Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

[JehovahsWitness]

Did you read the comparative analysis of the resurrection narratives? Here is a summary:

None of the resurrection narratives from the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15:5-8. The story evolves from what seems to be Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ who is experienced through visions/revelations from heaven ...

So now I have some follow up questions based what you mean by "the story seems be evolve from" ...

• Are you suggesting that the Christian movement did not exist until some 20 years after the death of its declared leader ?

• Or are you suggesting that the judeo-christians did exist but their tradition did not include a risen Messiah?

• Or is your point that Christians did believe in a risen Messiah but they didn't know why as they had no authoratative narratives testifying to this ?

In other words what are you suggesting existed before Paul put pen to paper in the 50's; can you address the points above since it is not clear from your posts.

[AchillesHeel]

[JehovahsWitness]

They believed in a "Risen Messiah" most likely due to Scripture and believed that he had "appeared" to them from heaven like 1 Cor 15:3-8 says.

No, I'm asking about BEFORE Corinthians or any scripture was written by PAUL. What do you theorize the Judeo-Christians believed before Pauls input? In the 30s in the 40s? (you suggest it ALL began with Paul's writings in the 50's which leaves two decades of Christianity believing ... WHAT? )

[TRANSPONDER]

One of them claimed to hear from someone who knew John the evangelist. If so I don't got the truth or passed it on because John is invention and contradiction, and that is harder truth that church father claims that Mark got the gospel from Peter.

Being John seems to have been a sort of cottage industry in the late first and early second centuries. The Church Fathers seem to have known of several, but whose stories don't really seem to mesh. Eusebius tried to make sense of this by attempting to match various Johns with which Church Fathers they knew and which Johannine books they wrote. That might explain why some traditions said he was martyred, yet he was still alive many decades after sidekicking for Jesus.

Yes. That's the impression I got from mentions of 'John' in connection with church fathers.

I am no expert on them and discussion of them leaves me in a stew, because Clement, for instance refers (so it is argued) about some Temple practice that could only be known if it was still in operation. Or he was talking like it was still in operation.

One can make up excuses, but that's too much like the apologists trying to explain away unwelcome facts. But too much seems to be accepted or interpreted as claimed, like Tertullian on the date of the Nativity, as i recall.

But it doesn't matter as (for me) the Real point is that the Nativities are, on internal evidence, made up stories and never happened. So never mind taking the church fathers as authorities on anything. Like the Bible Apologists, they assume the gospel stories are correct. I say they are not and demonstrably so, and turning to Jerome, Irenaeus, Hegesippus and the rest is pointless as they did not and could not know what really happened, and any claims to have got it from a disciple are, I reckon, bogus.

I already mentioned my suspicions that Luke knew better what Jesus had been doing and maybe John, too. In fact Mark/Mathew's original seems to have written with a view to cover - up.

My Theory and i won't even call it a Pet theory now, is that the donkey ride and Temple cleansing really happened. But (like the trial and crucifixion) it was rewritten to look different. And this can be told from the writing.

The donkey ride was part of an attempt to start off an insurrection. The messianic mission was subversive and political, like the others we know of. The ride was to present Jesus a messianic king, and the disciples were primed to chant this messianic claim of Son of David. And it didn't take place at Passover but at Sukkhot as it is a Hosannah procession which would make no sense at Passover.

That was changed through Pauline doctrine that the crucifixion was a paschal lamb sacrifice for sins. Thus we end up with contradictory Passovers, the last supper turned into Seder, while the priests hadn't celebrated it yet (1). Anyway, upon arrival, the Temple fracas begins and is written down brutally. And - yes - even Matthew seems to know that the son of David chant is messianic as he has it chorused by a bunch of kiddies, not roared out by 5000 burly Bethsaidans.

The problem of Pilate is ignored or glossed over, though it is in plain sight and is known - whatever festival we say it was, he was there with a 1000 man garrison. He knew what had been done and that's what he crucified Jesus for - subversive insurrection. and punished by the method prescribed for rebels.

