What is the best explanation for why the Resurrection of Jesus looks like a legend evolving?

That’s just sad. It comes off as avoidance. It’s revealing that you did not mention evidence as having any role in your reasoning, just rhetoric.

You should look at those, then, instead of looking at news articles and YouTube.

Here’s a good one from a Christian:
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1950/JASA3-50Kulp.html

3 Likes

Hello, welcome to the forum…I am not really the welcome wagon, I haven’t posted in a long time. I have noticed however, that the use of the term “scholarly consensus” is a way to whitewash the writers belief. As a believer and a student of the bible, I find that the chronology you present is not accurate. I would encourage further biblical study. I also cringe when people insist that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were Apostles, Mark was Peter’s scribe, Luke was a scientist seeking facts within a relatively short historical period. Jesus walked the earth for 40 days prior to transfiguration. Paul’s encounter was with the transfigured Christ and was not the first encounter. Much of what you present is not biblically accurate, publishing dates rarely reflect a chronological account of events. Relying on “scholarly” efforts of non-believers also rarely reveals any truth.

Most likely it was left up to rot or buried in a criminal’s grave. Being afforded a “brand new” rock hewn tomb is fanciful writing that was invented in order to convey the idea that Jesus had a proper burial. He had to be given a “tomb” because the space had to be large enough for the women to look inside and confirm he was missing.

If Jesus wasn’t physically raised, why are the stories about the women included?

First of all, Paul doesn’t mention any women at all. Secondly, caring for the dead - anointing and such was women’s work so we would expect them to be depicted as the first arriving on the scene. Third, Mark 14:50 says all the disciples deserted Jesus and fled so women were the only option.

I.e. To summarize what you’re saying - initially Paul and others claimed to have visions and other followers morphed these into physical appearances. But if there wasn’t a commitment to passing on these stories accurately, then why were the stories about the women kept in, in the later gospels?

If you’re attempting at the apologetic “women’s testimony wasn’t trusted” tactic, notice in Mark 16:8 the women don’t testify at all. Secondly, the idea that a woman’s testimony wasn’t trusted comes from Jewish legal sources. The New Testament is not a collection of Jewish law documents so the standard doesn’t apply. The narratives after Mark just have close followers of Jesus telling other close followers of Jesus.

2 Likes

You can simply Google this yourself. Most experts in the New Testament and the gospels date the compositions 40-60 years after the death of Jesus.

I also cringe when people insist that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were Apostles,

Paul says “Jesus appeared to me” - firsthand eyewitness claim. Now find me a passage in Matthew and John where they write in the first person saying “I saw Jesus” and then describe what they saw. You’ll notice the accounts are written in third person. Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness and John only has anonymous attribution - “We know his testimony is true.” This is hardly evidence. A lot of the apocryphal gospels were claimed to have been written by eyewitnesses too. This trend of falsely claiming eyewitness authorship had to start somewhere. Why not with John?

Mark was Peter’s scribe,

Does the gospel of Mark actually say that?

Luke was a scientist seeking facts within a relatively short historical period.

Read the gospel. The author nowhere identifies who he is or his credentials.

Jesus walked the earth for 40 days prior to transfiguration.

That claim is only in Acts right?

Paul’s encounter was with the transfigured Christ and was not the first encounter.

Never said it was the first encounter. The point was he doesn’t distinguish his “vision” of Jesus from the other “appearances” so we have an inference they were visions too.

Much of what you present is not biblically accurate, publishing dates rarely reflect a chronological account of events.

Likewise, if the stories were all published by anonymous authors who do not cite their sources after 70 CE then there is no evidence the stories existed prior to that time period or that they actually go back to historical events.

Relying on “scholarly” efforts of non-believers also rarely reveals any truth.

Plenty of Christian scholars date all the gospels after 70 CE.

3 Likes

9 posts were split to a new topic: The Gospels, Eyewitness Testimony, and Faith

Matt, just want to say that there really isn’t an argument between the Bible and science. Teachings that the Bible is speaking science are unfortunate and hinder the faith of many. There is a good bit of great scholarship on this topic. I’ll mention John Walton, Mike Heiser and Tim Mackey as examples of good scholarship on the OT understood in light of its ancient Near East context.

1 Like

1 John 1:1-4…same author as the gospel.

Seeing as the gospel of John 1:1 references Jesus as present at the beginning of time, similar to how Moses writes Genesis, we can conclude that neither were eyewitnesses. That however, does not invalidate the truth of the writing.

@Mark10.45 is capable of writing in the third person, it’s a pretty common literary tool used throughout the bible and throughout history. It really has no bearing on whether or not @Mark10.45 was an eyewitness to the writing of this post, but we know his testimony is true.

no, this is the “scholarly consensus”…Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Tertullian reference Mark as Peter’s scribe. Mark, or John Mark is mentioned frequently, Colossians 4, 2 Timothy 4, Acts 12/15, Philemon, 1 Peter 5…some reference the boy in the garden of Gethsemane to be Mark (Mark 14:51-52), which would make him an eyewitness.

True…but his identity can be deduced from the gospel, Acts, Colossians 4:14, and writings from the early church that affirm his authorship.

Acts 1:3

This is where things get weird for me…there were no printing presses, publishing laws, internet, or academic standard…I don’t understand how the argument that they didn’t follow today’s academic standard 2000 years ago makes any sense.

1 Like