continue to hammer on the false assertion that John is a firsthand source.

One of your arguments for early dating of the gospels was that they don't mention the destruction of the temple. Well, for one, that's false. Luke shows clear knowledge of the Temple's destruction because he turns Mark's ambiguous prediction into an explicit reference to the Roman siege. Acts was written after Luke. Moreover, none of the gnostic gospels mention the destruction of the temple. Should they therefore be dated early too?

You keep claiming that there is an obvious evolution on the story. I've told you more than once that your claim rests on the unprovable assumption that the Gospels were late dated. Luke records only the prediction made by Jesus of the temple's future destruction in Luke 21:6. He does not record it has having already happened. And you ignore the fact that Paul seems to have quoted from Luke which if so means that Luke had to have been written by the early 60's. You also ignore the fact that Luke in Acts doesn't mention the deaths of Peter and Paul which occurred in the mid 60's.

And the Gnostic gospels are known to have been written during the second century. So your argument fails there as well.

[KnowMoreThanYou]

Originally Posted by Mike555

You keep claiming that there is an obvious evolution on the story.

And there is. Just read my OP. So far you have been unable to provide another explanation for why the encounters with the Risen Jesus get more "physical" and amazing between the documents.

I've told you more than once that your claim rests on the unprovable assumption that the Gospels were late dated.

Not "late dated." I'm using the scholarly consensus view. When you're debating history then what the scholars/experts say matters. It didn't become the scholarly consensus without good reasons. And again, even if you reject consensus dating the fact still remains that Paul only speaks of visions, Mark introduces the empty tomb, Matthew has the first appearance report, Luke details a much more "physical" report and adds the ascension, John basically equates Jesus with God and has the Doubting Thomas story. How do you account for all this inconsistency? Is your explanation better than legendary growth?

Luke records only the prediction made by Jesus of the temple's future destruction in Luke 21:6. He does not record it has having already happened.

Yes, Luke alludes to the destruction of the temple in Luke 21 and we know that Luke copied Mark which dates to around 70 CE. Irenaeus says Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3.1.1-3) which would have been c. 65 CE. There are numerous other internal indicators that Mark wrote around 70 CE.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBib...st_70_date_of/

Therefore, it follows that both Luke/Acts were written after 70 CE. Luke 19:43-44 and 21:24 alter the ambiguous reference to a desecration of the temple in Mark 13:14 to the explicit actions of the Roman siege. This seems to presuppose the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and shows knowledge of the event. The "predictions" are vaticinium ex eventu or written after the events they are "foretelling."

And you ignore the fact that Paul seems to have quoted from Luke which if so means that Luke had to have been written by the early 60's.

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. You don't get to use a pseudopigrachical text whose exact date is in question. Moreover, the epistle seems to be responding to gnosticism which was a 2nd century development.

"The text seems to be contending against nascent Gnosticism (1 Tim 1:4, 1 Tim 4:3) (see Encratism), which would suggest a later date due to Gnosticism developing primarily in the latter 1st century. The term Gnosis ("knowledge") itself occurs in 1 Timothy 6:20. If the parallels between 1 Timothy and Polycarp's epistle are understood as a literary dependence by the latter on the former, as is generally accepted, this would constitute a terminus ante quem of AD 130–155." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

You also ignore the fact that Luke in Acts doesn't mention the deaths of Peter and Paul which occurred in the mid 60's.

Argument from silence. The gnostic gospels don't mention that either. Should they therefore be dated early too?

And the Gnostic gospels are known to have been written during the second century. So your argument fails there as well.

That's irrelevant. Acts is routinely dated after 85 CE and some date it early 2nd century as well. You're using an argument for early dating when it comes to Acts then when applying that same argument to a different document all of a sudden that argument is no good? Well, that just shows the argument is fallacious to begin with.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Actually, scholars use both internal evidence and external evidence. I've shown you the internal evidence and the early church fathers attest that John wrote the gospel that bears his name. And that is the external evidence. Since you're a know it all you should have known that.

But you're playing games. First you denied that John 21:20-24 shows that John was written by an eyewitness, and now you're acknowledging in a backhanded manner that it does but that you can't trust it. And this is how it goes with people like you, and I simply am not going to waste my time playing the game. And so, know it all, play your game with someone else.