The common clue is that the gospels try to split up the ride and the bust - up, so as to conceal the connection. The Mark/Matthew version (along with the fig tree prophecy of the punishment of Jerusalem for rejecting Jesus) have them, on separate days, but in contradictory ways (2) but Luke has one follow the other as the original story surely was. John also Ought to have the fracas follow on from the ride but he clumsily rips the bust - up away and transports it to the beginning of the mission (the two separate identical events apologetic no longer washes and never really did). And he even protests that the disciples didn't know what this was all about (the Christian meaning) so what did John suppose they thought it was? Luke tells us 'We hoped he would be the one to redeem Israel' Cleophas says.

I think the writers knew what Jesus had really been doing and did their bit to cover it up. I think that Luke even had it in a history now lost. The 'blood of the Galileans' i think refers to Jesus at the Temple, but made to look like it happened before he arrived.

Paul knew, which is why he originally opposed the Jesus - party, and when he'd converted he didn't want to talk about Jesus 'in the flesh' but only as a method of saving his fellow Romans from Sin - death.

The upshot is that, for reasons I consider compelling if one only bothers to look, the Church fathers were not talking what really happened, but Christian claims; and as such, their opinions don't matter a damn', never mind long discussions about them.

(1) and I discussed this at lenth with our pal JW some time ago and he had nothing but arguing that the Passover feast was a week long and the priests could eat it any time. I can only say that Seder is celebrated on one day in the feast of bread, now and no doubt, then.

(2) proving they are made up and I might try to see what the basic claim was they messed up.

[AchillesHeel]

They believed in a "Risen Messiah" most likely due to Scripture and believed that he had "appeared" to them from heaven like 1 Cor 15:3-8 says.

No, I'm asking about BEFORE Corinthians or any scripture was written by PAUL. What do you theorize the Judeo-Christians believed before Pauls input? In the 30s in the 40s? (you suggest it ALL began with Paul's writings in the 50's which leaves two decades of Christianity believing ... WHAT? )

No, I did not suggest it all began with Paul's writings. Rather, Paul is our earliest written source on the Resurrection. Spot the difference.

If you're referring to the origin of the belief, it can be explained naturally. Here is how to explain the origin of belief in a dying and rising Messiah in the first century without a resurrection actually taking place. All you need to do is combine the empirically observed phenomenon of cognitive dissonance with the specific historical circumstances and beliefs of first century apocalyptic Jews.

Step 1: The tradition found in 4Q521 tells us the time of the Messiah will coincide with "wondrous deeds," one of which was raising the dead. So this establishes a connection (in some form or another) of the Messiah with the end times Resurrection. This tradition actually ends up being quoted in Lk. 7:22 and Mt. 11:2-5 so we know the people responsible for these texts had this expectation. https://jamestabor.com/a-cosmic-messiah ... lls-4q521/ Two other texts have this idea as well - 4 Ezra 7 and 2 Baruch 30 which shows the belief persisted from before Christianity began all the way to 100 AD.

Step 2: Jesus was a Messianic figure who preached and predicted the Resurrection. Apologists cannot deny this since their own Scripture says so. This shows that the idea would have been implanted in his followers minds and influenced their thinking.

Step 3: Both Jesus and his followers believed they were living in the end of times which is exactly when the Resurrection was supposed to take place. This is supported by the gospels themselves, Paul's letters and other apocalyptic literature that we can compare the gospels to.

Step 4: Jesus was suddenly executed.

Step 5: Enter cognitive dissonance (which has been empirically observed in other religious groups), plus a little bit of theological innovation and a biased reading of the Old Testament looking for an answer and voila! It was "foretold" all along - 1 Cor 15:3-4, Rom. 16:25-26! This is how we can take care of the unexpected and novel idea that the Messiah wasn't expected to die. Thus, we can now see how the Jesus sect applied their already anticipated belief in the Resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it - 1 Cor 15: 20.

Step 6: Soon some of his followers claimed to have visions or spiritual experiences of Jesus which is supported by the fact that Paul calls his experience a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) and a "vision from heaven" (Acts 26:19) which he does not distinguish in nature from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15: 5-8. This provides a proof that physical experiences on earth with a resurrected body were not required in order to believe a person had been resurrected.

Steps 5 and 6 may be interchangeable. If the imminent anticipation of the end times Resurrection was already part of Jesus and his followers background beliefs then it's no wonder some came to the belief Jesus had been resurrected just a "tad bit early." It's straightforward logic - expecting the Resurrection to occur any day now -> Jesus was preaching the Resurrection -> Jesus suddenly dies -> Jesus must have been resurrected!

Apologists who maintain that the followers of Jesus would have abandoned the movement should check out other examples where religious/apocalyptic groups have their expectations falsified but then somehow reinterpret the events and update their beliefs in order keep on believing. See Leon Festinger's book "When Prophecy Fails" as well as the origin of the Seventh Day Adventists (The Millerites), Sabbatai Sevi, and the Lubavitch. https://www.westarinstitute.org/resourc ... ion-jesus/

*As a side note, the "wondrous deeds" in 4Q521 would also explain *why we have* stories of Jesus performing the same exact miracles in the gospels. Obviously, if you are trying to present Jesus as the expected Messiah, then you better make sure you depict him performing the miracles the Messiah was expected to perform! Understood this way, the Jesus stories are just Jewish Messianic propaganda. The data of the miracle stories is equally expected even if Jesus never performed them in historical reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

At the risk of harping, the hypothesis would be there that the disciples, with a dead messiah on their hands might have imagined that Jesus' brown body might lie a mouldrin', but his spirit had floated to heaven and would come in their lifetimes and succeed this time.

It would fit and explain why Paul's reference to the resurrection is related to the vision in his own head and seems no different, especially as a 500 of the faithful all saw the resurrected Jesus all at once.

This does not match the accounts in the Gospels, but then, the ones who invented the story never saw Paul's account.

Except Luke who of course amended the gospel that he 'received' to try to fit Paul, his alteration of the angel's message being blatant and the fiddling in of the appearance to Simon, impudent. But then, for all he knew, his was the only gospel, and, no, he did NOT 'copy Matthew' as some apologists and Bible critics who should know better have claimed. I've even had one try to argue that Luke's nativity was based on Matthew's, when they have nothing in common but the Claim 'Jesus was born in Bethlehem'. and mutually destruct in a way that could power a starship to warp 20 and have enough power left over to tractor- beam m a Borg cube and toss it into a handy star as they zipped past.

May as well have the Bible provide a Startrek story while it falls apart logically.

But at risk of harping, as i say, there are clues that the Three - day resurrection was known in Judaism, see the Gabriel stone and the Talpiot tomb, which would explain the insistence on Three Days (which it wasn't) and the sign of Jonah, as in the Talpiot graffiti of Jonah emerging from the fish as a symbol of hoped - for resurrection in a tomb. It's not Slam - dunk, but it does explain everything, doesn't it? And it's the Bible - believers who are having to argue away evidence rather than point to it.

[JehovahsWitness]

No, I did not suggest it all began with Paul's writings. Rather, Paul is our earliest written source on the Resurrection.

Okay, I must have misunderstood when you said...

Beginning with Paul (50s CE)

If it were true (which is debatable), so what?

If the Judeo-Christian belief in the resurrection predates the earliest written source, and we are talking about the evolution of the belief, it must therefore have begin with that original source. Paul seems to indicate it came from the oral tradition of those that were disciples of Christ before he himself joined the movement.

In any case since Paul did not provide an account of the actual events following the death of that one, (but only testifies to his belief and personal experiences) I'm still struggling how his writings are significant in the development of the resurrection narrative?

Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament

What does this even mean? Paul does not claim to be provide a firsthand account of the resurrection events (I presumed you were wishing to examine what happened in the days, weeks and months after the death of Jesus). Paul himself testifies he was not even a believer during those months and he was certainly not in a part of the community to which Jesus is said to have appeared.

Again what can we expect to glean from his words but that which he had heard from the community he was later to join. In short if the resurrection tradition was up and running without Paul and Paul merely testifies to his belief in that tradition, what significance is there in what he wrote if we are trying to understand the evolution of the actual events?

[Goose]

[AchillesHeel]

[JehovahsWitness]