I've shown you the internal evidence that refutes the reliability of the gospels and you ignoire it, and I can't in fact recall any Internal Evidence you showed to support it, other than insist it's al true and the early Church fathers, excuse me, all believed it.

You appear to be using 'game playing' as an excuse to Flounce Off again. in fact that there are some signs that John may have an eyewitness account that the gospel was based on, but a lot of evidence of fiddling and fabrication. John has not a single parable, but a lot of sermons, which the synoptics don't even hit at. To ignore what is pretty powerful evidence of invention and shrug it off as lapses of memory or a different point of view is the game -play. I call it faith based blindness.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by KnowMoreThanYou

And there is. Just read my OP. So far you have been unable to provide another explanation for why the encounters with the Risen Jesus get more "physical" and amazing between the documents.

An evolution of the gospels is more than just an equally good explanation; it is pretty much clearly demonstrated by comparing the gospels.

Not "late dated." I'm using the scholarly consensus view. When you're debating history then what the scholars/experts say matters. It didn't become the scholarly consensus without good reasons.p

I can't speak to scholarly concensus, but it's evident to me that the Gospels follow paul and elaborate on Paul right from the earliest version of the Jesus story, which, as you showed, was variously elaborated. Paul vanishes from the scene Ad 6O and the reference to the destruction of the temple is not the only "Prediction" of the Jewish war which, in view of all the fiddling and fabrication going on in the gospels may be taken rather as the basic gospels (the synoptic original, at any rate) being written after the Jewish war. We are looking at a 2nd century date even for the earliest - Mark.

Yes, Luke alludes to the destruction of the temple in Luke 21 and we know that Luke copied Mark which dates to around 70 CE. Irenaeus says Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3.1.1-3) which would have been c. 65 CE. There are numerous other internal indicators that Mark wrote around 70 CE.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBib...st_70_date_of/

Therefore, it follows that both Luke/Acts were written after 70 CE. Luke 19:43-44 and 21:24 alter the ambiguous reference to a desecration of the temple in Mark 13:14 to the explicit actions of the Roman siege. This seems to presuppose the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and shows knowledge of the event. The "predictions" are vaticinium ex eventu or written after the events they are "foretelling."

Yes. I'd just observe that there are some internal signs that Luke did not copy Mark as we now have it, but an original version of the synoptic gospel which did not have the syrio -phoenecian woman, or the feeding of 4,000. Rather than this being a 'Great omission' as it is called, Mark and matthew has a great addition. There is also mark's confusion about the trips to Bethany. If Matthew and Luke had copied mark, they would have made the same mistake. They don't.

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. You don't get to use a pseudopigrachical text whose exact date is in question. Moreover, the epistle seems to be responding to gnosticism which was a 2nd century development.

"The text seems to be contending against nascent Gnosticism (1 Tim 1:4, 1 Tim 4:3) (see Encratism), which would suggest a later date due to Gnosticism developing primarily in the latter 1st century. The term Gnosis ("knowledge") itself occurs in 1 Timothy 6:20. If the parallels between 1 Timothy and Polycarp's epistle are understood as a literary dependence by the latter on the former, as is generally accepted, this would constitute a terminus ante quem of AD 130–155." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy



Argument from silence. The gnostic gospels don't mention that either. Should they therefore be dated early too?



That's irrelevant. Acts is routinely dated after 85 CE and some date it early 2nd century as well. You're using an argument for early dating when it comes to Acts then when applying that same argument to a different document all of a sudden that argument is no good? Well, that just shows the argument is fallacious to begin with.

I rather wondered about the apparent date of Luke to 60 AD, when it has all the signs of being the latest of the Gospels and you'd be looking at late 2nd century if not early 3rd. I think the answer is that Luke is basin Acts on Paul's letters, plus Josephus gor a bit of History and Paul's story ends with the council of Jerusalem (50/51 AD) and the intention to go to Rome. Luke appears to have let his imagination run with a description of Paul's arrest, appeal to Rome and some rather improbable sea travel and that's all he had. 60 A0, not because that's when Acts was written, but that was all the biography he had.